There was once a topic around here about the english language but I can't seem to find it, so this one will have to do. The reason for posting is below... but the topic I originally had in mind to post under is interesting too so why not repeat it as well. Here it is:
<hr>
Let's face it -- English is a crazy language. There is no egg in eggplant nor ham in hamburger; neither apple nor pine in pineapple. English muffins weren't invented in England or French fries in France. Sweetmeats are candies while sweetbreads, which aren't sweet, are meat.
We take English for granted. But if we explore its paradoxes, we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig. And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing, grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham? If the plural of tooth is teeth, why isn't the plural of booth beeth? One goose, two geese. So one moose, two meese?
Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend, that you comb thru annals of history but not a single annal? If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it? If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught? If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat? If you wrote a letter, perhaps you bote your tongue?
Sometimes I think all the English speakers should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane. In what language do people recite at a play and play at a recital? Send shipments by car and send cargo by ship? Have noses that run and feet that smell?
How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man and wise guy are opposites? How can overlook and oversee be opposites, while quite a lot and quite a few are alike? How can the weather be hot as hell one day and cold as hell another?
Have you noticed that we talk about certain things only when they are absent? Have you ever seen a horseful carriage or a strapful gown? Met a sung hero or experienced requited love? Have you ever run into someone who was combobulated, gruntled, ruly or peccable? And where are all those people who ARE spring chickens or who would ACTUALLY hurt a fly?
You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which your house can burn up as it burns down, in which you fill in a form by filling it out and in which an alarm clock goes off by going on.
English was invented by people, not computers, and it reflects the creativity of the human race (which, of course, isn't a race at all). That is why, when the stars are out, they are visible, but when the lights are out, they are invisible. And why, when I wind up my watch, I start it, but when I wind up this essay, I end it.
http://www.netjeff.com/humor/item.cgi?file=english.txt
<hr>
The one I had in mind for today is this.
A DREAM COME TRUE
If he had not tried to rush it, George Bernard Shaw might have succeeded in giving the English-speaking people a phonetic alphabet. Says the "Smithsonian Torch", a slim house organ put out by the Smithsonian Institute for the museum set: "We are in complete accord with Bernard Shaw's campaign for a simplified alphabet. But instead of immediate drastic legislation, we advocate a modified plan. In 1957, for example, we would urge the substitution of 's' for soft 'c'. Sertainly students in all sities of the land would be reseptive to this. In 1958, the hard 'c' would be replased by 'k' sinse both letters are pronounsed indentikally. Not only would this klarify the konfusion in the minds of spellers, but typewriters and linotypes kould all be built with one less letter and all the manpower and materials previously devoted to making the 'c's kould be used to raise the national standard of living. In the subsequent blaze of publisity it would be announsed that the troublesome 'ph' would henseforth be written 'f'. This would make words like 'fonograf' 20 persent shorter in print. By 1959, publik interest in a fonetik alfabet kan be expekted to have reatshed a point where more radikal prosedures are indikated. We would urge at that time the elimination of al double leters witsh have always ben a nuisanse and desided deterent to akurate speling. We would al agre that the horible mes of silent 'e's in our language is disgraseful. Therfor, in 1961, we kould drop thes and kontinu to read and writ merily along as though we wer in an atomik ag of edukation. Sins by this tim it would be four years sins anyon had usd the letr 'c', we would then sugest substituting 'c' for 'th'. Kontinuing cis proses year after year, we would eventuali hav a reali sensibl writen languag. By 1975, wi ventyur to say cer wud bi no mor uv ces teribli trublsum difikultis. Even Mr. Shaw, wi beliv, wud bi hapi in ce noleg cat his drims finali kam tru."
<ul><li><a href="http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,809443,00.html">Time Magazine, May 6, 1957</a></li>
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 43,00.html </ul>
<hr>
PS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_a ... h_Language
or people of indeterminate sexuality. And for the record the Fortnights are "officially" cousins. (but they look like men).
