This question’s been bugging me for quite some time.
If I’m not mistaken, human language was spoken long before it was written down, right? So when writing was first invented, with different symbols created to indicate how each word sounds, who in god’s green earth decided that there should be letters which are only written, not spoken?
Words like “dime”, “knife”, “light” – well, I suppose the silent “e” makes minor sense, since it influences the sound of the preceding vowel. But in that case, why not invent separate and distinct letters for different vowel sounds? My fingers are nimble, I can handle a keyboard with 42 letters instead of 26. And what’s up with non-standard spellings like “photo” or “caution” – where did those come from?
And do we really need the letter “C”? Sometimes it sounds like an “s”, sometimes a “k”. Absolutely extraneous.
Most silent letters were originally pronounced. Over the centuries, that was dropped. Thus “knife” was pronounced (roughly) k-neef-eh. “Light” was “leet,” the representing a sound that’s no longer in the language (like the German “ach.”)
There are also many explanations for other changes, since it depends on the history of the word.
Essentially, though, pronunciation changes over time, and adjusting the word to match the new pronunciation (and who’s pronunciation – it is “to-may-to” or “to-mah-tol”) would create problems, making older works unreadable. The spelling always reflects the pronunciation when the word entered the language.
I should mention that “photo” is derived from a Greek work that began with their “phi”; it was transliterated into “ph” to indicate its origins (and was done by people who knew Greek well).
Those letter were originally pronounced, several centuries ago, but atrophied through he laziness/efficiency of speakers over the years. If you listen carefully to French songs, you’ll hear all those silent final -e and -re that everyday spoken French drops off.
Some languages change their spelling after a while, to reflect changes in pronunciation. This has its own problems: new spelling to learn (personal trauma here!), and older texts are not as easy to read.
On the other hand, learning to read English a little harder at first, because none of the spelling seems to make sense. Sometimes it makes sense if you know the Dutch word, it is often similar to the way it used to be pronounced in English. The above “light” is a good example, the Dutch pronounce it the way it is written in English, with the harsh, throaty “g”.
You could just switch to speaking Finnish. We don’t use “C”, there’s basically no silent letters and every time one of us sees a “How do you pronounce <X>?” thread we can just point and laugh.
Don’t fall for this! It’s a trap! They make it sound nice and easy and then… BAM! It’s actually an impossible language. And then they all stand around and rub their hands together and laugh.
Just kidding Arrogance Ex Machina, I’m sure it’s a beautiful language, but it looks really hard. And it had way too many "y"s to be allowed.
Actually, what inspired this question was looking at a map of Polish cities, with names like “Szczecin” and thinking, “Geez, you crazy Poles use way too many consonants! Please, trim a few.” But then I realized we English speakers aren’t much better.
How old is old, though? The works of Shakespeare are nearly impenetrable to modern readers, yet the actual pronunciation hasn’t changed that much since Elizabethan times, I think.
If you go that far back in languages that change their spelling on purpose you end up with something very different. Comparatively, English doesn’t look as bad. Spelling was even less standardised then, and they had some different words because they had different stuff, but everything is basically the same.
In Dutch, since I was a kid, they’ve been changing the spelling. “Aktie” became “actie”, “zee-eend” to “zeeënd” (I think, it’s confusing, and I forget). The spelling is officially changed every decade, so it matches pronunciation. These changes add up over the years.
There’s nothing “impenetrable” about Shakespeare; he was writing in Early Modern English, which differs slightly from current English. Certainly you can discern the words; the only real difference is in the conjugation of verbs and the use of Thou, etc., instead of “you.” But no one has trouble understanding, say Hamlet’s soliloquy. There will be some words that are archaic, but only a relatively small amount.
The French language, in fact, seems to have made an art form of silent letters. It seems that about 1/3 of all letters in the written language are silent in the spoken language. (A friend of mine once snarked that 2/3 of all French words sound alike.) What’s up with that?
Bear in mind, however, that standardized spelling is a relatively recent invention. As recently as the late 1700’s (late American colonial days), spelling was all over the place. Standardization appears to be an American innovation, spearheaded by early American lexicographers like Noah Webster.
Huh?! Are you sure you aren’t thinking of, perhaps, Chaucer? I found Shakespeare boring when I had to read it, but not hard to understand.
Chaucer, on the other hand (swiped from Wikipedia)…
‘Wepyng and waylyng, care and oother sorwe
I knowe ynogh, on even and a-morwe,’
Quod the Marchant, ‘and so doon oother mo
That wedded been.’
The Latin alphabet was a pretty good choice for writing, well Latin.
It’s a poor choice for writing English, which is two languages removed from the one it was designed for.
But switching to an alphabet optimized for English isn’t going to happen.
