"SCULPTING" AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE

AVITW

I SEE WHERE THE WORLD POPULATION IS APPROACHING 7 BILLION AND IT IS REPORTED THAT THOSE 7 BILLION HUMANS HAVE DEVELOPED APPROXIMATELY 7 THOUSAND LANGUAGES, NONE OF WHICH FILLS THE NEED TO “COMMUNICATE” OUTSIDE OF THE “TRIBAL GROUPINGS” THAT EVOLVED FROM RACE; RELIGION; ETHNICITY; NATIONALITY; AND CULTURAL PREJUDICE.

A FEW ELITE INDIVIDUALS HAVE DEVELOPED COMMUNICATION SKILLS IN MORE THAN ONE LANGUAGE, BUT, NONE APPROACH THE LEVEL NEEDED FOR UNIVERSAL PEACE AND COOPERATION BETWEEN “TRIBES”, ASSUMING THAT IS A REASONABLE GOAL TO WHICH “HUMANS” MIGHT ASPIRE.

IT OCCURRED TO TOM, (NEE, “THE OLD MAN”) THAT THERE ARE SOME THINGS OF VALUE AMID THE TRAVAILS OF EARTHLY EXISTENCE. OF THESE, PEACE, HEALTH AND LOVE SEEM TO ENDURE. THAT IS NOT TO DENY THE EXISTENCE OF OTHER VALUABLE PURSUITS, SUCH AS LEARNING, MENTAL AND PHYSICAL PLEASURES AND THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ONES GOALS, BE THEY MUNDANE, AS IN FINANCIAL SECURITY, OR ESOTERIC, AS IN PARTICIPATION IN THE INSTITUTIONS OF A GIVEN SOCIETY IN SERVICE TO OTHERS.

THESE ENDEAVORS MAY BE EXPERIENCED AT VARYING LEVELS, E.G. PERSONAL, COMMUNITY, COUNTRY OR WORLDWIDE AND IT SEEMS OBVIOUS THAT THE GREATER THE SCOPE, THE GREATER THE POTENTIAL FOR GOOD. AT THE PRESENT TIME, EACH LANGUAGE SEEMS TO EXIST AT TWO LEVELS E.G. A LOCAL DIALECT (VULGAR?) AND A STANDARD VERSION, WHICH IS MORE OR LESS USEFUL FOR THOSE WHO CLAIM IT TO BE THEIR “NATIVE TONGUE”, ALBEIT WITH SOME DISCREPANCIES AMONG THE USERS, IF ONE CONSIDERS “ENGLISH” AS SPOKEN IN GREAT BRITAIN VERSUS THE U.S.A. OR AUSTRALIA.

WHAT IS OBVIOUSLY MISSING, SINCE FEW INDIVIDUALS CAN CLAIM FLUENCY IN THE PREDOMINANT LANGUAGES OF THE WORLD, SAID TO APPROXIMATE 30, IS SOME FORM OF COMMUNICATION THAT WOULD ALLOW “ANY” EDUCATED PERSON TO CONVERSE WITH HIS/HER COUNTERPART IN ANY REGION OF THE GLOBE. THAT THIS IDEA IS NOT ORIGINAL IS ACKNOWLEDGED. THE AUTHOR IS WELL AWARE OF NUMEROUS ATTEMPTS TO DECLARE, OR DEVELOP THIS OR THAT LANGUAGE INTO A UNIVERSAL ONE, E.G. LATIN, FRENCH, ESPERANTO OR EVEN “PIDGIN ENGLISH”.

WHAT IS EVEN MORE INCREDIBLE, AT LEAST TO TOM, IS THE “LACK OF INTEREST” IN PURSUING SUCH AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF SUPPOSEDLY ADVANCED SOCIETIES. ONE WASTES WHATEVER ACUMEN ONE POSSESSES BY DEALING WITH THE PLETHORA OF ABSURDITIES UTILIZED TO AVOID THIS ACHILLES HEEL IN WORLD ORDER. THE TIME SEEMS LONG PAST FOR AN INTERNATIONAL MEANS OF COMMUNICATION.

