Re: Opinions on English

On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, LeoMoser(Acadon@Acadon.com) wrote:

> I'd be interested in knowing some further categories
> of what are considered the "messiness of English."
>
> Obvious (to me) categories are:
> 1) the spelling            ('nuff said)
The spelling doesn't bother me.  Things that aren't pronounced the same
are spelled the same but it lets you pick out roots and so on, and while
I don't know as much about English etymology to be happy with myself, I
know enough that the system makes enough sense.  OTOH I know any number
of intelligent people who hate the spelling system, though it's never
given me trouble.

> 2) many aspects of pronunciation
>     (e.g. "impure vowels" that vary among the
>      dialects)
I imagine the diphthongs are messy for others.  I'm not sure what an
"impure vowel" is.

> 3) a few left-over irregularities in derivation or
> conjugation ( go>went child>children hang>hung )
I *like* them.  They're fun.  :-)  They're also helpful cues to strong
vs. weak verbs in German (or so I find).

> 4) many compound verbs that convey little immediate
>     semantic value (e.g. to "put up with")
Now *that's* something that puzzles me, and that I have a hard time
explaining to ESL grad students.  I usually tell them to memorize the
whole thing as a unit and not try to break it into components.

> 5) multiple roots for so many ideas (native, Latinate,
>     Greek, etc.)
Huh.  But it gives you such a range of nuances, which isn't an *entirely*
bad thing...and as long as you know a couple words in an idea-set, you
can generally make yourself understood.

>  6) Sound ambiguities (to/two/too  flour/flower)
>  7) Written ambiguities (divers, sewer, tower
>     read/read   row   bow)
I like these because they're useful in humor, puns, poetry.  I can see
where others would find them annoying.  It's the proliferation of TLA's
(three-letter-acronyms) that usually does me in.  :-p

YHL