If you could change a language ...

[GhostWriter16]

Change nothing in English. I like knowing it the way it is

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Make everyone accept "youse" as a standard second person plural pronoun.

I would campaign for "yall" and its plural, "all yall."

 

[Arwon]

I would campaign for "yall" and its plural, "all yall."

No. Just no.

 

[cardgame]

That's improper if there's only one person.

Nobody cares about that, though.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Add "ie" or "o" to everyones surname and make that their common name.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Abolish the insane system of tenses you have in English; make the use of articles consistent; do something to rationalize phrasal verbs and prepositions; and when I am at it, make the spelling of English relate to its pronunciation.

English DOES relate to its pronunciation... if you think of it as a remnant of how people spoke 700 years ago (or thereabouts).

Anywho - I would not mind giving those possessives up if everyone would concede and change back to our nonsensical systems of measurements so that I don't have to switch back and forth between tool sets when trying to get anything done.

Why not just learn metric? It's not that difficult.

- I would change the spelling of "marshmallow" to "marshmellow"

It's marshmelon, according to Spock.

If you don't say the h, then "an 'istoric" is what you should be saying

However, I come across people saying "an historic" quite frequently and the h is not silent. It just sounds so.. INCREDIBLY wrong..

Seems to be a British thing - I've never come across it here in North America.

There's a Star Trek episode where Spock admits he may have made an error, and Dr. McCoy says, "Oh? This could be an historic occasion."

Introduce a gender-neutral pronoun.

YES!!! This plagued me for many years when I was typing for my clients (mostly college/university students), and had to straighten out essays and term papers for people who were confused about such things, or had trouble with academic formality.

Make everyone accept "youse" as a standard second person plural pronoun.

No. That is so ugly...

I'd reform the alphabet to have a a one-symbol-per-sound correspondence.

So how many feet long and wide do you propose making a standard typing keyboard, then?

I'd like to see people's suggestions for an English spelling reform. Will we invent tons of new vowel symbols? Will ð and þ make their return?

How are they actually pronounced?

I would campaign for "yall" and its plural, "all yall."

Nobody cares about that, though.

I do.

 

[Lillefix]

How are they actually pronounced?

One is th like in that and th like in thing. It's one of those sounds only English and Icelandic still have. And they use those letters(and they also existed in old english).

 

[sophie]

Institute Anglish across the board:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_purism_in_English

Oh, and in case nobody said it yet, reintroduce eth, thorn, ash, wynn, and esh.

 

[Borachio]

If you don't say the h, then "an 'istoric" is what you should be saying

However, I come across people saying "an historic" quite frequently and the h is not silent. It just sounds so.. INCREDIBLY wrong..

Seems to be a British thing - I've never come across it here in North America.

I say "an historic [moment]" (with a silent h, because that's what it is) in normal speech.

If I want to give it peculiar emphasis I might say "a historic", but it's dreadfully unnatural to my ear.

I wouldn't say "an hospital" though - because that's not a silent h.

(I bet this is just a regional thing.)

 

[Dachs]

make the spelling of English relate to its pronunciation.

What does that even mean? Use IPA?

 

[Borachio]

IPA is a veritable nightmare.

And it wouldn't standardize the spelling either. Since people pronounce words markedly differently from region to region.

 

[Dachs]

IPA is a veritable nightmare.

And it wouldn't standardize the spelling either. Since people pronounce words markedly differently from region to region.

Exactly.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

I promote Strayn as the standardized form

 

[Winner]

ftfy

My favourite error

Elaborate.

The rules concerning articles are so vague and irrational they make my head want to explode every time I read the chapter on articles in Longman:

We often use no article at all in English. The non-use of the article is so important that we give it a name, the zero article (of course it has to be written with a definite article ). The problems of choice can be summarized as follows:

- whether to use a/an or the
- whether to use a/an or nothing (zero)
- whether to use the or nothing (zero)

In addition we have to decide

- whether to use zero or some
- whether to use the or some

Because articles don't have gender or special plural forms in English (thank the gods), their use seems easy to learners at first (never seemed easy to me). However, choice is complicated by three factors:

- whether a noun is countable or uncountable (another thing in urgent need of rationalizing)
- whether we are making general statements (what the frak?)
- whether we are referring to something the listener or reader can positively identify or not (you've got to be kidding me!)

 

[Lillefix]

The rules concerning articles are so vague and irrational they make my head want to explode every time I read the chapter on articles in Longman:

You poor poor Slavs.

 

[Winner]

I would change the following (in English):

- "an historic" - no.. no.. NO.. It's "A historic", you twit, unless the h is silent, which it almost never is.

BTW, historic vs. historical, electric vs. electrical, explain the difference in meaning and outline clear rules for the usage of these adjectives.

For the first two, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Tenses are extremely and unnecessarily complicated in English. In Czech, we can do with three just fine, with some additional weirdness I am incapable of explaining to English speakers.

You always have to think about time when (while? grrr) speaking English. I was there / I've been there. For Czechs, there is no bloody difference. Byl jsem tam, period. I don't care if the listener knows from context when that happened or whether I think I might go there again in the future, or whatever

Also, tense shifting. Insane.

Now: He says she will tell him (...)
Later: He said she would tell him (...)

Czech: He said she will tell him. No shift. It's happening in the past, we get it.

What does that even mean? Use IPA?

Gods no. IPA is a linguistic tool, not something suitable for everyday use. English spelling used to be more in sync with its pronunciation, but then the Great Vowel Shift ruined everything.

 

[Borachio]

Articles? I'm baffled. There's only two. Three if you count "an" as well - but that's too trivial to be bothered about.

 

[Dachs]

Articles? I'm baffled. There's only two. Three if you count "an" as well - but that's too trivial to be bothered about.

The Slav over there wants genders or something, I guess. He's also one of those people who thinks that the Great Vowel Shift itself had an impact on orthography as opposed to inconsistent retention of spelling practices over centuries irrespective of the shift, so whatever.

 

[Borachio]

No. I don't think it can be gender related. Since he seems to be complaining it's too complicated, not too simple. (So I'm not sure you're being serious, Mr D.)

Anyway, articles are incredibly simple in English. The clue is in the name: the definite article is used if you're definitely sure what it is. And the indefinite article if you're not. Simplicity itself. (I jest, of course.)

 

[Winner]

The Slav over there wants genders or something, I guess. He's also one of those people who thinks that the Great Vowel Shift itself had an impact on orthography as opposed to inconsistent retention of spelling practices over centuries irrespective of the shift, so whatever.

The Anglo-Saxon should stop twisting my words, rather. I don't want gender-dependent articles (I have all the insanely complicated grammar I'll ever need neatly packaged in my native tongue) , I want rational and consistent rules one can learn, as opposed to the disorienting mess it is now. The GVS was the last straw which has lead to the present-day disconnect which makes English stand out among other Indo-European languages.

Anyway, articles are incredibly simple in English. The clue is in the name: the definite article is used if you're definitely sure what it is. And the indefinite article if you're not. Simplicity itself. (I jest, of course.)

Hence why I call it irrational. I struggle more with deciding whether the article can be omitted in the (a?) particular instance or not.