WHILE CERTAIN PAROCHIAL INTERESTS HAVE ATTEMPTED, FOR PRIVATE GAIN, TO INSTITUTE AN ELECTRONIC FORM OF TRANSLATION, THOSE WITH MORE THAN A MODICUM OF ABILITY TO CONVERSE IN MORE THAT ONE LANGUAGE, UNDERSTAND THAT THE DEFICIENCIES OF SUCH PROGRAMS ARE OBVIOUS TO THE POINT OF ABSURDITY. OF COURSE, THAT “COULD” CHANGE, BUT, PROBABLY NOT IN MY LIFETIME.

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT NO EXISTENT LANGUAGE, FROM LATIN TO CHINESE, POSSESSES THE CHARACTERISTICS NECESSARY TO QUALIFY IT TO ASSUME THIS VITAL ROLE IN MODERN SOCIETY. HOWEVER, THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUCH A LANGUAGE WOULD MEAN THAT EDUCATED INDIVIDUALS WOULD ONLY NEED TO BE “BILINGUAL” IN ORDER TO COMMUNICATE WITH LIKE INDIVIDUALS IN ANY CORNER OF THE WORLD.

THE AUTHOR DOES ACKNOWLEDGE THE SOCIAL IMPERATIVE, MOSTLY AMONG THE LOWER CLASSES, TO BE TRILINGUAL, I.E. TO SPEAK THE VULGAR VERSION OF THE LANGUAGE OF THEIR CULTURE. IT IS POSTULATED THAT THIS NEED WILL NOT DISAPPEAR UNLESS THERE ARE SEVERE, BUT UNFORESEEABLE, CHANGES IN WORLD DEMOGRAPHICS. FOR NOW, IT MUST BE ASSUMED THAT THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A SEGMENT OF EVERY SOCIETY THAT IS UNABLE, UNWILLING, OR LACKING IN OPPORTUNITY TO ATTAIN THE STATUS OF BEING “EDUCATED”. THEREFORE, THE EXISTENCE OF AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE MAY NOT MEET THE COMMUNICATION NEEDS FOR THESE UNFORTUNATE INDIVIDUALS.

AT THIS POINT IN THE HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION AND, LACKING ANY OTHER VIABLE ALTERNATIVE, THE AUTHOR HAS THE TEMERITY TO SUGGEST THAT THE MOST VIABLE LANGUAGE PRESENTLY AVAILABLE TO SERVE AS A BASIS FOR WORLDWIDE COMMUNICATION IS “AMERICAN ENGLISH”. THIS IS NOT BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE ITSELF IS SO STRUCTURED, BUT BECAUSE, IT SEEMS TO BE THE MOST COMMONLY ACQUIRED SECOND LANGUAGE IN ALL COUNTRIES AND, FORTUNATELY, IT HAS A PLETHORA OF “EXCESSIVE CHARACTERISTICS” WHICH COULD BE ELIMINATED TO FORM A RATIONAL INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE.

ONE CHALLENGE FACING OUR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IS THE NEED TO TEACH “STANDARD ENGLISH” TO THE MULTITUDES WHO PRESENTLY SPEAK ONLY THE “VULGAR FORM”. ESSENTIALLY, THESE INDIVIDUALS NEED TO BECOME BILINGUAL IN THEIR OWN TONGUE. THIS “REALITY” WAS DELIGHTFULLY EXPOUNDED UPON IN THE CINEMATIC PRODUCTION OF G.B.S.’S PYGMALION ENTITLED “MY FAIR LADY”. THE “REWARDS” THAT AWAIT THOSE WHO MASTER “STANDARD ENGLISH” ARE AS EVIDENT AT EVERY LEVEL OF ECONOMIC SUCCESS IN THIS COUNTRY AS THEY WERE FOR “LIZA” IN HER ENDEAVORS. FOR THOSE PROFICIENT IN STANDARD ENGLISH AND FOR THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WORLDWIDE WHO HAVE STUDIED ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE, WITH VARYING DEGREES OF SUCCESS, THE TRANSITION TO INTERNATIONAL ENGLISH SHOULD PROVE TO BE A MINOR INCONVENIENCE. SADLY, THE FAILURE TO TEACH STANDARD ENGLISH IN OUR SCHOOLS IS THE CROWNING DISGRACE WITHIN THE PRESENT SYSTEM. OF COURSE, MANY OF THE TEACHERS, WELL PROTECTED BY “UNION RULES” AND “POLITICAL CORRECTNESS” (E.G. THE “THREAT” OF LAWSUITS UNDER THE “GUISE OF DISCRIMINATION”), LACK SUCH SKILLS, BUT, I DIGRESS.

