Things that the English language desperately needs

[Dervorin]

I've been thinking about this for some time, and it's clear that English is in need of reform. The ad-hoc development of the language that's been such a success over the last several hundred years has created a monster that must be tamed; brought under control, brought to heel. I therefore plan to ask the UN to set up a Commission for Language Uniformity and Trans-Territorial English Reform (UNCLUTTER) that will take immediate control of all aspects of English speech and writing and attempt to standardise the mess of the language that has become the lingua franca of the entire world.

The main aims of UNCLUTTER will be to produce an annual report on language reform and emerging standards, which will then be ignored by everyone. This will clearly allow increased understanding between people and promote global harmony and the sharing of rich cultural experiences, not limited to the mere exchange of information.

As the first act of UNCLUTTER, I suggest that English desperately needs the following:

1. Gender-neutral pronouns. In this age of political correctness and equality it's entirely ridiculous that we have to torture our pronouns to formulate basic sentences. His/her, (s)he and other idiotic constructs merely make the user look like a moron, and, if that isn't enough, are ugly as hell. "Their" is also useless, since that's already used for plurals. I nominate the following to start with: He/she to become es. Se was also an option, but would cause conflict with a further proposal to be outlined below. His/her to become har, to rhyme with far. The loss of a laughter syllable is easily dealt with; after all, this is for the Greater Good (TM). Surely this isn't beyond the wit of man or woman? Is it really impossible for someone to think hard and come up with a list of suggestions that he/she/they/it find(s) acceptable?

2. Words that are simultaneously sexy, dirty, and classy. I want to be able to talk dirty and still sound like I'm adjusting my cravat and sipping Martinis from elegant tall glasses. At the moment, my options are limited to sounding clinical (I would like to express my desire to place the medial digit of my left hand inside your vagina), puerile (Oooh, baby, your va-jay-jay feels so good around my throbbing pee-pee!) or just plain crass (Ah, bitch, your cunt is so fucking wet). Clearly a small chip will have to be implanted in all English speakers' brains to prevent these newly invented words from becoming debased, but again, that's a small price to pay. Suggestions for this may be sent to dirtyandyetsophisticated@unclutter.un.organ.

3. Breaking up words with multiple meanings into other ones. Does the word "shoot" really need to mean each of the eight thousand things that it does on this page? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/shoot. It's worked hard for us, and been a great success. It's time to let it have a rest and mean just one thing.

4. Immediate banning of all homonyms, and a standardised guide to spelling and pronunciation. This will allow much quicker adoption of English globally, and will also reduce the number of possible puns to approximately zero, thereby ridding the world of a great menace. The fact that I make puns on an almost constant basis is neither here nor there.

UNCLUTTER will being immediate action to implant each of you with your trusty English Language Maintenance Chip; look for the friendly person coming to your house soon, where es will explain all the necessary steps! We look forward to welcoming you into the Grand Unified Rational Structure of Modern English. See you there!

[Sunspace]

And while you're at it, fix the bloody spelling!

[Dervorin]

Originally Posted by Sunspace

And while you're at it, fix the bloody spelling!

Please see Resolution 4, above. This is already being dealt with as we speak.

[Rachellelogram]

Is this satire making fun of language prescriptivism, or are you serious?

[Candyman74]

Originally Posted by Dervorin

2. Words that are simultaneously sexy, dirty, and classy. I want to be able to talk dirty and still sound like I'm adjusting my cravat and sipping Martinis from elegant tall glasses. At the moment, my options are limited to sounding clinical (I would like to express my desire to place the medial digit of my left hand inside your vagina), puerile (Oooh, baby, your va-jay-jay feels so good around my throbbing pee-pee!) or just plain crass (Ah, bitch, your cunt is so fucking wet).

Why do you hate James Bond?

[B. Serum]

Originally Posted by Dervorin

2. Words that are simultaneously sexy, dirty, and classy. I want to be able to talk dirty and still sound like I'm adjusting my cravat and sipping Martinis from elegant tall glasses. At the moment, my options are limited to sounding clinical (I would like to express my desire to place the medial digit of my left hand inside your vagina), puerile (Oooh, baby, your va-jay-jay feels so good around my throbbing pee-pee!) or just plain crass (Ah, bitch, your cunt is so fucking wet). Clearly a small chip will have to be implanted in all English speakers' brains to prevent these newly invented words from becoming debased, but again, that's a small price to pay. Suggestions for this may be sent to dirtyandyetsophisticated@unclutter.un.organ.

