What about English would you change?
19 Answers
what would you change?
This is a perfect question Fred!!!
l will sure change the phrasal verbs!!
check up - check in - check on - check under - check off - check back!!! get up - get in - get on - get off!! back off - back on - back in!!
those verbs are driving me crazy!! 
and hey lets not talk about the spelling!! easiest spelling on earth!! there aren't even any rules!!! 
The crazy spelling.
I know people say, if you had a phonetic system you'd have to keep changing spelling as the language evolves, but surely we can do better than what we currently have?
It must be hell for people to learn as a second language.
...for example to North Americans "schedule" is pronounced "skeh-dule" and to the British it's "sheh-dule".
That particular difference is due to Mr. Webster, who tried to reform the spelling, but with limited success. The British pronunciation takes after the French pronunciation, where "ch" sounds like "sh", while the American one follows Webster's suggestion of using the ancient Greek one. But there are not so many words with such radical differences, and even though you couldn't achieve a single perfectly phonetic spelling for all varieties of English, at least you could come up with one where the spelling at least gives you a clue about how to pronounce the words.
One of the problems of the spelling is that is full of seemingly useless consonants, especially double consonants that no one can ever remember. Why "oppressiveness", if "opresivenes" is shorter, easier, and sounds the same? Or "aggressive", if "agresive" is the same (and closer to other languages)?
Another problem that it has taken spellings from other languages with a much more systematic spelling, and blend them all, while often modifying their original pronunciations. For example, the digraph "ch", which in Spanish is always like in church, in English can be pronounced in at least three different ways:
- ? The ch in words from Old English or Old French (both much more phonetic than their modern counterparts) sound like in "chin" or "church".
- ? The ch from later French sounds like "sh" in "ship", e.g. "chassis", "chic"... and the final consonant is often dropped (something that did not happen in Old French), like "sachet", "debut", "depot", "rapport" or "debris"... or the crippled "corps", which has almost three useless consonants at the end, like "co(r)"
- ? The digraphs kh and ch from old Greek was a common digraph used for the transcription of the Greek letter ?, so words like choir (?????) and chaos "????" sound similar to Greek.
The solution? "chassis" and "chic" could have been written as "shasis" and "shic", and "choir" and "chaos" could be written as "quier / kuier" (or something else) and "caos / kaos" (or else).
You also have the infamous "ough", with up to 10 different possible pronunciations, depending on the variety of English: tough, cough, bough, bought, through, thorough, hiccough , hough and the Scottish lough. Maybe something like "tuf", "couf", "bow", "bort", "thru", "thura"...?
Suppress (-> supres) useless letters, like the D in "debt" or "subtle", the Latin "cae" in "caemia", which sounds like "simia", the L in "walk", "half", "palm"..., or the W in "sword", "wh*re", "wrist" or "wrap". You even have silent "h", like Spanish, but less systematic: "hour", "abhor", "nihilist", "heir", "vehicle", "honest"...
But the worst, by far, is the vowels: antinatal (against being born) and antenatal (before being born) sound the same. "Bite" and "byte", like "board" and "bored", or "born" and "borne", "bear" and "bare", "beat" and "beet", "boy and "buoy", "brake" and "break", "done" and "dun", "earn" and "urn", "sure" and "shore", "ale" and "ail", "shoe" and "shoo", "faint" and "feint", "due" and "dew", or the extreme /ju:/ u – "u", "ewe" and "yew". Basically, there is no pattern whatsoever: any vowel diphthong can be represented in many different ways, and many letter combinations can be pronounced in many different ways. Have you seen how people keep writing "grammer" instead of "grammar"?
And then words like "read", which sound different in past tense, or "tear", which has a sound for pulling apart things with force, but another when you cry. There are quite a few words like these.
I am sure there are many ways to clean up this mess so it fits all English speakers. But those who run spelling contests might not like the idea.
Galsally and I are on the same page:
(1) the spelling;
(2) the spelling; and
(3) did I forget to say, the spelling!! 
To say that English spelling is unsystematized would be a bit misleading. The truth is that there are several systems in place, in fact, if anything, English is probably overly systematized in this regard. I suppose that many who are learning the language find it a bit puzzling, though, that these systems do not always coincide
Call me eccentric, but I am probably one of the few who actually appreciates the inherent peculiarities of English orthography. I find these little orthographic indiosyncracies to be quite charming, and, overall, I believe that they actually add to the richness of the language and allow one better access to peer into the history of the language and to make inferences about the interrelatedness of words that would not be as possible were a more unified system in place.
On the other hand, I can also see how these traits might be a bit less enamoring to one struggling to learn English as a second language, one whose only goal might be to simply converse with the gas station attendant or make sense of a job application. With a more simplified system in place, it would certainly allow elementary school children more time with which to develop their math and science skills.
Even so, and even if everyone doesn't appreciate the differences between "knight" and "night," any changes would be not only unnecessary but detrimental as well.
After all: "To nites ar alwaze betr than won 
Maybe I am odd but I actually love the vagaries of English spelling.
I also love the fact that words spelt differently but pronounced the same have such different meanings. It mad me giggle when I pointed out a typo to a colleague on his website. The sentence I wrote was "You wrote ware, where you meant wear."
I think the eccentricities of the language nicely reflect the eccentricities of the English people. Anyway how on earth could we agree on phonetic spelling, never mind the Americans and the Aussies within the UK we have Scots, Welsh, Irish, never mind Liverpudlians e.t.c., all of whom pronounce words so differently I am surprised any non native can ever understand us all.