A WELL KNOW SCULPTOR REPORTEDLY OBSERVED THAT THE BEAUTY OF HIS WORK EXISTED WITHIN EACH PIECE OF MARBLE AND IT WAS ONLY NECESSARY FOR HIM TO STRIP AWAY THE UNNECESSARY PARTS SURROUNDING EACH ONE IN ORDER TO DISCOVER THAT BEAUTY WITHIN. USING THAT ANALOGY, TOM SUGGESTS THAT IT IS ONLY “NECESSARY” TO ELIMINATE AND OR MODIFY THE “VAGARIES” OF AMERICAN ENGLISH, THAT ONLY SERVE TO CONFUSE THOSE WHO WOULD LEARN IT, IN ORDER TO “CREATE” A “MORE PERFECT” INTERNATIONAL VERSION.

IT MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THOSE FEW WHO EARN THEIR LIVING BY PERPETUATING THE ARCHAIC RULES OF SPEECH AND THOSE WHO SERVE AS “TRANSLATORS” WILL, IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, OBJECT STRONGLY TO ELIMINATING THEIR SOURCE OF INCOME. LIKEWISE, THOSE WHO WISH TO MAINTAIN THE TRADITIONAL FORM OF ENGLISH OUT OF A MISPLACED LOYALTY TO PERPETUATING THE PROBLEMS IT CAUSES IN COMMUNICATION WILL PROBABLY JOIN THE FRAY.

HOWEVER, “IF” THE PURPOSE OF LANGUAGE IS TO COMMUNICATE (ANOTHER SUBJECT FOR DEBATE, TO BE SURE, SINCE MANY GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS, AS WELL AS MANY COMPANIES AND THEIR LAWYERS, USE LANGUAGE TO OBSCURE ANY MEANINGFUL COMMUNICATION), THEN THE MANY “LANDMINES” (DIFFICULTIES IN SPELLING, PRONUNCIATION, CONJUGATION, PARTS AND TENSES OF SPEECH, ET. AL.) PRESENTLY ENCOUNTERED IN AMERICAN ENGLISH NEED TO BE ELIMINATED OR SIMPLIFIED, THUS ALLOWING MOST PEOPLE TO ACQUIRE THE SKILL OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION IN ADDITION TO WHATEVER SKILLS THEY MIGHT POSSESS IN SPEAKING THEIR NATIVE LANGUAGE CORRECTLY. SHOULD VARIOUS GROUPS DESIRE TO PERPETUATE THE “VULGAR” FORM OF THEIR PARTICULAR LANGUAGE, IT IS SUGGESTED THAT “THE STREETS”, NOT INSTITUTIONS OF LEARNING ADDICTED TO “POLITICALLY CORRECT PERMISSIVENESS”, ARE THE PROPER FORUM FOR THIS ENDEAVOR.

AT THIS POINT, THE AUTHOR WISHES TO ACKNOWLEDGE HIS LIMITS WITH RESPECT TO THE STRUCTURE OF LANGUAGES PRIOR TO SUGGESTING “SOME” PROMISING MODIFICATIONS LEADING TO THE CREATION OF AN INTERNATIONAL MEANS OF COMMUNICATION. LONG AGO, I ENCOUNTERED THE ONE PERSON I BELIEVE HAD BOTH THE INTELLIGENCE AND EDUCATION TO “ASSIST IN CREATING” SUCH A LANGUAGE. ALAS, SHE WAS “MUCH TOO INTELLIGENT” TO UNDERTAKE SUCH A TASK, SO IT REMAINS FOR TOM TO PROVIDE THE “HUMBLE BEGINNINGS” OF SUCH A PROJECT.

