[Community Project] New English!

[SDragon]

[note]for those of you whose native language is not english, I hope to clear up any potential confusion: Since english is both my first language, as well as the standard language of this site, I'm using the term "foreign languages" to refer to non-english languages, not non-native languages. I doubt this will be that big of an issue, but this disclaimer is here just in case.[/note]I was just talking to a friend of mine, who used to study Japanese and spanish, and is currently studying russian. I had namde a comment on how "the more foreign languages one learns, the more [messed] up english gets". We had a short talk about the various nuances of foreign languages, along with the occasional joke on how some of them should be integrated into english.

With that in mind, I came up with a wonderful idea: Why don't I create a constructed language that does just that-- adopting elements of foreign languages to make english less confusing?

Of course, realizing that I'm not exactly the best at linguistics, I decided to revise that idea: Why don't I try to get an intelligent community with an interest in seemingly pointless creations to work on such a language? I know! The CBG!

So, on that note, I present to you a project that hopefully will be lots of fun: New English. A more coherant version of the most complicated language on earth. To start thing out, a couple of ideas:


Second Person Pronouns
As is, english currently has only one second person pronoun ("you"), which can lead to potential confusion, as it refers to both singular second person, and plural second person ("You!" "Who, him?" "No, you!" "me?" "No! you!"). In america (and possibly other english speaking countries), there is a slang for plural second person ("y'all", short for "you all"), and old english made a dintinction between singular and plural second person ("thee" being singular, "ye" being plural). I suggest that New English might adopt some form of plural second person pronoun, with my personal preference being the "thee/ye" format.


"To Be To Be To Be, or To Be?"

Various languages have a various number of versions of the verb "to be". I know that Current English has three versions, one each for first person (am), second person (are), and third person (is). Other languages, however, have as few as one ("Desu", japanese). What is the point of this redundancy? I suggest that New English dismisses the words "are" and "is", leaving only one version of the verb "to be". For those of us accustomed to Current English, this will most likely come off as sounding uneducated, but it is actually just as functional, and more efficient, then our current redundancy.

So, in the spirit of New English, I pass this idea along to the entire community, with the note "I hope this am going to be fun for ye!"

[Stargate525]

I refuse to participate in this thread, as it violates my belief that languages are made by their nuances.

That said, i would like to submit the proposal that your language also develop a gender-neutral pronoun that refers only to people. 'It' doesn't work, as it has too many connotations with objects.

[SDragon]

I refuse to participate in this thread, as it violates my belief that languages are made by their nuances.

That said, i would like to submit the proposal that your language also develop a gender-neutral pronoun that refers only to people. 'It' doesn't work, as it has too many connotations with objects.

Good idea, but short of creating an entirely new word, I'm not sure what could be used. As you said, "it" is too object-based, but the idea of gender-neutral-masculine is absurdly self-contradictory, and it just seems weird to use "they" for both singluar and plural-- especially after the whole second-person pronoun issue...

Edit- By the way, this is intended more as a communal thought project, it's not intended as any sort of serious replacement for english, as is. If any of this ever finds itself in english, then cool, but I don't expect that to happen anymore then I expect the Average Joe to use Klingon words.

[Ishmayl-Retired]

but it is actually just as functional, and more efficient, then our current redundancy.

I propose that we, in America and other English-speaking countries, spend more time properly learning our own language before creating an all new language. ;)

[/end snarky antagonism]

On a more productive note, I second Stargate's proposal for a gender-neutral pronoun other than "it" or "they" to refer to non-named individuals other than oneself.

[Lmns Crn]

Technically, "he" is the correct gender-neutral pronoun to refer to an unknown individual. Like Spanish, English defaults to the male pronoun in cases like this. It's fallen out of favor recently (perhaps deservedly so!), and people will object to such usage on grounds of sexist language (a good argument!) or grammatical incorrectness (not such a good argument.)

