I may be unusual, but I often think about how language changes naturally and unnaturally. Sometimes, it evolves, and sometimes it changes by the actions of individuals with powerful ideas.
The above could be written:
I may bee unushual, but I often þink abowt how langwidj chanjiz naturaly and unnaturaly. Sumtymz, it evolvez, and sumtymz it chanjez by the akshun ov individualz wiþ powerful ideaz.
þis may bee mor difficult to reed, but þat myt bee a result of familiarity wiþ þe shapes ov words, raþer þan beecoz of anyþhing inherent in þe spellings I am choozing.
You may note I have reintroduced the thorn (þ) from Old English (and still used in Icelandic and related languages). This allows the ‘th’ sounds of English to be created with a single letter, rather than relying upon two letters being together.
We could probably do better – perhaps replace ‘sh’ and ‘ch’ but if we are not careful we could end up replacing English with the phonetic system used by linguists.
In American English, the ‘u’ in colour and odour has been dropped, and the ‘s’ in organise has been replaced by a ‘z’. These changes are part of a change that might well be beneficial – saving some of the intellectual capacity of English learners for more valuable tasks.
These are my main areas of concern:
- ‘k’ in place of the hard ‘c’
- ‘z’ in place of the ‘z’ sounding ‘s’
- ‘v’ in place of the ‘v’ sounding ‘f’
Just þese 3 changes would simplify the language. What do you þink?