(01:54:58 AM) evilestmark: learn japanese Lesson 1. A. I. i. Saying your Name!
(01:55:19 AM) evilestmark:
Kurisu des
chris to-be
(01:55:32 AM) Chris: ahhh’
(01:55:46 AM) Chris: watishi-wa kurisu des
(01:55:53 AM) Chris: step 1
(01:56:00 AM) evilestmark: grade: A+
(01:56:32 AM) evilestmark: next: Asking someone else what their name is
O-namae-wa nan-des-ka
(01:56:54 AM) evilestmark: honorable-name-topic what-to.be-question maerk
(01:57:08 AM) Chris: with rising intonation at end?
(01:57:13 AM) evilestmark: hai
(01:57:21 AM) Chris: kawaii!
(01:57:32 AM) evilestmark: inappropriate usage of kawaii
(01:57:42 AM) Chris: i can use kawaii whenever the hell i want
(01:57:46 AM) evilestmark: lol
(01:57:57 AM) Chris: ^__^
(01:58:17 AM) evilestmark: next step: copular sentence
(01:58:29 AM) evilestmark:
hon des
book to.be
(01:58:36 AM) evilestmark: It’s a book
(01:58:46 AM) Chris: neko des
(01:58:49 AM) Chris: it’s a cat
(01:58:55 AM) evilestmark: idea on how you can ask, “Is it a book?“
(02:00:22 AM) Chris: o-hon-wa nan des ka?
(02:00:59 AM) evilestmark: that would literally mean “What is your exalted book?”
(02:01:06 AM) evilestmark: just “hon deska?”
(02:01:11 AM) Chris: i mean, that’s what i meant
(02:01:26 AM) evilestmark:
(02:01:45 AM) evilestmark: also, theoretically “des” is really “desu”
(02:01:54 AM) evilestmark: but the final syllable get’s shortened to nothing most of the time
(02:02:39 AM) evilestmark: here’s a short word list of concrete objects in japanese
(02:04:42 AM) evilestmark:
hon – book,
isu – desk,
kyokasho – textbook
impitsu – pencil
pen – pen
neko – cat
inu – dog
sakana – fish
(02:06:34 AM) evilestmark: oh other good words
(02:07:02 AM) evilestmark:
denwa – phone
keitai – cellphone
teburu – table
kuruma – car
densha – train
(02:08:17 AM) evilestmark: second major grammatical lesson after copular sentences
(02:08:23 AM) evilestmark: existential remarks
(02:08:53 AM) evilestmark: whereas with the previous sentences it’s taken that you’re talking about an object you and your listener are both aware of and just specifying what it is
(02:09:00 AM) evilestmark: the following are actually statements of existance
(02:09:16 AM) evilestmark: for example
(02:09:49 AM) evilestmark:
hon-ga arimas(u)
book-sub exists
“There’s a book/There are books”
(02:10:11 AM) evilestmark:
impitsu-ga arimasu
pencil-sub exists
(02:10:16 AM) Chris: so there are no determiners in japanese?
(02:10:32 AM) evilestmark: kind of like korean, they’re not necessary most of the time
(02:10:36 AM) Chris: okay
(02:10:58 AM) Chris: but only necessary when saying “those” or “these” ?
(02:11:30 AM) evilestmark: so there’s a way of using demonstratives or deictic determiners in japanese as pre-nominals
(02:11:33 AM) evilestmark: it works like this
(02:12:03 AM) evilestmark:
kono-hon This book (by me)
sono-hon That book (by you)
ano-hon That book over there (not by either of us)
(02:12:17 AM) evilestmark: that works for any noun
(02:12:27 AM) evilestmark: you can describe any physical noun with those determiners as a noun-phrase
(02:12:38 AM) evilestmark: it will then act grammatically just like the noun itself
(02:13:11 AM) evilestmark: talking about abstracts is a bit trickier… because relative place isn’t implicit
(02:13:54 AM) evilestmark: so usually with abstracts it comes down to like… how close you feel to the noun you’re describing, whether you want to place it with yourself or the person you’re talking to
(02:14:16 AM) evilestmark: so
(02:14:24 AM) evilestmark: how would I say: “Are there any books?”
(02:16:37 AM) Chris: hmm
(02:16:39 AM) Chris: okay
(02:16:40 AM) Chris: so
(02:17:52 AM) Chris: hon-ga arimasu?
(02:18:05 AM) evilestmark: you can say that
(02:18:12 AM) evilestmark: but it’s better to say hon-ga arimasuka?
(02:18:25 AM) evilestmark: the ka can attach to any verb that ends in -masu
(02:18:31 AM) evilestmark: or -desu
(02:18:41 AM) Chris: hmm
(02:18:50 AM) Chris: and that means question mark?
(02:18:54 AM) evilestmark: yeppers
(02:19:07 AM) evilestmark: it’s not necessary in informal conversation, but those use different verbs
(02:19:37 AM) evilestmark: and typically you use a different post-positional verb marker to indicate that it’s a question
(02:19:46 AM) evilestmark: but i don’t like it.. because it sounds really demanding
(02:19:51 AM) Chris: hmm
(02:19:52 AM) evilestmark: ka is less demanding
(02:20:06 AM) Chris: what’s the more demanding one?
(02:20:26 AM) evilestmark: so… if i were going to ask you politely do you drink alcohol
(02:20:39 AM) evilestmark: i would say, “osake-wo nomimasuka?”
(02:21:00 AM) evilestmark: that’s “honorable-sake-object drink-?”
(02:21:06 AM) evilestmark: if i were asking my friend i would say
(02:21:17 AM) evilestmark: osake-wo nomuno?
(02:21:24 AM) evilestmark: and when i type wo it sounds like “o”