Big fan of décolletage.

[norinew]

English definitely needs a word for a long-term partner to whom one is not married. My hubby had a boss, a woman in her mid-50's, with whom he was friendly. Said boss had a live-in partner, a man in his early-60s, with whom she had lived for more than ten years.

English has no proper term for this. There would be 'boyfriend', which sounds very high-school; common-law husband, which sounds very old-fashioned and is burdensome.
Likewise, in the state of Maryland, my sister has lived with her same-sex partner for more than 25 years. No doubt in my mind that if it were legal in that state, they'd be married now. But if you say 'partner', it leaves all kinds of questions open as to the exact nature of the relationship.

We need better words for these situations.

[Peremensoe]

Originally Posted by norinew

But if you say 'partner', it leaves all kinds of questions open as to the exact nature of the relationship.

Does use of the term "partner" make you curious?

What questions? Different questions than one could formulate about a "husband" and "wife" relationship? And since when is the exact nature of anyone's relationship anyone else's business?

I think "partner" is virtually perfect, actually.

[norinew]

Originally Posted by spark240

Does use of the term "partner" make you curious?

What questions? Different questions than one could formulate about a "husband" and "wife" relationship? And since when is the exact nature of anyone's relationship anyone else's business?

I think "partner" is virtually perfect, actually.

It's not that it's anyone else's 'business', it's just a matter of degrees, for those who I wish to forward the information to.

For instance, before my hubby and I got married, we had been together, as a couple, for four years, and had a daughter, who was almost a year and a half old. Once, before the marriage, we were planning a long weekend getaway. The person at the hotel we wanted said to him "So, it's just you?"
He said "No, it's me and my wife" (we were leaving our daughter with my mother)

Well, I wasn't his wife. But 'girlfriend' sounds awfully juvenile, as I've previously stated. What else is he going to say? "Baby-Mama"?
We need a word.

No, that's not true. We don't need a word. I would like a word.
This is, after all, IMHO.

[Typo Knig]

Meihem In Ce Klasrum from 1946, and we stil havn't fixed English!

[Napier]

Originally Posted by norinew

English definitely needs a word for a long-term partner to whom one is not married. My hubby had a boss, a woman in her mid-50's, with whom he was friendly. Said boss had a live-in partner, a man in his early-60s, with whom she had lived for more than ten years.

English has no proper term for this. There would be 'boyfriend', which sounds very high-school; common-law husband, which sounds very old-fashioned and is burdensome.
Likewise, in the state of Maryland, my sister has lived with her same-sex partner for more than 25 years. No doubt in my mind that if it were legal in that state, they'd be married now. But if you say 'partner', it leaves all kinds of questions open as to the exact nature of the relationship.

We need better words for these situations.

No need to be so vivid. The people to whom you refer are "gentleman callers".

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by spark240

Does use of the term "partner" make you curious?

What questions? Different questions than one could formulate about a "husband" and "wife" relationship? And since when is the exact nature of anyone's relationship anyone else's business.

The difference between a business relationship and a domestic relationship is not an exacting, niggling difference: it's a fundamental difference. But people in casual conversation use "partner" to refer to both. And it becomes my business when they use the word "partner" to communicate with me: they're trying to communicate information about their relationship to another person, but ambiguity in the word makes it very difficult for me to understand what they're communicating.

There certainly are times where it's clear from context whether someone is talking about a business or a domestic relationship when they refer to their partner, but I've had more than one occasion where I had trouble figuring it out from context.

[Doctor]

Here is Mark Twain's take on spelling reform. Funny how nobody has implemented it yet....

[MoodIndigo1]

If "spouse" weren't such an ugly word, it might be used to describe all lifemates.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Doctor

Here is Mark Twain's take on spelling reform. Funny how nobody has implemented it yet....

Is that really Twain, or just commonly attributed to him? It's quite clever.

[MeanOldLady]

Originally Posted by MoodIndigo1

If "spouse" weren't such an ugly word, it might be used to describe all lifemates.

So you mean we should change the word "spouse" to not denote marriage?

[Peremensoe]

Originally Posted by norinew

What else is he going to say? "Baby-Mama"?
We need a word.

No, that's not true. We don't need a word. I would like a word.
This is, after all, IMHO.

IMHO, he could say "partner."

