Why is American English so difficult? Why do we even have the letter “c” when “s” ank “k” are the sounds it uses, and why use “ph” — why not just use “f”?
And Where in the name of Buddha does some of our slang come from??? “for-sheezee” = “definitely”??? and “whack” = “uncalled for” ?
other examples are at http://www.i18nguy.com/english-is-tough.html
I know that we are a melting pot and get our language from many other languages, but why so much unecessary usage of letters, etc.???
I’ve got to wonder why you specify American English. All varieties of English use the letters you ask about.
Languages evolve, and as you mention, are often derived from various sources. No one sat down and created English, carefully deciding what words, spelling, grammar, etc. would be used. The answers to your questions are readily available from studying the history of English. I’ll let you do that, it’s beyond the scope of my post.
Slang is its own animal. Sometimes slang word origins can be pinned down, often they can’t. I haven’t heard “forsheezee,” but from your definition I would venture a guess that it’s a corruption of “for sure.”
Language simplifys as it ages. English is a young language as it is always adding new words from other languages.
Although we have lost the formal pronouns (Thee and Thou) and many of the silent "e"s that ended Shakeperian Enlishe our borrowing of new words from other languages (like “phone”) messes up the simplification process.
The usage of letters is simple: most English words are spelled exactly the way the word was pronounced at the time it entered the language.
Thus, for example, the dreaded “ough” originally had a very specific sound when the spelling was codified (the “gh” represented an sound that’s no longer part of the language – a gutteral from the back of the throat like in the German "ach). The “p” in “pneumonia” was originally pronounced.
“ph” was used to indicate the Greek “phi.” It was kept to keep the linkage to the origin clear. It’s similar for “c”; words with the “k” sound coming from French (a major influence) would have a “c,” since “k” is hardly ever used in French (AFAIK, the only words beginning with “k” in French are those taken from other languages, like “kangarou.”).
English isn’t the only language with arbitrary letter combinations for sound. French has “Ou”=“W” (as in “oui”). Language does not evolve logically from the top down, but rather randomly from the bottom up.
The “illogical” spelling of English follows a functional format rather than one of pronuciation. It provides linkages between words (for example, the spelling “sign” may seem wrong, but when used in “signature,” you can see the connection between the words).
Finally, spelling words “the way they are pronounced” brings up the question: “Pronounced by whom?” You say “To-may-to” and I say “To-mah-to.” Which is right? Answer: Gershwin, of course: “Let’s call the whole thing off.”
“For-shee-zee”?
By “whack” I assume you mean, as in, “Dude, why’d you punch me in the back of the head? That’s totally whack.” Of course, I would personally spell that usage as “wack,” which makes its derivation, “wacky” (i.e., crazy) transparent. Thus “Dude, that’s totally whack” = “Dude, that’s totally crazy” = “Dude, that’s uncalled-for.”
Good post, RealityChuck, but I have to disagree with you on the arbitrariness (probably not a word, but what the hell) of using the “ou” combination to capture the “w” sound. First, break up the word “oui” into it’s individual components with the vowel sounds voiced using the rules of French (and other Romantic language) pronunciation. We have ‘o’, pronounced ‘oh’ as in ‘load’, ‘u’ pronounced ‘oo’ as in ‘food’, and ‘i’, pronounced ‘ee’ as in ‘feed’. Put those sounds together and we have oh-oo-ee. Keep pronouncing this faster, letting the vowel sounds blend together and it becomes apparent how ‘ou’ ends up getting pronounced like ‘w’. I base this logic on how I’ve been instructed to sing Latin.
People that advocate phonetics reelee get mi gote.
Spellings are incredibly helpful in figuring out what unfamiliar words mean, as they often show where the word came from.
Say I didn’t know what the word “chlorophyll” meant. Well, I could make an educated guess by figuring “chloro-”, meaning green, plus “phullon” meaning leaf. From the same root you get “phylloid” (leaf-shaped) etc.
Garble this into fonetix and you get clawrofill or some such nonsense, thus removing all the useful etymological information.
“Fizziotherapi” = treatment using soda? I don’t think so.
I want Finnish to be a simpler language to learn, but it isn’t.
Not much I can do about it, but Finns seem to get by.
I’m not sure what makes any language that isn’t native to you, easier or harder to learn.
This is simply not true. Some parts of a language may simplify, but usually at the expense of complication in other parts. For example, English lost almost all inflections, but its word order became more rigid as a result.