There is a character in Roddenberry’s Star Trek the Next Generation named Data (Brent Spiner). Data is an android (robot appearing like a human). He’s sort of comparable to Spock from Star Trek (the original series), but arguably more dynamic as he is on a quest to become more human.

At anyrate, in one episode (I’m not sure which, if anyone knows please comment), Dr. Pulaski (Diana Muldaur)  refers to Data as [dæta] as opposed to [deita] as he is normally called. Data, in response, corrects Pulaski who then frustratedly says “what’s the difference?” To which Data replies, “One is my name, the other is not.”

So… both pronunciations of the word ‘data’ are accepted, and the character Data certainly is named after the word, roughly meaning ‘information’. But why then is it correct to pronounce Data’s name one way and incorrect the other?

Indeed many people are very defensive about their pronunciation of normal words, but even those that aren’t are usually quick to correct people’s mispronunciation of their own name. It seems to me that names mean much more to us than other words, and we would expect that to be the case. You probably have more memories associated with ‘Alex’ than you do with ‘memorize’. And when we hear someone mispronounce something we have a lot of thoughts, memories, and feelings about it seems much more wrong then if it were any other word being pronounced differently than the way we pronounce it.

Moreover, though there may be numerous acceptable pronunciations of a common word, each proper name deserves it’s own individual pronunciation. Although there are generalizations someone named Maera in one place might pronounce her name [Maira] and another Maera might pronounce her name [Mæra], but certainly both are correct in the case of the individual.

Hmm… just musing.

Because this project was somewhat informal and the number of subjects was fairly small (10 total) it’s hard to say if the results accurately describe a larger population. I also did not do any hard background research but instead only received background information from class and reference from professors here at William and Mary.

http://linguiquium.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/phonetics-experiment.doc

I Think that I’ve decided what I’m interested in doing long term research on:  The linguistics (particularly from a cognitive perspective) involved with real-time internet text chat through means like Internet Relay Chat (IRC), Other Chatrooms, AOL Instant Messager (AIM), Other Instant messaging utilities.  Perhaps with a comparison to spoken language and traditional written language, as well as the primary other forms of internet text communication: e-mail, message boards, etc.

Origin:

Proto-Indo European language speakers move from Caspian sea slowly migrating northwestwardly (as well as other directions).  Over time this group splits into a number of other groups creating a number of language families and distinct populations:  The Hellnics, The Latinates, The Germanics, The Celts, and a number of others and their subgroups.

England (Not yet called England):

England was populated for a long time, but its original speakers are little known of.  The Celts moved in and spoke various dialects of Celtic (primarily Brythonic in England).   In 55 BC England was invaded by Romans (Julius Caesar in particular).  Eventually Romans set up an occupational force and established infrastructure in England.  Around 400-450 AD the Romans left England to go back to defend Rome from various invaders.  The Romans had been defending England from the Picts and the Scots (two other Celtic tribes).  So the inhabitants needed someone to protect them, they hired Angle, Saxon, and Jute mercenaries.  Essentially all of these groups decided to just move their entire populations (or most of them) to England (the land was nicer).  Other than some placenames Brythonic Celtic was essentially wiped out being replaced by the Anglo, Saxon, and Jute Germanic languages.