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

The difference between a business relationship and a domestic relationship is not an exacting, niggling difference: it's a fundamental difference.
...
There certainly are times where it's clear from context whether someone is talking about a business or a domestic relationship when they refer to their partner, but I've had more than one occasion where I had trouble figuring it out from context.

Have you really? I was thinking about this earlier and it seemed like this specific confusion was probably less common than is imagined.

Anyway, if the (IMHO) very fine term "partner" gained more general use in the sense we want here--frankly, a more-in-demand referent than the other--then the obvious adaptation to avoid confusion is to say "business partner" when needed.

[NetTrekker]

A second-person plural. Y'all is too regional and doesn't lend itself to more formal use.

[Max the Immortal]

Originally Posted by rachelellogram

Is this satire making fun of language prescriptivism, or are you serious?

Yeah, my Poe sense is tingling, too.


Gender-neutral pronouns would be handy, but I have yet to hear a suggestion for one that doesn't sound silly or downright asinine.

[Jamaika a jamaikaiaké]

Originally Posted by Max the Immortal

Gender-neutral pronouns would be handy, but I have yet to hear a suggestion for one that doesn't sound silly or downright asinine.

Singular "they" works well enough for me.

[Doctor]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Is that really Twain, or just commonly attributed to him? It's quite clever.

As far as I know it is Twain - he was quite a clever fellow.

[Isamu]

Originally Posted by Dervorin

2. Words that are simultaneously sexy, dirty, and classy. I want to be able to talk dirty and still sound like I'm adjusting my cravat and sipping Martinis from elegant tall glasses. At the moment, my options are limited to sounding clinical (I would like to express my desire to place the medial digit of my left hand inside your vagina), puerile (Oooh, baby, your va-jay-jay feels so good around my throbbing pee-pee!) or just plain crass (Ah, bitch, your cunt is so fucking wet). Clearly a small chip will have to be implanted in all English speakers' brains to prevent these newly invented words from becoming debased, but again, that's a small price to pay. Suggestions for this may be sent to dirtyandyetsophisticated@unclutter.un.organ.

The words are there already, you just need to get creative. The use of metaphor, for example, will help a lot with what you are trying to do.

[drachillix]

Originally Posted by Dervorin

2. Words that are simultaneously sexy, dirty, and classy. I want to be able to talk dirty and still sound like I'm adjusting my cravat and sipping Martinis from elegant tall glasses.

I find your lack of creativity disturbing.

Don't mind me I will be exploring my g/f's innermost sanctum in search of the origins of pure ecstacy.

Vocabulary is a useful tool, learn how to use it.

[Little Nemo]

As long as we're addressing pronoun issues like a gender neutral third person and a plural second person, I want an inclusive and exclusive first person plural.

Inclusive we - you and me and maybe some other people.
Exclusive we - me and some other people but not you.

[Little Nemo]

A simplification of the future verb tense would also be good.

Present and past tense can be indicated by the verb alone: I walk, I walked. But future tense requires an auxiliary: I will walk. We should have a future tense equivalent of -ed, let's say -en.

I walk today. I walked yesterday. I walken tomorrow.

[Kaio]

Originally Posted by Max the Immortal

Gender-neutral pronouns would be handy, but I have yet to hear a suggestion for one that doesn't sound silly or downright asinine.

Technically we already have them, it's just that humans are funny about calling themselves "it."

It might make more sense to revamp the attitude than the language; what exactly do we need two gender-neutral pronouns for?

[Dervorin]

Originally Posted by rachelellogram

Is this satire making fun of language prescriptivism, or are you serious?

Originally Posted by Max the Immortal

Yeah, my Poe sense is tingling, too.


Gender-neutral pronouns would be handy, but I have yet to hear a suggestion for one that doesn't sound silly or downright asinine.

Note to self: no matter how hard you try to make sarcasm plain on the Internet, there will always be some people who don't get it.

Further note to self: Do not get sarcastic on the Internet when mildly drunk on a Friday evening.

The language prescriptivism was sarcastic; but the list of requirements has a tiny kernel of truth.

Originally Posted by drachilix

I find your lack of creativity disturbing.

Don't mind me I will be exploring my g/f's innermost sanctum in search of the origins of pure ecstacy.

Vocabulary is a useful tool, learn how to use it.

