I've decided I've got a bone to pick with the alphabet. The English language as a whole is due for a tune-up if you ask me, but I figure why not start with the building blocks and work out from there?
It's not English's fault really. Any language is just a vessel humans use to communicate their ideas and their cute little aspirations toward meaning, and every vessel needs an overhaul from time to time. Language evolves and changes with the humans who speak it, and as with most things human-- it generally does so totally unconsciously. Since English has undergone so many mutations through migration, occupation, and conquest, it's picked up a lot of dust and modification along the way. It's lost a lot too, probably for the better, like the informal 2nd person thou and thee-- that's right, those used to be the informal. Most native English speakers seem to think that, just because they're archaic, they must have been formal. Not so. "You are" used to be formal and "thou art" what you might say to your kids and close friends. I'm not sure if it's for the best that we dropped the conjugated endings for most of our verbs ("Dost thou hear me?"), but it hath definitely simplified the grammar and madeth the language one of the easiest in the world to learn in that regard. Overall though, having been born a Germanic language as Anglo-Saxon, occupied by the Normans and picked up a lot of French, and therefore Latin, I'm afraid all of that muttery has resulted in a pretty slipshod alphabet and some totally whack spelling conventions and I think it's high time we made some adjustments.
Therefore, in order to streamline English for a new era, I propose the following:
The letter C is hereby expelled. There's no use for the C. I mean, sure, it's got a nice sexy curve to it, and it looks nice on the page, but it serves absolutely no function in the alphabet, except to complicate things unnecessarily. It either makes the S sound or the K sound, can't seem to make up its mind, which confuses the crap out of little kids trying to learn to spell, and since we already have both an S and K doing their jobs, I say C has got to go.
The letter X-- also expelled. For much the same reason as C, X is a totally unnecessary letter. It even uses the same two letters as C but at the same time! So, why not just use KS and shave another freeloader from the alphabet. Granted, it would make signing legal documents even harder for the illiterate, but by making English easier to spell, I figure we can cut down on illiteracy and strike the problem at its heart. We'll also have to find another way to mark things on a map, but that's really a small price to pay, and there's no reason X can't stick around as its own symbol, in maps and algebra, I just say stop befuddling the alphabet. I mean, think of all those books for teaching toddlers how to read: with pictures of things that start with each letter-- they only have tired old X-Ray and Xylophone to choose from. I think they'll be relieved.
W-- also cut. I mean, it's bad enough that we seem determined to make U feel inadequate, that it's not good enough or strong enough to do its job in some uords and needs to be doubled. . Uhat's more, we drau it as if it uere a Double V, uhich just adds body shaming to the hole abuse of U and I uon't stand for it anymore. There's nouhere in the language that U can't do the job as a single, empowered letter, undoubled and proud. It just needs some solidarity from those of us who see the problem. And if ever it does need a little break, double O can serve just as ooell ooithout adding more klutter to the alphabet.
Limit the power of G. On its own, I have no truk with G. It's a fine letter, all kute and squiggly when it's small and growing up into a fine, stately sort of kapital letter with great kurves and buttresses. But it has gained a bit too much freedom and power in the language and needs to be reined in a bit. (Probably egged on by H-- see beloe). Freedom, after all, is a fine and noble quality until it begins to infringe upon the freedoms and rights of others, and that's presisely uhat G had done to J. I kan see no reason at all oohy any letter should make more than one sound. Isn't the hole point of a letter that it is, like an atom, the most fundamental building block of a languaje? And sinse the "juh" sound is perfektly well represented by the J, I demand that G immediately and forthuith be prohibited from the kind of kopyrite infrinjement that it has been engajed uith for so long. Again, think of the children! Please note, that also means we'll need to chanje the uay uee pronounse the very letter in the alphabet song. Just think of the klarified butter, and it uill be fine.
Finally, Abolish GH. This one is less about the alphabet and more about the languaje itself, but bear ooith me. For far too long, the GH konglomerate has held a komplete monopoly over all the unnesessary sounds in the languaje, overkomplikating simple sounds and konfounding the brightest young learners. In the spirit of trust-busting, I say no more! I mean, when you take into konsideration that "ough" alone kan make siks totally different sounds (rough, cough, thought, though, through, and bough) I think my point is made. Sure, OU needs some work too, but, like EI, it's really that lurking GH konglomerate throwing its weit around that's the real problem, making things more difficult than they need to be.
It's true, such changes will not come easy. No revolution of thot or kustom is born uithout its detraktors, and there uill most sertainly be some hoo kling to the oppressive imperialism of tradition. It's also true that the changes I propose will ripple out and require a great deal more adjustments. (I still haven't figured out how to spell the "chuh" sound without a C). But think of potential! The hole "I before E" rule just got a lot simpler, sinse uee got rid of C, and "neighbor" and "weigh" won't have to be mere ekseptions anymore. That konfounding EI will work itself out. I'm sure of it.
It's also possible that more changes may bekome nesessary onse uee embrase such a radically self-adjusting mentality. (The letter Y should probably think about updating its resume.) As uee begin to trim auay all of the ekstra hangers-on from the alphabet, uee mite also konsider just going all the uay bak to the orijinal Anglo-Sakson runes. It uas so great and simple bakk then; the letters even meant something! Plus uee could purje the languaje of all the foreign influense it's pikked up along the uay.
Yes I say it's time not for progress but regress, bakkooard change to rekover some of the sense that's been lost in the konfusing press of time and globalism. And if these arguments don't konvinse you, think of it this uay: moving down to 23 letters uill save a fortune on those early reader Letter Books I mentioned earlier.