Charlemagne and the Vikings:

England by about 600 AD is a center of learning and education because they’re largely peaceful while the rest of Europe is a mess of violence, so they once again settle down into a peaceful way of life, relatively unprotected.  Charlemagne has been spending time campaigning around Europe conquering everyone.  He eventually beats the Frisians who were a major trading people in the North Atlantic Ocean.  The Scandanavians who are no longer getting trade goods through the Frisians go out and plunder them from weak places like England.  Charlemagne eventually starts trying to conquer Denmark.  The Danes get tough and push him back.  Once they no longer have to deal with Charlemagne their leaders send their warriors out away from home so they don’t cause trouble domestically.  One of the places they go is to England.  Scandanavian (Viking) settlers/invaders come into England and take over the kingdoms of Northumbria and Mercia, stopping around the border to Wessex.  So during this time there is a split between the old Anglo/Saxon/Jute kingdoms and the Scandanavian Kingdoms that comes to be known as the Danelaw.   The language contact that insued was kind of strange because the Scandanavian languages were very similar to the Germanic languages of the Anglo-Saxons and Jutes.  So there’s a challenging issue in determining word origin between the two sets of languages.  Eventually the contact essentially resulted in a major loss of old inflection systems, producing a much more standardized, mutually intelligible hybrid language.

Soap Opera of Europe and the Normans

So by this time there’s a huge soap opera going on between who should be ruling England.  There’s a big deal with the elected high king and a council of old celtic elders called the wysenmagot or something to that effect.  It’s a very interesting story but it doesn’t really matter that much, the end result is that the Normans (who are French speakers of scandanavian descent) conquer England and take over rulership, and institute French as the language of prestige and learning for the next 200 years.  William the Conqueror invaded in 1066 AD.  So between 1066 and 1266 English and French spend a lot of time merging.  The English input was what is often referred to as Old English and the result was what is now referred to as Middle English (the language of Chaucer and eventually Shakespeare).

Stupid Prince John

King John (the annoying prince in Robin Hood) was a horrible leader, and basically caused the 100 years war, eventually leading to the disestablishment of French in England and the revival of the English language in primary use by nobles and middle-class.

The Plague/The Printing Press

The plague led to a huge increase in the middle class (it’s somewhat complicated as to why but has to do with an upward class-vacuum and a population deficit) this increased use of English as well into the upper/middle classes.  The printing press once it made it to England also standardized the London Dialect of English as the primary one for education and literature (this has a long story involving the war of roses).

That’s about all I know right now, and I shortened it as much as I could without leaving out anything important.

Sycophant:

n. A self-seeking, servile flatter; fawning parasite. (Dictionary.com)

n. A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people. (American Heritage Dictionary)

n. A person who tries to please someone in order to gain a personal advantage. (Wordnet)

In 1537 the word in Latin was Sycophanta, meaning an informer, talebarer or slanderer. This word was directly from the Greek compound of sykon and phanein, sykophantes, meaning “showing the fig.” Showing the fig was an indecent gesture much like “flipping the bird” or presenting one’s middle finger is today. Showing the fig entailed placing ones thumb in between two fingers, while the gesture of giving the fig entailed placing one’s thumb in between the teeth, as in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet,

“Do you bite your thumb at us, sir?”

…

“No, sir, I do not bite my thumb at you, sir, but I bite my thumb, sir.”

A split fig was said to resemble a vulva and was thus an obscene reference, or in those times, “fighting words (gestures)”. The meaning had undergone some change by 1575 in England where it had come to mean “a mean, servile flatterer.”

Semantic Changes

(a) Sykon + phanein compounds the words ‘fig’ and ‘to show’ from Greek into the Latin Sycophanta, meaning ‘fig shower.’

(b) Metonymy occurred concerning the phrase sycophant where ‘showing the fig’ began to be seen as a vulgar reference to the female anatomy.

(c) The word underwent subreption when its meaning changed from ‘a slanderer’ to ‘a servile flatterer.’

Phonetic Changes

(a) Sykon to Syko (Elision), and Phanein to Phanta (Apocope [loss of 'ein'] and Paragoge [addition of 'ta'])

(b) Change from Sycophanta to Sycophant shows Apocope in the removal of the final ‘a’.

Stemwinder:

n.

1. A stemwinding watch.

2. Older Slang.

a. something remarkable of its kind.

b. a rousing speech, esp. a stirring political address.

c. a stirring orator.