Thanks, but I already find that my vocabulary is quite extensive, and my creativity does not fall far behind in this regard. I'm aware that creative options exist, but they vary so much that to employ them is fraught with problems. I seek a universal language of dirty-talk. Call it a bit of idle, fairly tongue-in-cheek (ha!) day-dreaming, if you will.

[WhyNot]

I know it's an old gripe, but we really could use some more words for the specific types of "love". A verb that can refer to chocolate, spouse, child, sports team and nail polish isn't a very useful word.



(I eagerly await smart-ass Dopers' interjections with other verbs that can apply to all of those things, especially the lascivious ones.)

[Typo Knig]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

A simplification of the future verb tense would also be good.

Present and past tense can be indicated by the verb alone: I walk, I walked. But future tense requires an auxiliary: I will walk. We should have a future tense equivalent of -ed, let's say -en.

I walk today. I walked yesterday. I walken tomorrow.

But. Then. Long. Pauses. Between. Words. Requiren. (That's the Christopher Walken.)

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Typo Knig

But. Then. Long. Pauses. Between. Words. Requiren. (That's the Christopher Walken.)

You'd prefer us having to say thinks like "I will wheaton tomorrow"?

[norinew]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

You'd prefer us having to say thinks like "I will wheaton tomorrow"?

That depends. Do you wheat? Have you wheated? If not, then this point is not valid.

[JRDelirious]

Meh... count yerselves lucky; in Spanish the possesive pronoun ("su") is gender-neutral but the converse of that is that common nouns, articles (i.e. the equivalents to "the" and "a/an") and many adjectives use grammatical gender declensions. This makes gender-inclusive text in Spanish IMO even more aggravating that English because it means sometimes we have to spell out the whole alternative phrase repeatedly through the paragraph.

And distinctly conjugated verb tenses are overrated. Over here we have, what, 14 of them? Help yourselves to some. May I suggest the future perfect subjunctive?

[Peremensoe]

Originally Posted by Doctor

As far as I know it is Twain - he was quite a clever fellow.

He was, but there appears to be no evidence for Twain's authorship, beyond everybody's feeling that it's the kind of thing Twain would write. See here for more.

Originally Posted by Dervorin

Note to self: no matter how hard you try to make sarcasm plain on the Internet, there will always be some people who don't get it.

The phenomenon actually predates the internet, as Twain among others found.

The corollary, however, is that no matter how obviously satiric an item on the internet seems, there will always be somebody who means it.

Originally Posted by Max the Immortal

Gender-neutral pronouns would be handy, but I have yet to hear a suggestion for one that doesn't sound silly or downright asinine.

Not quite the same thing, but FWIW, Greg Egan's Distress posits "asex" (surgically asexualized people, the midpoint of a gender scale of seven recognized types--and this is maybe only third or fourth on the list of themes) for whom the terminology is ve (subjective), ver (objective), vis (possessive). Silly? It seemed a little so at first, but it became familiar--and the gender theme rather profound--by the end.

That said, I use "he" and "she" in a number of contexts which are not intended to mean that the subject is necessarily male or female ("he" in a generalized sense, like "man," and sometimes "she" to mean a specific, hypothetical, gender-unknown person). You might be surprised how little actual confusion this causes; the objections, if any, are political objections to the words themselves, not functional concerns.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I'd be pretty happy with "partner" in casual conversation defaulting to "domestic partner." I don't think that's where we are yet.

And yeah, it's come up. I can't remember specifics, but it'll be things like at a party, and someone talking about some project he and his partner are working on, and it sounds vaguely entrepeneurial, but it's not clear whether he and his husband are opening a restaurant, or he and the guy with business sense are doing so.

I like "they" for third-person ungendered singular and "y'all" for second-person plural.

[Balthisar]

I unbellyfeel this doubleplusungood idea.

[Peremensoe]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

I'd be pretty happy with "partner" in casual conversation defaulting to "domestic partner." I don't think that's where we are yet.

Oh, for sure. That's why I'm advocating.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by spark240

He was, but there appears to be no evidence for Twain's authorship, beyond everybody's feeling that it's the kind of thing Twain would write. See here for more.

Thanks!

[Raguleader]

Originally Posted by Balthisar

I unbellyfeel this doubleplusungood idea.

You need another verb in there. Presumably "is".

Undoubleplus Points For Doubleplusunslytherin.

[Raguleader]

Incidentally, "Y'all" is not Regional, we use it in Texas, which pretty much makes it the standard that the rest of the country should strive for.

