Refactoring English (continued)
Here is a quick, yet certainly incomplete rundown of the rules that a phonetic refactor of English should abide by. First, we will talk about the simple stuff: redundant sounds.
Redundant sounds are things like the hard “C” sound being utilized by K, or the “S” sound utilized by C followed by E. I will list these below, followed by my proposed replacement spelling.
k - c
ce - s
(ending (sometimes) ) ed - t (or) d
ph - f
x - cs
(soft) g - j
Next, let’s discuss vowels. This one is a little more convoluted, but just hear me out. Modify vowel sounds by the letter following the first vowel. For example, “e” would usually make the short sound like in the word “bet.” However, in the word “gene”, we would instead spell it “jeen.” Let’s use “e” to modify vowels to their long sounds. Below is a list of transformations that come to mind.
(long) a - ae
(long) e - ee
(silent) e - (removed)
(long) i - ie
(long) o - oe
(long) u - ue
(vowel) (long) y - ie
(vowel) (short) y - i
To better aid in this rulebook, I have also drafted a version of the Gettysburg Address using these phonetic rules. Some words sound and are spelled the same, while others are completely different. Personally, I found the reading pretty natural in most places that did not involve sandwiched vowel sounds.
“For scor and seven yeerz ugoe owr fothurz brot forth on this continent ae nu naeshun, conseevd in libertee, and dedicaeted tue thu propozishun that ol men ar creeaeted eecwol.
Now wee ar engaejd in ae graet sivul wor, testeeng wethur that naeshun, or anee naeshun soe conseeved and soe dedicaeted, can long enduer. Wee ar met on ae graet batlfeeld uv that wor. Wee hav com tue dedicaet ae porshun uv that feeld, az ae fienul resteeng plaes for thoez hue heer gaev their lievs that that naeshun miet liv. It iz altuegethur fiteeng and proper that wee should do this.
But, in ae larjur sens, wee can not dedicaet—we can not consecraet—we can not haloe—this grownd. The braev men, liveeng and ded, hue strugult heer, hav consecraeted it, far abov owr por powur tue ad or dutract. Thu world wil litul not, nor long reemembur wut wee sae heer, but it can nevur forget wut thae did heer. It iz for us thu liveeng, rathur, tue bee dedicaetaet heer tue thu unfinisht work wich thae hue fot heer hav thus far soe noeblee advanst. It iz rathur for us tue bee heer dedicaeted tue thu graet tasc remaeneeng bufor us—that from theez onord ded wee taek increest duvoeshun tue that coz for wich thae gaev thu last ful mezhur uv duvoeshun—that wee heer hielee ruzolv that theez ded shal not hav died in vaen—that this naeshun, undur God, shal hav ae nue berth uv freedum—and that guvernment uv thu peepul, by the peepul, for thu peepul, shal not perish from thu erth.”
Refactoring English
In the realm of software engineering, we witness daily advancements. Tools that once demanded extensive coding, say a hundred lines in JavaScript back in 2005, now only require a mere two lines in Python. This simplification, although it might seem trivial, represents a profound shift in our approach to problem-solving. It’s known as refactoring.
In the process of refactoring, the code is streamlined, applications run more efficiently, and developers can craft increasingly complex systems in less time. This phenomenon isn't just a technical exercise; it's a core competency for many thriving SaaS enterprises. Not only that, but it also provides a chance to enhance productivity and revisit prior assumptions with a new perspective. The significance of “fresh eyes” in this context cannot be understated, but that is a discussion for another time.
Let's pivot to a conceptual refactoring: the refactoring of the English language itself. To ground things a bit, consider a historical example. In 1755, Samuel Johnson authored the first comprehensive English dictionary - an endeavor I would categorize as a linguistic refactor. Prior to this, the spelling in literary works (exaggerated and exemplified by Shakespeare) was inconsistent and largely phonetic. This variability might have enriched theatrical expressions, but it proved inefficient for disseminating written literature.
Reflect back to our early days of learning, writing the alphabet and struggling through basic phonetics. Words like "cat" or "big" were our initial building blocks, simple and phonetically logical. Yet, as our reading materials grew in complexity, that consistency deteriorated. I still remember, as a first-grader, misreading "naked" as "naekt," a humorous, yet telling example. Though, by the time we move into adulthood, language transitions from a decoding task to a much more intuitive form of communication - it just flows.
Here's a radical proposition: English ought to be refactored - simplified, standardized, and made more accessible, especially for non-native speakers. Consider the potential benefits: a surge in global English proficiency, a reduction in cultural barriers, and an explosion in the global exchange of information.
This is not crazy. We are actually uniquely positioned to make this change. By revising online dictionaries, modifying autocorrect functions across digital devices, and overhauling educational curriculums starting with the incoming kindergarten class, we can bring about a new linguistic era.
In my next post, I'll outline some specific rules that could form the basis for these new spelling standards, derived from the phonetics used today. But make no mistake, this is more than a theoretical exercise - it's a call to action. By leveraging our technological prowess, we could catalyze unprecedented cultural and communicative improvement.