AS PSYCHOLOGISTS AND PHILOSOPHERS READILY ADMIT, WHEN THEY “STUMBLE” ON A SMALL “ORIGINAL NUANCE” WITHIN THEIR AREA, THEY ARE SIMPLY “BUILDING” ON THE WORK OF THOSE WHO CAME BEFORE AND ARE MINDFUL THAT THOSE WHO COME AFTER MAY ENCOUNTER YET “BETTER UNDERSTANDINGS” BASED ON THEIR PERCEPTIONS. TOM WISHES THEM WELL. STILL, LIKE JULES VERNE, WHO COULD CONCEPTUALIZE TRAVELING TO THE MOON, BUT LACKED THE ENGINEERING KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS, THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME OBVIOUS FUNDAMENTALS READILY AVAILABLE TO BEGIN THE TASK OF RESTRUCTURING THE “CAMEL” KNOWN AS STANDARD AMERICAN ENGLISH.

A FINAL CAVEAT: THE AUTHOR DOES NOT TAKE THE POSITION THAT CONTEMPORARY ENGLISH NEEDS TO, OR SHOULD BE, REPLACED. AS IN THE PAST WITH ELIZABETHAN OR KING JAMES ENGLISH, THERE IS A CERTAIN RICHNESS INHERENT IN THE LANGUAGE WHICH IS UNIQUE AND LENDS ITSELF TO THE CREATION OF AN EVEN RICHER VERSION OF THE “NOT SO ORIGINAL” AMERICAN VERSION. AT THE TIME OF WRITING, “CHICK FLICK” AND “BIKINI WAX” SEEM TO HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE LEXICON. ONE WONDERS HOW “THE TRIBE” SURVIVED WITHOUT THESE “GEMS”? SOME EVIDENCE OF THIS MERIT ALSO LIES IN THE FACT THAT CERTAIN WORDS AND PHRASES FROM AMERICAN ENGLISH HAVE ALREADY BEEN INCORPORATED INTO OTHER LANGUAGES WITHOUT TRANSLATION, ALBEIT WITH SOME INTERESTING VARIATIONS IN PRONUNCIATION AND SIGNIFICANCE.

LIKE THE MOSQUITO AT A NUDIST CAMP, ONE WONDERS WHERE TO BEGIN. HOWEVER, WHEN MOVING A MOUNTAIN, ONE MUST START, NOT SIT AND STARE AT EACH BOULDER TO DECIDE WHICH ONE GOES FIRST. PERHAPS IT IS WELL TO START WITH THE ALPHABET. THE AUTHOR (ALONG WITH OTHER “ASTUTE” OBSERVERS, USUALLY INVOLVED IN ENTERTAINMENT AND ADVERTISING) HAS NOTICED THAT CERTAIN LETTERS SEEM REDUNDANT AND COULD POSSIBLY BE ELIMINATED, OR SUBSTITUTED ACCORDING TO THEIR SOUND, THE PREMISE BEING THAT SIMPLICITY, WHICH DOES NOT SACRIFICE SIGNIFICANT MEANING, IS PREFERABLE TO COMPLEXITY. THEREFORE, THE INTERNATIONAL VERSION OF THE ALPHABET (ALFABET?) MAY NOT NEED TO USE 26 LETTERS OR MAY COMBINE THEM IN DIFFERENT WAYS. FOR EXAMPLE, “C + ANY VOWEL” WHICH HAS A “K” SOUND (COME/KUM) IS PROBABLY SUPERFLUOUS.

THERE ARE OTHER LETTERS, LIKE “Y”, THAT HAVE SOME VALUE AT THE BEGINNING OF WORDS, BUT, ONLY ADD TO THE CONFUSION AT THE END OF A WORD. “PROBABLY” AND “OBVIOUSLY” READILY COME TO MIND. :-) IT IS ALSO SUGGESTED THAT “MISLEADING COMBINATIONS” INVOLVING DUPLICATE VOWELS AND/OR DIPHTHONGS (REED/READ) SHOULD ALSO BE EXAMINED, IF NOT BANNED COMPLETELY. FINALLY, FOR NOW, WHERE “T” HAS AN “S” SOUND, MANY DIFFICULT WORDS WOULD BECOME “RATIONAL” IF THE SOUND TOOK PRECEDENCE OVER TRADITION, E.G. PRODUCTION (PRODUKSHUN).

