[Community Project] New English!

limetom · November 14, 2007, 02:19:01 AM

Supposedly I know a bit about linguistics, so I'll take a quick stab at the original post...

Quote from: Old English 2nd Person Pronouns[tr][td][/td][td]Subjective[/td][td]Objective[/td][td]Possessive[/td][/tr][tr][td]Singluar[/td][td]Ãžu[/td][td]Ãže[/td][td]Ãžin[/td][/tr][tr][td]Dual[/td][td]Git[/td][td]Inc[/td][td]Incer[/td][/tr][tr][td]Plural[/td][td]Ge[/td][td]Eow[/td][td]Eower[/td][/tr][/table]
The dual number represents exactly two people, while the plural number represents 3 or more people.

Ãžu is pronounced like <thoo>, Ã¾e is pronounced like <thay>, Ã¾in is pronounced like <thean>, git is pronounced like <yeat>, inc is pronounced like <inch>, incer is pronounced like <inchayr>, ge is pronounced like <yay>, eow is pronounced like <ayow>, and eower is pronounced like <ayowayr>.

[table=Modern English 2nd Person Pronouns]
[tr][td][/td][td]Subjective[/td][td]Objective[/td][td]Possessive[/td][/tr][tr][td]Standard* Singluar[/td][td]You[/td][td]You[/td][td]Your[/td][/tr][tr][td]Archaic Informal Singluar[/td][td]Thou[/td][td]Thee[/td][td]Thy[/td][/tr][tr][td]Standard Plural[/td][td]You[/td][td]You[/td][td]Your[/td][/tr][tr][td]Archaic Plural[/td][td]Ye[/td][td]You[/td][td]Your[/td][/tr][/table]
*Also the archaic formal singular.

Phonetic Representation of English
Don't. There is a written standard for English which can be used regardless of one's dialect.

Spoken English has from 24 to 26 consonants, depending on your dialect, and anywhere from 10 to 14 or more vowels. This means you need (10 or more) new letters in addition to what English has for the vowels, as well as to differentiate between cheap, jeep, bang, thin, then, she, measure, loch (differentiated from lock), and whine (differentiated from wine). The English I speak would have to have 24 consonants (lacking both a difference between wine and whine as well as between lock and loch) and 12 vowels (5 short and 7 long).

The easiest way would be to go with the already made International Phonetic Alphabet (specifically a specific version for English). I personally speak the General American variety of English (but now live among speakers of Hawaii Creole English).

That's all for now...

Wensleydale · November 14, 2007, 03:10:36 AM

Quote from: HaphazzardNot change a major language? Why not? God forbid we make it easier for us to communicate with each other.

As for getting rid of vowels: REALLY? We'd be grunting like neanderthals. And then what are horribly drunk people supposed to do? Talk WITH vowels?

Why don't we just make e "ee" and i "eye?" (replacing "x" with "th" sound) EX: xat way xings luk kind uv lik xis.

While we're at it, why not get rid of those pesky capital letters? replace them with...underline? line above? star in upper right corner? why create a whole new letter (I becomes "i " and R " r ")

Lolsarkywit. I think he means get rid of vowels in the WRITING, not in the speech, but I... don't... really... favour that approach. Vowels are kinda integral to reading to anyone raised speaking about 75%-90% of languages.

limetom · November 14, 2007, 06:25:02 AM

Dropping vowels isn't that crazy. Doing so, which makes the Latin alphabet into the "Latin abjad"), isn't unheard of. In fact, Arabic, aside from the Qur'an, is commonly written without any vowels, though 3 letters are an exception, with ïº being both the glottal stop and the long <a>, ï» being both <w> and the long <u>, and ï»± being both <y> and long <i>

English as an Abjad

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_AlphabetNtrntnl Phntc Lphbt[/url] (spcfclly n'spcfc vrsn fr Nglsh). K prsnlly spk th Gnrl Amrcn vrty f Nglsh (bt nw lv mng spkrs f Hw' Crl Nglsh).

ik[/i] for "I," as well as using n'~ coming from "an" for "a/an".

Stargate525 · November 14, 2007, 12:46:28 PM

Hebrew is also written in that form, but for anyone not raised to read like that (most of America), that's just bloody difficult to decipher.

Quote from: HaphazzardNot change a major language? Why not? God forbid we make it easier for us to communicate with each other.

As for getting rid of vowels: REALLY? We'd be grunting like neanderthals. And then what are horribly drunk people supposed to do? Talk WITH vowels?

Why don't we just make e "ee" and i "eye?" (replacing "x" with "th" sound) EX: xat way xings luk kind uv lik xis.

While we're at it, why not get rid of those pesky capital letters? replace them with...underline? line above? star in upper right corner? why create a whole new letter (I becomes "i " and R " r ")

I was wondering how long it would take until you got in here...

