Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why English doesn't use accents

deadlanguagesociety.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 615 posts

Re: Why English doesn't use accents

#401

Post by thechao »

pif wrote: post #337
thechao wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're trying to to argue something like: "the set of dialects that make up English have a large(r?) set of allowable IPA orthographic representations than the accepted set of English orthographies" or something to that effect? And, that, perhaps, Spanish (French? Ukrainian?) have a much smaller set of alternate IPA orthographies for a given acceptable orthography? I guess I'm really confused. It's not like E…

> I think you're trying to to argue something like: I'm arguing exactly what I wrote: a phonetic language is one when you can see a written word and pronounce it correctly, without knowing what it means and without having ever heard it before. Edit - as an example, consider "door" and "pool": the written form is not sufficient to guess the sound to associate to the double o.

Which language is phonetic? I think you're beating around the bush here; you claim English isn't phonetic, but which language is?

Re: Why English doesn't use accents

#402

Post by pitpatagain »

zajio1am wrote: post #236
germandiago wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a spanish I could say the most challenging part of english is the lack of consistency between how you write something and how you pronounce it. Spanish is totally systematic in this sense and once you can read it, you can pronounce it. English is a bit messy regarding to this, for whatever reasons.

> Spanish is totally systematic in this sense and once you can read it, you can pronounce it. IMHO purely phonemic orthography makes orthography unnecessary complex, as there are language features like assimilation[1] that happens naturally in spoken form but does not make sense in written form. In contrast, morphophonemic orthography keeps systematic and consistent mapping between spoken and written form for individ…

This is true, but Spanish orthography isn't completely phonemic (and simpler for it). It is very shallow and very consistent but it doesn't spell out things like assimilation differences, people are just wrong to describe it as completely phonemic.

Re: Why English doesn't use accents

#403

Post by School-Cotton »

grey413 wrote: post #112
jcranmer wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This often gets trotted out, but it's not really true. English is a solidly Germanic language, which merely happened to lose the core attribute of Indo-European languages (extensive verb inflection), and in more recent centuries, there's been a tendency to adopt Latin and Greek words for new word formation rather than (as German did) using native words. So 'technology' instead of 'craftlearn' or 'television' instead…

As I understand it, English at it's core is a Germanic language that underwent significant creolization with scandinavian sources. That core then acquired a significant amount of Old French and latin vocabulary, particularly in upper class terminology. The creolization is why English has a relatively simple grammar, and all the word sources is why we have like 16-20 vowel sounds trying to cram into latin characters.

> English has a relatively simple grammar

You mean "relatively simple morphology". English phonology and syntax are not simple at all (e.g. lots of information carried by word order).

Re: Why English doesn't use accents

#404

Post by rrgok »

tetraca wrote: post #349
felipellrocha wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

English is your favorite language to read and write? Said no one ever…

I don't see why it couldn't be. It has a pretty large corpus of decent literature/poetry/other media/etc, and the worst people seem to complain about is its inconsistent spelling rules that even native speakers struggle with. In general I'd rather deal with spell check failing on some common homophone from time to time than say, having to memorize arbitrary genders for inanimate nouns that lack any consistent marker…

Oh thank god, someone said it. Who cares if "tree" is masculine or feminine, it does not give my any information. In Italian, tree is a masculine word: what can I do knowing "tree" is masculine?

Re: Why English doesn't use accents

#405

Post by School-Cotton »

aeonik wrote: post #241
woleium wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

as i understand it, english is actually 3-5 other languages in a trench coat.

At least 3: ~26% Germanic ~29% Latin ~29% French ~16% Other RobWords covers this really well: https://youtu.be/PCE4C9GvqI0?si=4Wd6NFus4v1YqmC3

That might be true if you just count up every word in the dictionary by origin. However if you weight the words by frequency, Germanic will be way higher. That is, if you take a transcript of an average conversation in English, the proportion of words inherited from Old English (i.e., Germanic) will be much higher than 26%.

