# What would you like to change about the English language? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [November 29, 2003, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-you-like-to-change-about-the-english-language/215881 "2003-11-29T07:33:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2003, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-you-like-to-change-about-the-english-language/215881/61 "2003-12-06T12:23:50Z")
Practically speaking, that’s one of its functions, yes. We can simplify the rules, standardize spelling, etc. all we like, and there will still be arbitrary hoops that grammar makes people jump through. Some will bitch about the hoops, some will accept them, some will relish them, and some will thrive for them. I can’t imagine grammar not serving this function. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2003, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-you-like-to-change-about-the-english-language/215881/62 "2003-12-06T12:24:56Z")
Uh, thrive ON them. ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2003, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-you-like-to-change-about-the-english-language/215881/63 "2003-12-06T17:49:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Muad’Dib \* > \*\*That’s great. Does anyone else have any interesting words from other languages that would be usefull to add? \*\* **mamihlapinatapai** : (Feugian) Staring at each other hoping that the other person will volunteer to do something which both people would like but which each is not willing to do. ---
**Author:** ![gluteus\_maximus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f17d59/32.png) [@gluteus\_maximus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gluteus_maximus)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2003, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-you-like-to-change-about-the-english-language/215881/64 "2003-12-06T18:48:52Z")
There’s nothing wrong with the language, or the spelling. Fix the goddamned “speakers” and misspellers. ---
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2003, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-you-like-to-change-about-the-english-language/215881/65 "2003-12-06T18:59:23Z")
English contains more words than most languages, possibly because of its dual Romance and Germanic roots (IANALinguist). This permits certain writers to write very precisely at the expense of clarity. Some words are so close in meaning to other words that only the writer and possibly people who know the writer very well can understand precisely what is meant in a given context. I carry a list of these words: sardonic/sarcastic unprepossessing/unpretentious assure/ensure, as in “Success was assured/ensured by careful planning.” predominately/predominantly Eliminating one word in each of the above pairs would encourage clearer writing. When the writer has so many words with so many fine gradations of meaning to choose from, he may think he is writing more clearly by choosing carefully from among synonyms, but because the gradations of meaning change rapidly with time and geography, the reader may not read what the writer thinks he wrote. Complex ideas do not always require complex words. It is better to try to convey your meaning through logical construction and proper context when possible, rather than relying on subtle shadings of meaning between words that are effectively synonyms. ---
**Author:** ![spacevacuum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c57346/32.png) [@spacevacuum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spacevacuum)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2003, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-you-like-to-change-about-the-english-language/215881/66 "2003-12-07T01:06:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Soup\_du\_jour \* > \*\*Along with the aforementioned neuter pronoun (not including “it,”) I would encourage the use of a good second person plural pronoun. > > “Y’all” fits the bill perfectly. \*\* In the good olde days English had a perfectly good second person plural pronoun (“you”) and a good second person singular pronoun (“thee”). Apparently “you” expanded to include “you-singular” as well as “you-plural,” resulting in the confusion we have today. It’s really annoying to not have separate words for 2nd person singular and plural. How about, rather than finding another word for second person plural (“y’all”, “youse”) we push “you” back to 2nd person plural and bring back “thee” for 2nd person singular ? Enough of language evolution - it’s time for some de-evolution ! (The you/thee history is paraphrased from “Power of Babel” by John McWhorter (which is a really good book if you’re into language)). I really like the use of _mu_ as a response to a nonsensical question. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-you-like-to-change-about-the-english-language/215881.md?page=3)