(Dictionary.com)

n. A watch that is wound by turning a knob at the stem. (Wordnet)

A stemwinder was a watch that was wound by a stem. When this device was invented (circa 1865-1870) it was a convenient technological advance. Whereas before the stemwinder one had to wind a watch with a special key designed for each specific watch, with its inception the mechanism with which one wound the watch was built into the device itself. The advance was so notable that ‘stemwinder’ became a general term for any sort of new and impressive device.

Semantic Changes

(a) Compounding of words ‘stem’ and ‘winder’ to mean a specific type of watch.

(b) Extension occured whereas the meaning shifted from just a watch to any new and impressive.

(c) Extension occured to also refer to someone who was pursuasive or impressive.

(d) Further extension to include a speech that was impressive or sensational.

Phonetic Changes

Has remained largely the same.

Rollicking:

adj.

1. Carefree and joyous.

2. Swaggering; boisterous.

(Dictionary.com)

v. (to rollick) To behave or move in a carefree, frolicsome manner; romp. (American Heritage Dictionary)

Probably a mixture of the words ‘to roll’ and ‘to frolic’. “Rollicking” appears in print in 1811 in E. Matthews’ Mem. C. Matthews referring to jovial, or boisterously sportive people. The word’s use moved around some to describe many things exuberantly gay or jovial, and clearly shown by 1883 to also mean a joyous escapade. It appears in 1942 in a work of Berrey & Van den Bark in the form of ‘rollicky’ as synonomous with Hilarious.

Semantic Changes

(a) Fusion of words ‘roll’ and ‘frolic’ to connote a rolling frolic.

(b) The use extended from describing only people to also describing actions.

(c) Extension to also mean a sportive frolic or escapade.

(d) The meaning is again extended to include ‘hilarity’ in the form of ‘rollicky’

Phonetic Changes

(a) Form change fusing words ‘roll’ and ‘frolic’ to rollick/rollicking.

(b) Occasionally spelled ‘rollocking’ possibly showing a dialectual vowel shift (/i/ to /o/) or reflecting a dialectual vowel difference seen in other similar words.

Exurbia:

n. a residential area outside of a city and beyond suburbia. (Wordnet).

Exurbia first appears in 1955 describing the area beyond the suburbs of New York City. It was formed by attaching the prefix ‘ex-’ (outside, beyond, no longer) to the last two syllables of ‘suburbia’ forming ‘exurbia’. The word suburb/suburbia itself dates back in writing to 1380, where it appeared in the form of ‘subarbis’. In 1386 Chaucer used the word ‘suburbes’ with it’s modern meaning. ‘Suburbes’ itself visibly resembles the Latin ‘sub’ (under, up to, close to) and ‘urbes’ (city).

Semantic Changes

(a) Productive combination of a pre-existing prefix, ‘ex-’ and a pre-existing bound root ‘urb/urbia’ to describe a new phenomenon.

Phonetic Changes

(a) The change from ‘suburbes’ to ‘suburb’, ‘suburban’, and ‘suburbia’ shows Apocope [removal of 'es'] and Paragoge [addition of '-an' or '-ia'].

(b) Form change to combine the root ‘urbia’ or other form with the prefix ‘ex-’.

University:

n.

1. An institution for higher learning with teaching and research facilities constituting a graduate school and professional schools that award master’s degrees and doctorates and an undergraduate division that awards bachelor’s degrees.

2. The buildings and grounds of such an institution.

3. The body of students and faculty of such an institution.

(American Heritage Dictionary).

Originates from the Latin word ‘universus’ meaning ‘whole, entire’. This meaning was extended to include ‘the whole, aggregate’. From this point the meaning again extended to a ‘corporation, society’ and eventually to ‘institution of higher learning’ also ‘the people of a university’. The original entire phrase that matches the modern meaning of ‘university’ was ‘universitas magistrorum et scholarium’ which means ‘community of masters and scholars’. The phrase was shortened for common use to simply ‘universitas’. From ‘universitas’ it changed to ‘universeté’ and eventually to ‘university’.

Semantic Changes

(a) The move from meaning ‘whole, entire’ to ‘the whole, aggregate’ exhibits extension.

(b) The meaning extended further to include ‘corporation, society’

(c) The meaning of ‘corporation, society’ was used in a phrase describing an institution of learning, then the phrase was shortened to just ‘universitas’. This was effectively subreption.