The second part is true, but then all living languages are constantly borrowing from others. When a language stops adding words, that’s a sign it’s dead. As for age, this is not readily measured attribute of language. In one way, you could say that all natural languages are about the same age, as the rate of language change makes the language spoken a few hundred years previous seem like a different language. There’s probably exceptions to that, but it applies to most languages.
Thou and thee were originally singular pronouns and thus, like tu in French, were used in the familiar, not the formal.
I think there may be some words missing from the above sentence.
Most of the silent Es at the end of words like game and come were originally pronounced in English. Pronunciation shifted for vowels after those spellings became standardized. Otherwise those Es would probably not be there and the spelling of the rest of the word would be different.
Like toadspittle, I’d spell it “wack”. In fact, dictionary.com has an entry for it:
As for “for sheezy”, Gary T is right, it’s a corruption of “for sure”. I’m not sure why “sure” is delibrately mispronounced in the phrase, but there you have it.
“Thee” and “thou” are familiar pronouns, not formal. “You” is the formal pronoun. In centuries past, you would address the English monarch as “you” and “your majesty”, not “thou” and “thy majesty”.
Quakers, who believe that all people are their sisters and brothers, have traditionally addressed others as “thee” and “thou”.
Hey, at least we ditched cases and grammatical gender.
Scarlett67’s post reminds me of a joke where the English language is modified by proposed simplification into something that sounds like English with a pronounced (heh) German accent. Does anyone know where I can find this?
Here you go Johnny (it’s all over the web, esp. on joke sites frequented by us Euros). Try it wearing a monacle…
The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the EU rather than German which heavily lobbied to be the official languauge and was the other possibility. As part of the negotiations, Her Majesty’s Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a 5-year phase-in plan that would be known as “EuroEnglish.”
In the first year, “s” will replace the soft “c” . . . Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard “c” will be dropped in favor of the “k.” This should klear up konfusion and keyboards kan have one letter fewer than kurrently.
There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year, when the troublesome “ph” will be replased with the “f.” This will make words like “fotograf” 20% shorter.
In the 3rd year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters, which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mess of the silent “e’s” in the language is disgraseful, and they should go away.
By the 4th yar, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing “th” with “z” and the “w” with “v.”
During the fifz yar, ze unesesary “o” kan be dropd from vords kontaining “ou” and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters. After ze fifz yar, ve vil hav a realy sensibl vriten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubls or difikultis and evryvun vil find it easy tu understand each ozer.
ZE DREM VIL FINALI KUM TRU!
English orthography, which is what the OP is about, is odd for a few reasons:
[ul]
[li]English keeps the spellings of borrowed words intact. ‘Buffet,’ pronounced ‘buff-AY,’ means a smorgasboard, and is borrowed from French. Another language might have altered its spelling so it wouldn’t collide with ‘buffet,’ pronounced ‘buff-IT,’ meaning to be hit, but not English. Photograph and telephone observed similar rules in their formation, as did debit (Latin debitum) and doubt (Latin dubitare).
[/li][li]English has been the victim of various ‘reform’ movements. The spellings of debit and doubt, once ‘dette’ and ‘doute,’ were reformed back to Latinate in the Seventeenth Century. On the other hand, movements to simplify spelling have never caught on (so we still spell it ‘though’ instead of ‘tho’).
[/li][li]English orthography was standardised during the Great Vowel Shift. William Caxton (1422-1491), the first printer of note in England, became successful around the time vowels began to change their values rather rapidly. Older pronunciations were made into written forms, fossil remnants of pre-Shift English, even as the spoken forms shifted into the current era. Thus we are left with ‘aisle,’ ‘eight,’ ‘knight,’ and other odd remnants that were once pronounced as spelled.
[/li][/ul]
If you think American English is bad when it comes to slang, just check out Cockney rhyming slang 
[ul]:mad: [sup]Phuk zat![/sup][/ul]
I’m not so sure American English really is that difficult. Hell, it’s a compilation of languages from around the world. You can say practically anything you want in any slang, fashion or form and be understood at some level. The American language has evolved to the point where it is NOT really English.
It seems difficult because so many people try to rigidly structure it. Grammer is dead in the classrooms. Slang is accepted and practiced in formal applications. “Foreign” words and phrases are included with “domestic” ones in common useage.
What’s hard about it is a concensus as to what the American language is! Have a conversation with people from different regions and compare the distinctions.
ie. Cajuns vs. Texans vs. Yankees (he-he…just kidding) But, you know what I mean, right?
I’m gonna post now…PC’s spazzin’ on me