── ITT We try to improve (ruin) the English language ──
/language/ thread 1769406155 posts: 17
DIR ← back to /language/
DIR [reply to this thread]
>> 1 Anonymous Linguist 2026-01-26 05:42 ID:5NfxflJz
I'll start off with a completely original and much needed proposition; replacing C, Q, and X with K.
These letters, besides from being an anagram of another thing we do not need, can easily be replaced by K. K and S for Cs respective hard and soft forms, K for Q, and a KS for X.
I do not know how C has not been split already, surely my ancestors weren't this stupid! K and S are so much more easier to decipher, you have to memorize the word when it comes to C. Please! Just give me a S and be done with it, I don't want to have a letter that could easily stand for another sound.
Meanwhile, Q is just embarrassing to have around, least used letter of all, why even bother with it? Tradition? Etymological marking? Oh please.
And finally for X, what's the point of having a letter for two other letters? Just nonsensical, just orthographic bloat.
>> 2 Anonymous Linguist 2026-01-28 17:28 ID:Heaven
If youre doing this, get rid of the convention to flip your ending ers and els for most words. Only reason to do this is to stop confusion around soft versions of letters.
Little > Littel
Apple > Appel
Muscle > Mussel
Pestle > Pestel
Sabre > Saber
Calibre > Kaliber
Some with have to stay in their ways though, or else cause other problems.
Fire > Fier
Genre > Gener
Mule > Muel
>> 3 Anonymous Linguist 2026-02-12 02:55 ID:5NfxflJz
Get rid of the gh digraph. It represents a sound we no longer make in English, why should we be writing it down in the first place?
Right to Rite
Tough to Tuff
Knight to Knite
Straight to Strait
Eight to Eit
Laugh to Laff
Ought to Awt
And so on...
>> 4 Anonymous Linguist 2026-02-23 09:28 ID:MetS9/+b
>>1
Cheese would have a word.
>> 5 Anonymous Linguist 2026-03-03 14:44 ID:EevwVDXI
>>4
The ch digraph would mostly be exempt from this as it actually stands for a different sound that cant be replicated by k. It has more of a tsh sound than a k sound
>> 6 Anonymous Linguist 2026-03-04 19:40 ID:CaZmgOvM
>>4
C for the sound in cello
K for the sound in cottage
S for the sound in ceiling
Ergo cheese -> ceez
>> 7 Anonymous Linguist 2026-03-04 19:46 ID:CaZmgOvM
>>6
Expanding on this, digraphs should not exist at all because they are the least phonetic (i.e. th is not t+h; ch is not c+h; sh is debatable because it kind of is a breathy s but theres more to it than that) and are purely abstract constructions for missing letters. I don't know what to do with th and sh though without adding new letters
>> 8 Anonymous Linguist 2026-03-08 16:30 ID:+k43fXcS
>>7
Bring back the letters thorn/eth for th. They were only dropped in the first place because of German printing press imports back in the day.
>> 9 Anonymous Linguist 2026-03-12 23:07 ID:MXyzrgyF
Standardize the ea, like what the Americans did to ae and oe
Great > Greit
Peat > Peet
Dead > Ded
Mead > Meed
Pearl > Perl
>> 10 Anonymous Linguist 2026-04-14 12:34 ID:a26idclZ
>>7
What about adding a new logographic symbol to declare a changed word? Something simple like adding a stroke to the prexisting h (ħ) or maybe a new symbol entirely (Ⱶ, Ꝭ, ꝸ, Ꝝ?)
>> 11 An observation about the english language 2026-04-20 03:09 ID:E4jgmJrS
Some of the earliest spoken words in the english language have, I believe, unrecognised significance in their spelling.
Observe the words DADDY and MOMMY: two words that represent our long-understood parental roles. Did you notice that both follow a fixed logical structure? It’s as follows:
(consonant) (vowel) (consonant) (consonant) Y
This clearly sets up a linguistic pattern, and indeed implies the existence of (at minimum) 3 further types of “parents”.