Phonetic Changes

(a) The change from ‘universus’ to ‘universitas’ exhibits paragoge.

(b) Paragoge again explains the change from ‘universitas’ to ‘universeté’.

(c) A vowel shift then occured changing the /é/ to the /i/ sound (spelled with ‘y’), from ‘universeté’ to ‘university’.

Business:

n.

1.

a. The occupation, work, or trade in which a person is engaged: the wholesale food business.

b. A specific occupation or pursuit: the best designer in the business.

2. Commercial, industrial, or professional dealings: new systems now being used in business.

3. A commercial enterprise or establishment: bought his uncle’s business.

4. Volume or amount of commercial trade: Business had fallen off.

5. Commercial dealings; patronage: took her business to a trustworthy salesperson.

6.

a. One’s rightful or proper concern or interest: “The business of America is business” (Calvin Coolidge).

b. Something involving one personally: It’s none of my business.

7. Serious work or endeavor: got right down to business.

8. An affair or matter: “We will proceed no further in this business” (Shakespeare).

9. An incidental action performed by an actor on the stage to fill a pause between lines or to provide interesting detail.

10. Informal. Verbal abuse; scolding: gave me the business for being late.

11. Obsolete. The condition of being busy.

(American Heritage Dictionary)

Business originally comes from the Northumbrian Old English word ‘bisignisse’ meaning ‘care, anxiety’ which was a form of the word bisig, meaning ‘careful, anxious, busy, occupied’. From the 1300s to the 1400s many semantic extensions of ‘bisig’, which was at this point spelled ‘bisi’ or ‘bisy’, had come into use. These included ‘work, occupation, profession’, ‘activity, briskness’, ‘mischevious or impertinant activity, officiousness’, ‘eagerness, earnestness, importunity’, ‘care, attention, observance’, ‘trouble, difficulty, ado’, ‘a company of flies, or a company of ferrets’, all of which save the first have since suffered obsolescence. Many other extensions of the word developed later including ‘diligent labor, exertion, pains’, ‘a task undertaken, official duty, function’, ‘action which occupies time, demands attention and labor’, ‘a serious employment as distinguished from a pastime’, ‘a particular matter, a piece of work, a job’, ‘a matter that concerns or relates to a particular person or thing’, ‘subject of consideration or discussion, subject of a book’, ‘an affair, concern, matter’, ‘dealings, intercourse’, ‘[in theatre] Action as distinguished from dialogue’, ‘commercial transactions or engagements’, in the form of ‘a man of business’, and as a component in numerous compound words. Many of these uses are still common today. ‘Business’ has been a very busy word, extending itself frequently over the years.

Semantic Changes

(a) From it’s original meaning ‘careful, anxious, occupied’ ‘bisig’ extended many times, often only from it’s form including ‘-ness’.

(b) The original meaning of ‘busy’ underwent subreption, to most commonly mean ‘occupied’.

(c) Many of the new meanings suffered obsolescence.

Phonetic Changes

(a) The change from ‘bisig’ to ‘bisi’ or ‘bisy’ exhibits elision of the final ‘g’.

(b) From the ‘-ness’ form ‘bisiness’ to a vowel shift (/i/ to /u/)at some point to ‘business’ and eventually the reverse (/u/ to /i/) occured in the pronunciation but not in the spelling.

(c) Haplology occured changing ‘business’ to ‘busness’ losing the middle syllable.

(d) A vowel shift occured from the pronunciation ‘bisness’ to ‘bisnis’ /e/ to /i/.

(e) Lenition occured adding more voice to the first s, making ‘bisnis’ more like ‘biznis’.

Works Cited

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 02 Oct. 2006. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/>

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1). Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. 02 Oct. 2006. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/>

Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, 2001. 02 Oct. 2006. <etymonline.com http://www.etymonline.com/index.php>

The Oxford English Dictionary. Electronic Text Center at the University of Virginia, 2006. 03 Oct. 2006. <virginia.edu http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/oed/>

Robertson’s Words for a Modern Age: A Dictionary of Latin and Greek Words used in Modern English Vocabulary. Senior Scribe Publications, 2006. 02 Oct. 2006. <wordinfo.info http://www.wordinfo.info/>

WordNet® 2.0. Princeton University. 02 Oct. 2006. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/>

World Wide Words. Michael Quinion, 2006. 02 Oct. 2006. <worldwidewords.org http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ste3.htm>

I’m thinking about writing about Ablauts/Strong verbs.  These are verbs whose inflection are within the verb itself like: Swim/Swam/Swum, Sing/Sang/Sang, Speak/Spoke/Spoke, etc.  More than just describing them I’d like to discuss the transition between the use of Ablauts to the common verb inflection in English today: Kick/Kicked/Kicked, Smoke/Smoked/Smoked.  Hopefully it will turn out well and not be suicidally hard to research.