Wensleydale · November 14, 2007, 12:51:20 PM

So was Ancient Egyptian, in the most part, unless vowels were a distinct syllable (or something). So Ankh would be written... Nk, I think. Or something. I only vaguely remember studying it.

Stargate525 · November 14, 2007, 12:53:37 PM

So remind me again why we're proposing going back to something really, really hard to decipher?

Ancient Egyptian was not a phonetic language, it was symbolic.

Wensleydale · November 14, 2007, 12:55:22 PM

Quote from: Stargate525So remind me again why we're proposing going back to something really, really hard to decipher?

Ancient Egyptian was not a phonetic language, it was symbolic.

Yes. Why were we suggesting removing vowels in the first place? :P

Although you're right in some ways - most things were represented by separate symbols - names, and certain other things, were represented by letters, not symbols. That's how we know many of the names of the pharaohs - if they each had separate symbols, we would not be able to decipher the phonology of the name.

SDragon · November 14, 2007, 06:15:49 PM

Quote from: Stargate525So remind me again why we're proposing going back to something really, really hard to decipher?

Yeah, isn't that kinda against the entire idea?

For the phonetics of vowels, why not use single-sound vowels like japanese/spanish/etc., and combine vowels for the remaining vowel sounds? For example, if I is a "ee" sound (as in kEY), and A is a "ah" (as in fAther), then AI would be an "eye" sound (as in hI).

Also, do we really need subjective/objective pronouns, or can that be confered from grammatical placement? English usually has a [object]-[predicate]-[subject] sentence structure, so despite the fact that "me" is subjective, the sentence "me am a human" is still perfectly understandable.

Even keeping the vowels, I think I'm in favor of ditching the word "A". The reason we have "an" as an alternative indefinate article is to prevent the word "dissapearing" into nouns that start with a vowel ("a owl", spoken, could easily be mistaken for just "owl"). If we make "an" the indefinate article, then that reason is obsolete.

Polycarp · November 14, 2007, 06:25:33 PM

Quote from: Sdragon1984Even keeping the vowels, I think I'm in favor of ditching the word "A". The reason we have "an" as an alternative indefinate article is to prevent the word "dissapearing" into nouns that start with a vowel ("a owl", spoken, could easily be mistaken for just "owl"). If we make "an" the indefinate article, then that reason is obsolete.

And the whole reason we have "a" is to prevent awkward combinations like "an nut."

Of all the rules to follow in English, a/an is just about the easiest one. It seems an odd choice for revision.

SDragon · November 14, 2007, 06:39:44 PM

Quote from: Mithy
Quote from: Sdragon1984Even keeping the vowels, I think I'm in favor of ditching the word "A". The reason we have "an" as an alternative indefinate article is to prevent the word "dissapearing" into nouns that start with a vowel ("a owl", spoken, could easily be mistaken for just "owl"). If we make "an" the indefinate article, then that reason is obsolete.

And the whole reason we have "a" is to prevent awkward combinations like "an nut."

Of all the rules to follow in English, a/an is just about the easiest one. It seems an odd choice for revision.

"A nut" doesn't sound very much different then "an nut", and depending on your accent, it might not sound at all different. It might be the easiest rule to follow, but I'm still not convinced that it's neccessary.

sparkletwist · November 14, 2007, 06:43:49 PM

Most semitic (Arabic, Hebrew) languages have a triconsonantal structure that makes writing them without vowels more tolerable-- certain groups of three consonants stand for a certain concept, and they tend to be unique. They also tend to have few short vowels, and long vowels are written with an associated consonant and be inferred from context.

English, on the other hand, comes from a Germanic stock and has a history of strong verbs, that is, verbs that inflect by changing a vowel (sing, sang, sung)... about the worst language for dropping the vowels!

It's sort of like how Malay used to be written in Arabic script, and Urdu still is, due to historic ties to Islam. These languages are much more vowel-rich, and the Arabic script is rather stretched to do things it's not supposed to. (Similar abuses of the Roman script can be seen by the Vietnamese)

brainface · November 15, 2007, 10:22:22 AM

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_and_anA and an[/url]
They
Y'all

I really like the article on They. It can apparently mean lots of things.

Polycarp · November 15, 2007, 06:20:14 PM

The wiki makes a good point - if the singular "they" was good enough for Shakespeare, why not us?

Wensleydale · November 15, 2007, 06:25:52 PM

I've always used 'They'. *shrugs* I mean, I don't mind either way, but...

SDragon · November 24, 2007, 07:07:50 PM

Bumpage, as well as the news that a wikipage for New English can be found here. Enjoy!

The Campaign Builder's Guild

News:

[Community Project] New English!

limetom

Wensleydale

limetom

Stargate525

Wensleydale

Stargate525

Wensleydale

SDragon

Polycarp

SDragon

sparkletwist

brainface

Polycarp

Wensleydale

SDragon