[jsgoddess]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

I'd be pretty happy with "partner" in casual conversation defaulting to "domestic partner." I don't think that's where we are yet.

And yeah, it's come up. I can't remember specifics, but it'll be things like at a party, and someone talking about some project he and his partner are working on, and it sounds vaguely entrepeneurial, but it's not clear whether he and his husband are opening a restaurant, or he and the guy with business sense are doing so.

If it matters, and it rarely does, I ask.

[42fish]

Originally Posted by norinew

It's not that it's anyone else's 'business', it's just a matter of degrees, for those who I wish to forward the information to.

For instance, before my hubby and I got married, we had been together, as a couple, for four years, and had a daughter, who was almost a year and a half old. Once, before the marriage, we were planning a long weekend getaway. The person at the hotel we wanted said to him "So, it's just you?"
He said "No, it's me and my wife" (we were leaving our daughter with my mother)

Well, I wasn't his wife. But 'girlfriend' sounds awfully juvenile, as I've previously stated. What else is he going to say? "Baby-Mama"?

I suppose he could've gone with "No, I'll be staying with Ms. Norinew." If the hotel person demands to know anything further about your relationship, he could reply, "That just cut your tip by 25%. Each additional nosy question will be an additional 25% off."

[Inner Stickler]

Boyfriend and girlfriend sound ageless to me. I see no reason to come up with a new word when they're sitting there begging to be lifted out of high school and into the realm of adulthood.

I, personally, am working on making -sexual happen. Boysexual is so much less wordage than gay men and straight women and the reverse is true for girlsexual.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by jsgoddess

If it matters, and it rarely does, I ask.

Yeah, it's a super-no-big-deal, barely enough even to, y'know, discuss on a messageboard. I tend not to ask because I'm socially awkward and get paranoid about being perceived as clueless, so I remain clueless instead.

[Inner Stickler]

Dude, just ask and if they get weird or snippy, blame it on 'pregnancy brain' and walk away.

[jsgoddess]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Yeah, it's a super-no-big-deal, barely enough even to, y'know, discuss on a messageboard. I tend not to ask because I'm socially awkward and get paranoid about being perceived as clueless, so I remain clueless instead.

Ah. Well, if it helps, phrase the question to acknowledge your cluelessness. Just say something like, "Oh, you probably said and I've forgotten already, is John your business partner?"

Actually, the "You've probably said and I've forgotten already" gambit is an excellent one for asking all sorts of questions. I'm always ready to admit to cluelessness.

[Mops]

As a user of English as a foreign language one thing that has sometimes had me raise my hackles by mistake is the use of 'you' not only in a personal but also in an impersonal sense.

Personal 'you': referring to the person you are adressing e.g. 'If you come tomorrow, be sure to bring pie'.

Impersonal 'you': speaking in the abstract e.g. 'If you commit (heinous crime) chances are you won't get way with it'.

Whether the personal or the impersonal 'you' is meant seems to be entirely depending on context, so there are bound to be misunderstandings, particularly with people whose first language does not use the impersonal 'you'. For example, if you spoke to me using a literal translation of my second example above into German, I'd take it as a personal attack.

Curiously enough English does have a perfectly serviceable impersonal construction equivalent to e.g. German man or French on: 'If one commits (heinous crime) chances are one won't get way with it'. Only, its use seems to be confined to a certain kind of pretentious (mostly, ficticious) persona.

[Balthisar]

Originally Posted by Mops

Curiously enough English does have a perfectly serviceable impersonal construction equivalent to e.g. German man or French on: 'If one commits (heinous crime) chances are one won't get way with it'. Only, its use seems to be confined to a certain kind of pretentious (mostly, ficticious) persona.

I hope I'm not regarded as pretentious. It was actually my study of German those many years ago that encouraged me to use the "one" construct much more than the average American. Not in casual, conversational speech, though. <- In informal situations I even use sentence fragments.

[Snickers]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

You'd prefer us having to say thinks like "I will wheaton tomorrow"?

You spelled it wrong. Should be "I wil wheaton tomorrow."

[Raguleader]

I think the English language needs counting words, like what Chinese uses. Specifically, English should use a separate counting word for each variety of object (flat round things, cylindrical things, animals, bottles, people, etc.)

[zamboniracer]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

You'd prefer us having to say thinks like "I will wheaton tomorrow"?

Please, can we live that punk Wil Wheaton from Star Trek: The Next Generation out of this discussion.