I think this is brings up a very interesting line of questioning. It seems to me as though my professor is correct in saying that we think symbolically. I don’t picture every idea in my mind when considering it, but instead I think of the name that I associate that idea with. This follows with cognitive psychology’s ideas of associative networks. So that brings us to the value of names themselves and metaphors.

Names seem entirely arbitrary. It doesn’t matter what the name is once we’ve associated it with an Idea. There are some issues though. What happens when multiple things have the same name, or when there doesn’t seem to be an adequate name to describe something with, and an arbitrary one won’t drive the point home? As my History of English Language professor mentioned today, cultures don’t have names for things that they don’t need names for, but they can generate names for anything. A 2nd century Roman wouldn’t understand the words: spaceship, spacesuit, google, or googol, but we could describe these things to him using his own language so that he could associate these names with ideas. He also mentioned using loan words, after all, why make up a new word when someone else already has one?

At anyrate, my main point here concerns metaphor. Metaphor seems to me to be incredibly powerful. Without attributing a name to something and instead using an entire experience we can describe an idea often more powerfully than had we just used a name. The name is just a node index for our minds to search to pick out a single idea, or a category of ideas. But a metaphor is not limited to one idea or one category of ideas. In conversation with my friend Zan he quoted a line from Shakespeare’s King Henry IV, part 2:
“We have heard the chimes at midnight, Master Shallow.”

When Falstaff says this he means not only that they have literally heard the chimes at midnight, but also that they have experienced a large and encompassing amount of things and feelings. If Shakespeare had instead written,

“We have experienced a great many things, Master Shallow.”

it would be more clearly stating the underlying idea, but neglecting a feeling associated with that idea. By using metaphor we can associate emotion, experience, and additional imagery to an idea or set of ideas.

Perhaps metaphor is language’s most powerfully communicative aspect, or perhaps not. But I would say that our literature and tendancy to base what most consider great works around metaphor is a testament to its brilliance.

Describing things using simile, metaphor, and regular adjectives and how it differs drastically depending upon the subject (He was as ugly as homemade soap, the Stars are sort of like The Postal Service meets Johann Sebastian Bach who has been drinking with the Rolling Stones, That fire hydrant is red, My life is a roller coaster). You get the point.

English has been changing since it’s creation, just like any language. The difference between American English and most other languages is the incredible amount of hybridization that is constantly occuring. As referred to as a cultural melting pot, the States are also a great linguistic melting pot.

So which version becomes 2.0? Ebonics? 1337 Speak? TexMex? Engrish? or what? Well this is part of the problem and the reason that there hasn’t been a huge movement to renovate our language. The concept isn’t really all that new, nations have been implimenting new standards for languages and alphabets since mass communication has been possible, and somewhat before. Korea for example created an original phonetic alphabet in the 20th century and it only took a little over half a century for it to become the primarily used written alphabet.

My ideas for 2.0

-Remember when you learned the alphabet in school? How they tried to explain long vowels and short vowels and they used little symbols to designate which made which sounds. Why don’t we see these after learning about them, they would make reading english much more user-friendly and much more easily standardized so as to prevent the changing pronunciations of “oo” versus “u” versus “o.” Why does the sound have to depend on the word it’s in? Doesn’t this seem a little stupid?

-Along the same lines as above, get rid of types of phonetics that are rare or outdated. Most people mispronounce “climb” as “clime” anyway, so why not change the spelling? The dictionary could be re-written, they make new editions frequently anyway.

-Get rid of stupid grammar rules. I have to hand it to the guys in charge on this one, they’re working on it. It is now somewhat acceptable to verbify words and split infinitives, but there are still a large amount of pointless grammatical rules that are being maintained for reasons no better than tradition.

-I could list a hundred and one specific instances of things that are stupid, but I’m getting tired of ranting, I think you probably get the point.

I do however recognize the challenge that reworking the entire language (and quite a hefty language we have) poses to everyone, speakers and writers alike. What would we have to do to actually change it? Make people interested in simplifying it, on a large scale. That’s really all it takes.