IN A RATIONAL LANGUAGE, A VOWEL WOULD BE REFLECTED IN THE SOUND AND SPELLING, NOTHING MORE OR LESS. THE ELIMINATION OR MODIFICATION OF “ARCHAIC” MODES OF SPELLING, WITH LETTERS THAT HAVE NO SOUND IN PRONUNCIATION, IS ALSO AN IMPORTANT PART OF “CREATING” AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE. EVEN “PHONICS” (FONIKS) MUST BE CONSIDERED “AN OXYMORON” AND THE “SILENT “E” USELESS (USLES). IT DID SEEM IRONIC TO TOM THAT SOME “DEFENDERS” OF THE PRESENT SYSTEM USED THE RATIONALE THAT, WITHOUT SUCH “IDIOSYNCRASIES”, SPELLING BEES WOULD CEASE TO EXIST. PERHAPS THAT “SACRIFICE” WOULD NOT BE SO DISASTROUS IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS.

ACTUALLY, ONE WONDERS IF SUCH PERCEPTIONS THAT MIGHT NOT BE “PRIMA FACIE” EVIDENCE OF THE VALUE OF “PHONICS” WHICH WOULD ALLOW MANY, IF NOT ALL, OF THE YOUNGER GENERATION TO READ AND WRITE AS THEY ALREADY SPEAK, WITHOUT MASTERING “STANDARD, BUT, ILLOGICAL ENGLISH”. THE SAME “ARGUMENT” CAN BE MADE FOR ELIMINATING THE PRESENT “SYSTEM” OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES AND REPLACING IT WITH “METRICS”, AS HAS HAPPENED THROUGHOUT THE WORLD “EXCEPT” IN OUR OWN “ENLIGHTENED” COUNTRY. SOME THOUGHTFUL INDIVIDUALS SEE MANY OF THE PROBLEMS IN EDUCATION, NOT WITHIN THE STUDENTS, BUT IN “WHAT” IS BEING TAUGHT, BUT, THAT IS ANOTHER SUBJECT.

ANOTHER DIFFICULTY WITH STANDARD ENGLISH LIES IN THE USE OF DIFFERENT SOUNDS FOR THE SAME LETTER, WHEREAS, SOME OTHER LANGUAGES, WHICH ARE MUCH EASIER TO LEARN AND UNDERSTAND, USE ONLY ONE SOUND FOR EACH VOWEL. HOWEVER, TOM SUGGESTS THAT THEREIN LIES “ONE” OF THE BEAUTIES OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. VOWELS THAT HAVE ONLY ONE SOUND LIMIT THE VOCABULARY POSSIBLE. STILL, BEGINNING WITH THE VOWELS, PERSONS WHO STUDY ENGLISH ARE CONFOUNDED BY THE LONG AND SHORT SOUND ASSOCIATED WITH THESE LETTERS WHICH IS FURTHER COMPLICATED BY PUTTING IDENTICAL VOWELS TOGETHER OR BY USING THE “DREADED DIPHTHONG”.

LOGIC SUGGESTS THAT HAVING TWO SOUNDS TO A VOWEL IMMEDIATELY DOUBLES THE POSSIBILITIES FOR MEANINGFUL VOCABULARY AND MIGHT “NOT” BE SUCH A “TROUBLESOME INCLUSION” “IF” THEY COULD BE DIFFERENTIATED IN A UNIFORM MANNER. FORTUNATELY, THIS IS A RATHER SIMPLE PROCESS. IF AN “I” (i) CAN BE DOTTED, WHY NOT PLACE A MARK (-), SIMILAR TO THE SPANISH TILDE, OVER THOSE VOWELS THAT HAVE A “LONG SOUND” OR AN “UNDERLINE” BENEATH THEM? ELIMINATION OF “DOUBLE VOWELS” (AND CONSONANTS) WOULD ALSO HELP IMMENSELY. (WILL/WIL) COMPUTERS CAN PROBABLY DO THIS AUTOMATICALLY WITH AN ADAPTATION OF “SPELLCHECKER” ACCORDING TO CONTEXT. IT SEEMS OBVIOUS THAT “LEARNERS” WOULD EASILY RECOGNIZE THE CORRECT WAY TO PRONOUNCE ANY WORD AND TO ASSOCIATE A GIVEN MEANING WITH IT. “SHOOT/SHUT(LONG U)/SHUT (SHORT U)” COME TO MIND.

