Đis Kould Get Silly

Does it seem like one of the surest ways to spot a crank is when they start complaining about how irrational the rules are in the English language?

The rules are kind of irrational compared to other languages, but this is because English is one of the most acquisitive languages ever to thrive; it’s collected words from pretty much every language it’s encountered — like the Borg, it assimilates other languages’ distinctiveness and makes them its own. As a result, the pronunciations of various letter combinations can differ wildly depending on which language family we stole them from.

Seems to me since we already steal words, we could address some of this by stealing letters from other languages as well. It would be far simpler to tell which sound associated with th is intended if we were to dump th in favor of Đ and Þ; ðen I þink ðere would be a good deal less confusion. In fact, we could do away wiþ a lot of our difþong problem by raiding oðer alfabets or, you know, ditching unnecessary combinations like ph altogeðer.

And why do we need ðe letter C when we already have K and S? Talk about unnesessary! Đe only þing C is good for is ðe ch sound, so why not re-employ C to do someþing useful for a cange? As for sh, ðe Syrillik alfabet has ðe perfektly good Ш — it шould work just as well for us as for ðem, шouldn’t it? Or would it? Maybe ðat kould use some more þought.

Oh, and ðose instanses where we use whole silent kombinations of letters, like ðe “ugh” in þought? Yeah, I þot not. You mit þink ðis kould get pretty ruf (gh is anoðer unnesessary difþong, when it izn’t part ov a silent slug of Engliш’s pointless letteraj) but I þink it’s worþ taking a canse. It kan only make Engliш eziir tu understand!

And furðermore, when do we ever use Q wiþout U? Let’s dispense wiþ ðe U in ðoze wordz, and be qik about it! It’s —

What’s ðat? Time for my medikaш’nz?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *