Re: French and German (jara: An introduction)

Joseph Fatula wrote:

>This is one of the neat things about English - it hasn't undergone any
>serious changes in spelling for a good three hundred years, indeed, the
>written language is almost identical to that used in those days.  While many
>may complain about the antiquated spelling of English, it has two distinct
>advantages: that people today can read things from hundreds of years ago,
>and that people who speak ever-more-divergent dialects of English can write
>to one another without any problems.
>
>
Actually, it's to some degree dangerous. We think we understand, but we
don't. Words come and go and while they're here change meaning. cf.
John's quote the other day about the King describing the cathedral as
'awful, pompous and artificial' but being complimentary. Also,
grammatical structures change. 'The house is building' is nonsense to
me: a house cannot be building.

To understand anything written more than about two-hundred years ago,
you require education; to read things more than about a hundred years
old, comprehension is slowed down. Cross-dialectal reading may be
difficult or impossible; do you know what tall poppy syndrome is (one of
the Australian media's favorite expressions)? (To give you a clue about
what it means, it has been suggested that Martha Stewart is being 'cut
down' because of it.)

Personally, I wood rarther the langwage be spelt regularly with a few
diffrences between the dilects and so that you get an obvious notice
that wot u read may not be exactly wot it seems.

--
Tristan                  <kesuari@...>

Reply