AS MENTIONED BEFORE, ANOTHER DIFFICULTY LIES IN LACK OF ANY SOUND AT ALL ASSOCIATED WITH VARIOUS LETTERS IN NUMEROUS WORDS. “KNOW” AND “EXCUSE” ARE TWO SUCH WORDS. IT IS OBVIOUSLY EASY TO CRITICIZE AND, AS MANY PUNDITS HAVE DISCOVERED, THIS IS AN EXCELLENT EXCUSE FOR GARNERING EXORBITANT REMUNERATION. HOWEVER, SUCH SHOW OF CONCERN IS HELPFUL, "ONLY" IF SOME FEASIBLE RESOLUTION TO THE DIFFICULTY IS OFFERED. SADLY, LIKE THE DEMISE OF THE “SPELLING BEE”, RESOLUTION OF THE PROBLEMS THAT ENGENDERED THEIR “OP. ED. PIECES” WOULD SOON DEPRIVE THEM OF THEIR INCOME AND THEY WOULD BE FORCED TO SEARCH FOR “USEFUL EMPLOYMENT”. STILL, ONE SUPPOSES THAT THE HUMAN CONDITION WILL NEVER APPROACH PERFECTION, WHICH VIRTUALLY GUARANTEES THESE “PROFESSIONAL COMPLAINERS ABOUT THE IMPERFECT” CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT. AGAIN, I DIGRESS, BUT THE “FRUSTRATION” PERSISTS, HENCE THE “PREMISE” OF “localnotions”.

ALL LETTERS WITHOUT SOUND, OR WITH MISLEADING SOUND(S) WOULD SEEM TO BE “LIKELY TARGETS” FOR ELIMINATION, ESPECIALLY THOSE AT THE BEGINNING AND END OF MANY WORDS SUCH AS SILENT “E’S”; MISLEADING “Y’S”; SILENT “K’S”; AND THE CONSTELLATION OF “P’S/PH’S/PS’S”. EXAMPLES INCLUDE: SILENCE; (SILENZ) CONCRETE; (KONKRET) PHILOSOPHY (FILOSOFE); PSYCHOSIS; (SICOSIS).

NOTE: ONE NEED NOT “DROP DOWN” TO THE “LETTERS CHOSEN BY TEXTERS” WHICH HAVE A MEANING UNTO THEMSELVES AND ARE EVEN WORSE THAN THE “SUPERFLUOUS” AND/OR MISLEADING LETTERS IN STANDARD ENGLISH. (“U” FOR “YOU”?) (“C” FOR “SEE”?) (LOL) ETC..

WITH EACH SOUND “IDENTIFIED”, INDIVIDUALS CAN QUICKLY UNDERSTAND THE PRONUNCIATION AND, THEREFORE, THE SIGNIFICANCE OF EACH WORD. ONE “SUSPECTS” (GIVEN THE EXISTENCE OF “SPANISH LANGUAGE COMPUTERS”) THAT ALL COMPUTERS COULD QUICKLY BE PROGRAMMED TO AUTOMATICALLY INSERT A “MARK/TILDE” (OR UNDERLINE) TO SIGNIFY WHICH VOWELS HAVE A LONG SOUND, WHILE THE “SIGN” IS OMITTED FROM THE VOWELS WITH THE “SHORT” SOUND.

ANOTHER “LANDMINE” IN ENGLISH IS THE DIPHTHONG, A COMBINATION OF VOWELS WHICH DEFIES LOGIC IN ALL BUT THE MOST ASTUTE STUDENTS OF LANGUAGE. WHILE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THEY PROVIDE ADDITIONAL JOB SECURITY FOR THOSE WHO PROFESS TO TEACH ENGLISH, ONE SUSPECTS THAT THEY ARE UNNECESSARY IN INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION.