I don't think a phonetic spelling would work, because pronounciation differs HUGELY between North America and Britain and Australia and everywhere else, as well as within those regions themselves...for example to North Americans "schedule" is pronounced "skeh-dule" and to the British it's "sheh-dule".
I think we could just do away with crazy spellings like "right". Are the silent "gh" really necessary?
Other than that, I think English is fine...
I would get rid of the word golf, other than that it is just fine.
This conversation reminds me of this I Love Lucy episode. The video is only about 6 minutes long, but if you don't want to watch the whole thing, start watching from about the 3-minute mark.
Too many complaints to mention them all. Lazarus hit many.
I would add that we have some odd verbs that I would get rid of, which have multiple contradictory definitions:
Cleave - this means both "separate" and "join"
Sanction - this means both "penalize" and "authorize"
English is probably overly systematized in this regard. I suppose that many who are learning the language find it a bit puzzling, though, that these systems do not always coincide.
I am far from being an expert in English, but I have read enough to have a rough idea about why the spelling looks the way it does, and I am aware of the influences of other spellings and how the etymology of a word one over other to a great extent. I make typos, like anyone else who doesn't bother re-reading something after typing it fast, but I make very few mistakes compared to most people (without a spelling checker).
My problem with English is that I never know how to read a word I have never heard before (or checked it in a dictionary with its phonetic pronunciation), and my guesses are wrong too often for my taste. Sometimes I can't express myself the way I would like to, because even though I have the right word in my head, and I know how to write it, I don't dare to make a full of myself by risking mispronouncing it. The last one was "deluge", which I attempted to pronounce, and got the usual "What?" because I read it wrong. I hate it! I hate it!!! If there were rules, I would memorize the rules and I would be able to read perfectly, but there aren't rules. Or maybe there is a rule for every four words, so it is not useful.
I've probably said this a thousand times, but when my wife began to learn Spanish, she needed minutes to learn the rules, and now she can read everything in Spanish with absolute clarity. She has never received a puzzled "¿Qué?" from a Spanish speaker, because she can read. I've been learning for many years, and I still can't read!
And it is not just me. Every time I ask one of my colleagues from Biology or Chemistry how to read a very unusual and technical compound, drug or animal that very few people know, their answer is that they don't know, and when they guess, they often guess wrong after I find the proper pronunciation. This is just crazy! And no one dare to tell me that you can read all words, because I will throw at you hundreds of words, and you'll get many of them, if not most of them, wrong.
Even so, and even if everyone doesn't appreciate the differences between "knight" and "night," any changes would be not only unnecessary but detrimental as well.
Middle English spelling was much more phonetic than modern English. "Knight" sounded almost as if a Spaniard attempted to read the word, making the sound of the K, pronouncing the I like in "mi" in Spanish, and the CH like in German (or J in Spanish); a kind of Spanish "k-nijt", and "night" was the same, but without the K. So the K used to serve a purpose: to represent the /k/ sound. Now it is just an ornament, like the H in Spanish.
And if you think that not being able to differentiate knight and night in writing would be a problem, how on earth do you understand each other when you speak, and you can't see the silent K in the other person's lips? Read and read are written the same, and yet you know which one to pronounce. I don't think it would be a problem. The spelling of ball (round object) was originally beal, and ball (the dance) came from bal. Now they have the same spelling even though they used to be different. Is that a big problem in writing?
And no one dare to tell me that you can read all words, because I will throw at you hundreds of words, and you'll get many of them, if not most of them, wrong.
I don't claim to be able to read all the words, for English is certainly tricky. I don't know why or how, but to me it seems as though English natives (intelligent, well read natives*) just have a sense of a word should be pronounced, and more times than not, they are right.
Will they be wrong? Certainly. But the first time I saw "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis", I pronounced it correctly.
I may be wrong, but it's something I've only seen in English natives, the ability to have a feel of how words should be pronounced.
Spelling. French spelling is bad enough as it is, but English spelling certainly beats it. "Ghoti" = fish, falsely attributed to G.B. Shaw, illustrates how absurd English spelling can be : the 'f' of laugh, the "-o" of women, the " -ti "of nation. But in his will Shaw indeed left a portion of his wealth to fund the creation of a new phonemic alphabet for the English language.
In "Finnegans Wake", James Joyce also alludes to ghoti: "Gee each owe tea eye smells fish."
English spelling also inspired a number of people to make it a subject of comical poetry, such as one beginnig with : I take it you already know / Of tough and bough and cough and dough?/ Others may stumble, but not you,/ On hiccough, thorough, lough and through?/ Well done! And now you wish, perhaps,/ To learn of less familiar traps?
One of the things about English that I would change, is that we dumb down our feelings too much. We tend to try and take out emotion and feeling from our voices to try and make us seem strong. This is one of the things I hate about the English language.
The most common mistake I hear from non-native speakers is the word "clothes." They try to pronounce it "clO-th-Es." And simply cannot "get it" when I tell them to simply say the word "close." Maybe because they can't see the "z" in there?
Now that comment is really interesting, Terri!
I always say 'clothes', (soft th) and have always assumed it is laziness or ignorance that causes people to say 'close' in its place. I never knew it would be considered the correct pronunciation by anybody who really thought about language.
I'll be less hasty to judge it as incorrect!