By extending this pattern across other vowels, (with relevant local consonants chosen by majority poll*), we can hypothesise the existence of these parental roles beyond the standard two that are typically understood (“hyperparents”).
DADDY: Protective/Authoritative parentGEGGY: Educative/Knowledge-bearing parentKIKKY: Expressive/Visual parentMOMMY: Physical/Nurturing parentTUTTY: Spiritual/Transitional parentI see this as a spectrum of parenthood.
Our leading theory is that, as a fledgling intellectual species, we mainly limit ourselves to the historical DADDY and MOMMY and thus fail to identify any hyperparents in our standard speech or parental structure (perhaps due to the physical threats present throughout the majority of human history, these roles may have been the most necessary).
My research suggests that hyperparental roles may be increasingly adopted in part by one or more “standard” parents as an alter-ego in our modern age.
This concept of “layering” parental archetypes allows us to posit a sixth archetype, that presides over the other 5:
ZYZZY: Transcendental Meta-parent*Determining the specific consonants proved straightforward: evidence already exists that concepts shape the language used to describe them, that there exists an inherent “truth” to certain sounds or phrases in the mind of the collective consciousness (see the Bouba-Kiki effect or one of many non-onomatopoeia words that remain consistent across different, isolated cultures e.g. “dog”). Indeed, this approach took two passes; one to determine the three correct names, and one to determine the definition of said names - trials with sample size >500 begin to show clear consensus due to linguistic bias.
>> 12 Anonymous Linguist 2026-05-19 15:38 ID:JnRCOJAl
You know how English has those words used for groups of animals? A rafter of turkeys, pride of lions, murder of crows? Let's expand that to include ethnic groups as well.
A gang of African-Americans.
A klan of Whites.
A mob of Italians.
A caust of Jews.
>> 13 Anonymous Linguist 2026-05-20 18:03 ID:Heaven
harvest mites
>> 14 Anonymous Linguist 2026-06-13 00:30 ID:Heaven
>>12
this already exists you niggardly poltroon
>> 15 Anonymous Linguist 2026-06-22 04:49 ID:5NfxflJz
Name some examples >>14kun
>> 16 Anonymous Linguist 2026-07-14 12:31 ID:AVEgF1N1
>>10
The problem with adding symbols is that people tend to lazy out of using any characters that aren't on the keyboard if they can rather than have to deal with using charmap or whatever. I've seen conlangs that try to dodge this by (ab)using symbols like # that already exist on English keyboards but IMO those look gross as a result, like some sort of 1337speak.
>> 17 Anonymous Linguist 2026-09-20 14:37 ID:a2oWtPk3
My suggestion for balancing phonetic spelling with preserving the look and etymologic spelling of words would be to focus on vowels first. The following vowel expanded orthography comes in a conservative form, which leaves consonants as is, and a progressive form, which simplifies and systematizes some spellings:
a/e/o/u/i are always monothongs and roughly correspond to their IPA counterparts, as in what, where whu (who) and fish.ae as in fae and oa as in oatmeal indicate their own vowel sounds. Stressed double e as in keen is changed into ie as in kien.yu indicates a rising U as in fyury (fury).au/ao/ou/ue indicate diphtongs with a W glide, as in gaut (gout), flouw/flou (flow) throuw/throu (threw), hueman (human).ay/ey/oy/iy indicate diphtongs with an I glide, as in maey (may), fley (flay), choyce (choice) and criy (cry).Before c/t i/iy/ie are changed into y/yi/ye to indicate, that the consonant isn't palatalized, so king could be written as cyng (which looks reminiscent of the Old-English cyning).c before e can be changed to z, to better differentiate its sound.Silent e and the various consonant clusters signaling stress, stops and vowel length are preserved, but you can systematize some of them, as in iylande (island).Some further samples:
chioclete/cioclete
missiyle
miycelium/miyzelium
natiurel
sovereygn
striet
qiyue/cyiyue
DIR [reply to this thread]
DIR ← back to /language/
HTML Open this thread on the web