"He or she" or the awful and unpronounceable "s/he" are poor substitutes, and "they" (when used to indicate third person singular) is really weird (but gaining a lot of momentum.)

I'm sorry... what were we talking about again? I got distracted.

[Wensleydale]

Why not simplify conjugations - make it simple past, future, and present participles. 'I run, ye run, she run, he run, (singular gender-neutral pronoun) run, we run, thee run, they run'. Also, standardising verb conjugation in terms of past, present, and future and getting rid of irregular verbs would be good, although it might make it a bit, uhr... yeah.

Also, replacing some of the more far-out irregular verbs with ones from languages such as french, german, and spanish, suitably anglicised, would make life easier.

[Polycarp]

Other languages, however, have as few as one ("Desu", japanese).

No, that's just the copula.  Japanese also has "imasu" and "arimasu" which also mean "to be," for animate and inanimate objects respectively.

In my experience, "they" is used very often to refer to individuals or hypothetical persons of unknown gender, and I don't really see a problem with that.  It's better for these modern times than "he."

And for the second person plural, what's wrong with using "y'all"?  If we have a word for it already, why not use it?

I'm a language realist.  Why coin a new word when the language already has serviceable ones already that are even now gaining traction?

[Wensleydale]

And for the second person plural, what's wrong with using "y'all"?  If we have a word for it already, why not use it?

Two points.

1) Ye and thee have been around a lot longer, so your argument kinda fails there. :P
2) Y'all is a distinctly american slang word. I've never heard a non-american use it. Therefore, it is dialectal, not language-spanning.

[Jharviss]

English currently is known as the best language for poetics, and changing the English language to a uniform and easier to learn language would only hinder us poets!  Don't do it, whatever you do, don't do it!

Okay, martyring done.

[Xeviat]

The only thing I would like to see is a change in spelling. I forget the exact number (and I should really know this off the top of my head, being a future English major) but there are more consonant and vowel sounds in English than there are consonants and vowels.

Of what Japanese and Spanish I've studied, I like that once you know how to pronounce the letters (symbols), that's it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. If all of these sounds in English were represented by their own letters, I'd be perfectly happy.

[Wensleydale]

The only thing I would like to see is a change in spelling. I forget the exact number (and I should really know this off the top of my head, being a future English major) but there are more consonant and vowel sounds in English than there are consonants and vowels.

Of what Japanese and Spanish I've studied, I like that once you know how to pronounce the letters (symbols), that's it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. If all of these sounds in English were represented by their own letters, I'd be perfectly happy.

Yeah. Adding accents, or adding more letters.

[Epic Meepo]

English currently is known as the best language for poetics, and changing the English language to a uniform and easier to learn language would only hinder us poets!

From what I hear, English is also the international language of air traffic controllers because properly given instructions in English are more efficient than the equivalent phrases in any other major language.

[beejazz]

What would I want in a New English?

Systematized pronouns (and other such uber-common words).

A singular system for making up new words (as per the Greek and Latin system of prefixes and suffixes, except that both would be integrated and naturalized into standard English conventions... no more pluralizing cactus as cacti or forums as fora or any of that nonsense).

Slang integrated fully into the system (ain't being a contraction for am not, y'all being a real word, etc.).

Phonetic spelling. No more "c." From now on use "k" or "s." No more "ch." In fact, "ch" should have its own letter, which would be a good use for "c." No more "x." Instead, use "ks." No more "sh." Instead use "x." And so on. A trule fonetik langwij wud be gratle convenyent. If okwurd at furst.

[Wensleydale]

I agree with the use of Ch as its own letter. And phoneticised spelling.

[Eclipse]

Along the line of Ch being it's own letter, I'd love to bring back the old English (real Old English - Beowulf - not Elizabethan / Early Modern English) letter thorn, which looks like someone stuck a b and a p together, and is pronounced like the modern Th.

Also, there are some gender neutral pronouns that, while not popular: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_neutral_pronouns#Neologisms . A conicopia of pronouns exist!