It's not English's fault really. Any language is just a vessel humans use to communicate their ideas and their cute little aspirations toward meaning, and every vessel needs an overhaul from time to time. Language evolves and changes with the humans who speak it, and as with most things human-- it generally does so totally unconsciously. Since English has undergone so many mutations through migration, occupation, and conquest, it's picked up a lot of dust and modification along the way. It's lost a lot too, probably for the better, like the informal 2nd person thou and thee-- that's right, those used to be the informal. Most native English speakers seem to think that, just because they're archaic, they must have been formal. Not so. "You are" used to be formal and "thou art" what you might say to your kids and close friends. I'm not sure if it's for the best that we dropped the conjugated endings for most of our verbs ("Dost thou hear me?"), but it hath definitely simplified the grammar and madeth the language one of the easiest in the world to learn in that regard. Overall though, having been born a Germanic language as Anglo-Saxon, occupied by the Normans and picked up a lot of French, and therefore Latin, I'm afraid all of that muttery has resulted in a pretty slipshod alphabet and some totally whack spelling conventions and I think it's high time we made some adjustments.
Therefore, in order to streamline English for a new era, I propose the following:
The letter C is hereby expelled. There's no use for the C. I mean, sure, it's got a nice sexy curve to it, and it looks nice on the page, but it serves absolutely no function in the alphabet, except to complicate things unnecessarily. It either makes the S sound or the K sound, can't seem to make up its mind, which confuses the crap out of little kids trying to learn to spell, and since we already have both an S and K doing their jobs, I say C has got to go.
The letter X-- also expelled. For much the same reason as C, X is a totally unnecessary letter. It even uses the same two letters as C but at the same time! So, why not just use KS and shave another freeloader from the alphabet. Granted, it would make signing legal documents even harder for the illiterate, but by making English easier to spell, I figure we can cut down on illiteracy and strike the problem at its heart. We'll also have to find another way to mark things on a map, but that's really a small price to pay, and there's no reason X can't stick around as its own symbol, in maps and algebra, I just say stop befuddling the alphabet. I mean, think of all those books for teaching toddlers how to read: with pictures of things that start with each letter-- they only have tired old X-Ray and Xylophone to choose from. I think they'll be relieved.
W-- also cut. I mean, it's bad enough that we seem determined to make U feel inadequate, that it's not good enough or strong enough to do its job in some uords and needs to be doubled. . Uhat's more, we drau it as if it uere a Double V, uhich just adds body shaming to the hole abuse of U and I uon't stand for it anymore. There's nouhere in the language that U can't do the job as a single, empowered letter, undoubled and proud. It just needs some solidarity from those of us who see the problem. And if ever it does need a little break, double O can serve just as ooell ooithout adding more klutter to the alphabet.
Limit the power of G. On its own, I have no truk with G. It's a fine letter, all kute and squiggly when it's small and growing up into a fine, stately sort of kapital letter with great kurves and buttresses. But it has gained a bit too much freedom and power in the language and needs to be reined in a bit. (Probably egged on by H-- see beloe). Freedom, after all, is a fine and noble quality until it begins to infringe upon the freedoms and rights of others, and that's presisely uhat G had done to J. I kan see no reason at all oohy any letter should make more than one sound. Isn't the hole point of a letter that it is, like an atom, the most fundamental building block of a languaje? And sinse the "juh" sound is perfektly well represented by the J, I demand that G immediately and forthuith be prohibited from the kind of kopyrite infrinjement that it has been engajed uith for so long. Again, think of the children! Please note, that also means we'll need to chanje the uay uee pronounse the very letter in the alphabet song. Just think of the klarified butter, and it uill be fine.
Finally, Abolish GH. This one is less about the alphabet and more about the languaje itself, but bear ooith me. For far too long, the GH konglomerate has held a komplete monopoly over all the unnesessary sounds in the languaje, overkomplikating simple sounds and konfounding the brightest young learners. In the spirit of trust-busting, I say no more! I mean, when you take into konsideration that "ough" alone kan make siks totally different sounds (rough, cough, thought, though, through, and bough) I think my point is made. Sure, OU needs some work too, but, like EI, it's really that lurking GH konglomerate throwing its weit around that's the real problem, making things more difficult than they need to be.
It's true, such changes will not come easy. No revolution of thot or kustom is born uithout its detraktors, and there uill most sertainly be some hoo kling to the oppressive imperialism of tradition. It's also true that the changes I propose will ripple out and require a great deal more adjustments. (I still haven't figured out how to spell the "chuh" sound without a C). But think of potential! The hole "I before E" rule just got a lot simpler, sinse uee got rid of C, and "neighbor" and "weigh" won't have to be mere ekseptions anymore. That konfounding EI will work itself out. I'm sure of it.
It's also possible that more changes may bekome nesessary onse uee embrase such a radically self-adjusting mentality. (The letter Y should probably think about updating its resume.) As uee begin to trim auay all of the ekstra hangers-on from the alphabet, uee mite also konsider just going all the uay bak to the orijinal Anglo-Sakson runes. It uas so great and simple bakk then; the letters even meant something! Plus uee could purje the languaje of all the foreign influense it's pikked up along the uay.
Yes I say it's time not for progress but regress, bakkooard change to rekover some of the sense that's been lost in the konfusing press of time and globalism. And if these arguments don't konvinse you, think of it this uay: moving down to 23 letters uill save a fortune on those early reader Letter Books I mentioned earlier.
No comments:
Post a Comment