Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site sdcrdcf.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!phri!pesnta!hplabs!sdcrdcf!barryg
From: barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Lee Gold)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Spoken English as an "Easy Language"
Message-ID: <2544@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 27-Dec-85 06:14:12 EST
Article-I.D.: sdcrdcf.2544
Posted: Fri Dec 27 06:14:12 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Dec-85 13:22:31 EST
References: <1791@uwmacc.UUCP> <839@h-sc1.UUCP> <1809@uwmacc.UUCP> <842@h-sc1.UUCP> <418@bcsaic.UUCP> <718@spar.UUCP>
Reply-To: barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Lee Gold)
Organization: System Development Corporation R&D, Santa Monica
Lines: 56

Michael Ellis's recent article attempted to establish objective criteria
for easy languages.  I think this is like trying to establish criteria
for "transparent" computer languages.  A language seems easy (or transparent)
if it's like the one you first learned.

As I undertand it, there IS a pattern that all creole languages (languages
formed by a cross between two different languages) tend to fall into.   You
could probably claim this pattern was objectively easy for human beings.
I forget what the creole pattern is though.  Perhaps someone out there
remembers.   In any case, the logically unnecessary features Ellis mentions
(gender, etc.) are part of the necessary redundancy of a spoken language.
English's pattern of adding -s to the third person singular is a redundant
pattern too.  One of my Linguistics professors claimed that ALL languages
ended up having the same degree of redundancy; apparently humans need it
to decode voice input.

Anyway, Ellis seems to be confusing spoken and written English in a number
of his points.  Written English indeed uses a standard -s for most of its
plurals.  Spoken English, however, uses -s, -z, or -uz (schwa z) for
plurals, depending on the word.  (The plural of "cat" is "cats"; the plural
of "form" is "formz"; the plural of "dish" is "dishuz".)

English nouns are divided (in a distinction no native speaer ever notices,
but poor foreigners have to learn) into mass nouns and count nouns.
Mass nouns are counted with counters; count nouns are counted with
numbers.  Dish, glass, computer are count nouns.  However, you don't
count one bread, two breads, three breads.  You count bread (or toast) with
slices, milk with glasses, scissors (and shoes) with pairs, etc.

One aspect of English that those whose native langauge lacks it find VERY
hard to learn is the article.  When does a noun take no article, the
definite article (the), or the indefinite article (a)?

I never got around to taking Teaching English as a Second Language or I
could probably write a book on the difficulties of English, both spoken
and written, instead of merely the few paragraphs above.

English spelling is NOT abominable.  It was, of course, rather more phonetic
when it was set, back in the days that the distinction between the open
and closed e had not disappeared and so was preserved by spelling one
"ie" or "ee" and the other as "ea" (or so claimed my Linguistic professors).
However, English is best regarded as a morphonetically spelled languaged.
Its spelling shows you the origin of a word and its relation to other words.
For instance, "sign" and "signify" are related in spelling though totally
unrelated in pronunciation.

Moreover, consider the horror of an English spelled phonetically.
According to whose pronunciation?  British (Oxcam?  Yorkshire?  Devon?),
American (Virginian?  Bostonian?  Californian?), Australian?  I had an
Australian friend phone me once to tell me (seemingly) that he wouldn't be
writing me for awhile because the mile was on strike.  I asked how the
kilometer was working, then realized he meant the mailmen were striking.
I shudder at the thought of reading letters written in phonetic
Australian.

--Lee Gold