Re: Why English doesn't use accents

#406

Post by bvrmn »

pif wrote: post #337
thechao wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're trying to to argue something like: "the set of dialects that make up English have a large(r?) set of allowable IPA orthographic representations than the accepted set of English orthographies" or something to that effect? And, that, perhaps, Spanish (French? Ukrainian?) have a much smaller set of alternate IPA orthographies for a given acceptable orthography? I guess I'm really confused. It's not like E…

> I think you're trying to to argue something like: I'm arguing exactly what I wrote: a phonetic language is one when you can see a written word and pronounce it correctly, without knowing what it means and without having ever heard it before. Edit - as an example, consider "door" and "pool": the written form is not sufficient to guess the sound to associate to the double o.

blood

Re: Why English doesn't use accents

#407

Post by School-Cotton »

Luker88 wrote: post #174
qsort wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that's because they're really languages and not dialects! They all derive from Latin, there is no "old Italian" or anything, at some point we decided the Florentine "dialect", having the most literary prestige, would be standard Italian. Italians only really started speaking Italian in their day-to-day life after the war. It was mostly a written/literary language before that.

Yes, surprisingly few Italian dialects are actually Italian derivatives (maybe only a couple?) But there are differences between a dialect and a language, we can't say all of those are languages even if most come from Latin. Italian wikipedia says that officially in Italy there are about 13 recognized languages (not counting Italian, plus French and Slovenian in some parts), and about a dozen main dialects. In wikipe…

> But there are differences between a dialect and a language, we can't say all of those are languages even if most come from Latin.

That's not really true. There's no scientific reason to say that some varieties are "dialects" and some are "languages". It is purely a political and culture question.

Re: Why English doesn't use accents

#408

Post by School-Cotton »

morganf wrote: post #231
eahm wrote: post #31

French.. you people have no idea how Italy is. I speak differently than my brothers because I grew up at my grandparents 3 MILES! away and if I go to my family restaurant 2 MILES the other direction there is a different accent again, and I mean different words too not just the sound. Where I used to go to school 10 miles away they don't understand if I speak my dialect because it's a different region. The whole Italy…

It doesn't compare to that coolness you just shared, but I'm from Long Island (right outside New York City) and I and everyone from my childhood town can differentiate a Long Island accent from a New Jersey accent (very similar but subtly different; a suburb on the other side of NYC) from a Queens accent (a type of NY accent from a NY neighborhood, whose most famous exemplar is The Nanny) from a Brooklyn accent (anot…

Sadly those Brooklyn and Queens accents are becoming rare in large parts of Brooklyn and Queens. You really have to go out to areas with few transplants (Long Island, Staten Island, or rapidly shrinking white working class parts of Bk/Queens) to hear the typical NYC-area accents being used as the main variety of the majority of the community.

Re: Why English doesn't use accents

#409

Post by ARandomerDude »

zahlman wrote: post #360
felipellrocha wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

English is your favorite language to read and write? Said no one ever…

Just because something is complete nonsense, doesn't mean it can't be enjoyable.

I think English makes a lot of sense, but only if you invest the time to learn some of its etymology. Knowing some Latin, German, and Greek roots (in that order) is immensely helpful. You don't have to learn those languages per se, just some of the vocab. Eventually, you can look at a word, know if it's Latin/French, Germanic, or Greek in origin and all the spelling rules make much more sense.

This takes a lot of time, effort, and interest however, which is why many (most?) people think English is nonsensical.

Re: Why English doesn't use accents

#410

Post by acc_297 »

owenversteeg wrote: post #395

We do, of course, use accents and other diacritics. It's not as common as in other languages, but most people will come across a few each day. The popular argument here is that many are French, with the accents optional, yet soupçon and exposé are rarely written naked. If you want non-French, pick up the New Yorker and you will find coöperative and reëlect, or a poem to find changèd and learnèd. We use them in names,…

-Naïve- is the example I think I see most often but I think it’s often spelled -naive- and no one would fuss too much with either spelling
Post reply on HN