Blech. I think the shit smell would be a problem.
I just did this with a sample article. It started out with 7100 characters (including spaces). I went there and removed any silent letters and replaced any word I could with a shorter homophone (so, for example “sometime” became “sumtime” but “time” remained “time” because the e is not pronounced but is necessary for knowing how to pronounce it).
Got me down to just under 7000 characters. But, in Word, the removal of those 100 characters did not reduce the line length of the article by even one line.
To save paper, the removal of a character would have to be in the relatively rare situation of a) being in a crowded line where removal allows a word from the next line to move up, b) the next line consist of only one word so that it removes a line, and c) the last line before the next hard page break is the only line on a page.
So I would guess it has a greater benefit in terms of saved ink than any in saved paper.
Change with greater impact would be to expand the alphabet so that “ch” “sh” “th”, etc. could be represented in a single character. Or remove punctuation. Or remove spaces between words (which many writing systems have done without), or eliminate vowels (which other writing systems have done without). Or eliminate page margins. Etc.
We could declare that using the letter Q by itself is perfectly fine. No need for the ‘qu’ combination. Sure, words like “qestion,” “qiz,” or “qarrel” would look a bit odd, as would the names Qentin and Qincy, but we’d get used to it.
You’d have to go to great lengths to get any real effect. I tried this on a 75,000 word novel. Rather than look for silent letters, I just eliminated every “e”. That took it down from 120 to 109 pages. Ten percent is probably a reasonable upper boundary. Five percent is more likely.
Of course it would save paper to make every book 5% shorter. Would such a book be readable, though? As obfusciatrist noted, removing some silent letters changes the pronunciation of words and can cause other mix-ups. Not to mention deciding which letters are silent.
Here’s a better idea. There are 100,000,000 households in America. If each one could eliminate the use of just two bags a week that’s a savings of 10 billion bags a year without any strain on anybody’s lifestyle.
Everyone here probably has a similar idea to contribute, that would be simple, easy, and unnoticeable but actually contribute real value.
Now excuse me while I print out this thread and show it to people.
No.
-mnemosyne
If this were true, then your friend should really be complaining to the French Academy. There’s hardly any language that has more silent letters than French.
In the OP’s example of “John”, I believe that this is true. In German, it is Johann, is it not?
And the silent “gh”'s in English are often cognate to German’s “ch” - E.g. English’s “light” vs. German “licht”.
And also, if we chang speling now, we ar impoverishing futur generations who won’t be abl to read the clasics without a translation.
He says if we stop using silent letters, we would be able to use bigger margins, let Dan Brown continue publishing, etc. He said it was one of many forms where Americans waste things by putting a letter in a word that you’re not going to bother pronouncing, and it would make English easier to learn for foreigners.
I like how they say, "Well in the old days the “K” was pronounced. So it wasn’t Nyfe it was Ka-Nyfe
Yeah right how do they know that. Did some guy go back in time and write
Just so you know we used to pronounce the K
Or do they base it on a poem
I took out my K-Nife
and killed my ka-wife
Good thing he’s never heard of French. His brain would explode.
Yes
They can turn a CUB into a CUBE
It can turn a TUB into a TUBE
Or a CAN into a CANE.
And it makes a HUG HUGE!
That was on Electric Company, right? Damn, that’s good image quality for such an old clip.
I always found the magic wand spewing stars to be a bizarre image.
I was under the impression that every teenage girl with a cell phone on the planet was trying to convert the english language to shorter words. My God, if my daughter send me one more text in leek speak I am going to snap.
I think those differences are in your imagination, Mangetout. If you’re saying that the word “knight” is pronounced differently from “night”, that would imply that there is an additional (and previously unattested) phoneme in your dialect represented by the letters “kn”.
Maybe that’s the secret. While everyone is looking at a paper squinty eyed trying to read what the heck they’re looking at, they’re not using paper. Save trees by cutting the productivity of everyone in the country by a certain percent.
And who says saving paper is a laudable goal? It’s a renewable resource. In fact, we have more trees now because of paper production. You aren’t saving a tree by reducing paper usage, really. You’re preventing some from ever being planted.
French has much more regular rules than English. I know how to pronounce every French word I’ve ever encountered. I still come upon English words that I initially mispronounce. And let’s not get started on spelling.
A language that has done what the OP’s friend apparently wants is Spanish. And, due to this, the idea of spelling tests are all but unheard of. If you can hear a Spanish word correctly, you can know how to spell. I for one find it easier than learning French.
There’s a fundamental flaw with your friend’s premise: All letters are silent.
Neither ink on paper nor pixels on a screen make sound. So, by your friend’s logic, then, all written communication is unnecessary and should be abandoned.
Of course this isn’t true, because written communication does much more than represent (or try to represent) speech. Really, it communicates ideas. These letters which your friend wants to eliminate communicate information which enables us to decode the difference between two words such as pain and pane, for example–and that distinction as nothing to do with sound.
However, if we followed this argument even further, we’d lose one of the most useful and used “letters” of all: the arrow. After all, what “sound” does an arrow “make”? None at all, like all letters. So ask your friend if he wants to do away with arrows, too.
They aren’t evil; just misunderstood.
You may be right. I’m not sure that the differences I perceive when saying these words are actually perceptible to a listener, but it does feel like it’s different. I may also be guilty of assuming this phenomenon extends further than me as an individual
One ofbthe ways it is known is that non-standardised spelling was the norm - so if you’ve got different people spelling it canife, cnif, kaniff, etc, you might reasonably infer that the K sound was spoken.