OBVIOUSLY, THE MORE COMPLICATED A SUBJECT CAN BE MADE, THE GREATER NEED THERE IS FOR THOSE WHO WOULD PROFIT FROM SUCH “OBFUSCATION”, BUT, I DIGRESS. STILL, THERE IS PROBABLY NO GREATER EXAMPLE OF THIS CHICANERY THAN BY THE PIONEERS OF COMPUTER SCIENCE. HAD THEY NOT CHOSEN TO WRAP THEIR BINARY NUMERICAL SYSTEM IN TERMINOLOGY SO OBSCURE AS TO ALIENATE A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE POPULATION (THEIR POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS), IT IS POSTULATED THAT COMPUTER LITERACY WOULD BE UNIVERSAL TO THE EXTENT THAT POWER IS AVAILABLE. BY “GEEKIFYING” THE USE OF THE COMPUTER INSTEAD OF USING NORMAL LANGUAGE, EASILY UNDERSTOOD BY AVERAGE PRACTITIONERS OF COMMERCE (POTENTIAL CONSUMERS), THE NEGATIVE ECONOMIC IMPACT ON THEIR BOTTOM LINE AND THE POTENTIAL FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH WAS SEVERELY LIMITED AND PROGRESS RETARDED. IT SEEMS “SELF EVIDENT” THAT, THE MORE “USER FRIENDLY” A PRODUCT IS, THE MORE IT PROLIFERATES, BUT, I DIGRESS AGAIN.

RETURNING TO THE SUBJECT OF I.E., (INTERNATIONAL ENGLISH) TOM SUGGESTS THAT THE REMOVAL OF EVERY UNNECESSARY AND/OR MISLEADING LETTER ASSOCIATED WITH THE CORRECT SOUND PROVIDES THE MOST RATIONAL OPTION TO CREATING A UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE. “USER FRIENDLY” DEFINITELY APPLIES TO COMMUNICATION! THE CONCEPT OF PHONETICS OFFERS A CLUE TO IMPLEMENTING THIS CONCEPT, BUT, THE REASON WHY IT WAS/IS SPELLED WITH “PH” ESCAPES ME.

THE FACT THAT SOUNDS SEEM TO REQUIRE A VOWEL TO BE RATIONAL DOES COMPLICATE THE ELIMINATION OF SILENT LETTER USE. FOR EXAMPLE, ONE CAN EASILY DROP THE SILENT “E” WHICH TERMINATES HUNDREDS OF WORDS, THEREBY SIMPLIFYING THE LEARNING OF A UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE. HOWEVER, ONE CANNOT ELIMINATE THE “E” IN FRONT OF CERTAIN WORDS, SUCH AS “EXCUSE OR ESCAPE” IF THE CONSTANT OF USING A VOWEL FOR EACH SOUND (SYLLABLE) IS TO BE MAINTAINED. LIKEWISE, THE “I” AND “U”, WHEN USED IN FRONT OF SUCH WORDS AS “ IMPROVE OR UNKIND” REQUIRES DEVIATION FROM THAT PRINCIPLE. GREATER MINDS, BUT NOT COMMITTEES, MAY BE ABLE TO RESOLVE THIS DILEMMA. ONE THOUGHT PERSISTS AND THAT IS A COMBINATION OF THE TRENDY USE OF “NOT” IN COMBINATION WITH THE AFFIRMATIVE FORM, TO WIT: NOT MATURE, RATHER THAN IMMATURE; NOT KIND, RATHER THAN UNKIND, ETC. COULD AGAIN SIMPLIFY RATHER THAN COMPLICATE AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE. VAMOS A VER!

ADJECTIVES LEND THEMSELVES BEAUTIFULLY TO THE CONCEPT OF REGULARITY, NOT IRREGULARITY WITH RESPECT TO “DEGREE”, OR SO IT SEEMS, AND, THEREFORE, ANOTHER COMPLICATION CAN BE ELIMINATED. THE USE OF “GOOD; BETTER; BEST” AMONG THE MOST “ILLOGICAL” IN STANDARD ENGLISH AND THE USE OF MORE/MOST, AS IN BEAUTIFUL; MORE BEAUTIFUL; MOST BEAUTIFUL, ARE EVEN MORE DAUNTING TO LEARNERS,BUT, CAN BE SIMPLIFIED BY USING THE BASIC ADJECTIVE AND ADDING “ER” OR “EST”. THUS, GOOD; GOODER; GOODEST (GUD; GUDER; GUDEST) AND BEAUTIFUL; BEAUTIFULER; BEAUTIFULEST (BUTIFUL; BUTIFULER; BUTIFULEST) RESOLVE “THIS LANDMINE”. THE ORIGINATOR OF “HIGH; HIGHER; HIGHEST”MIGHT NOW SEEM LIKE A “GENIUS”, EXCEPT, OF COURSE, FOR THE “GH”. WHERE DID “THEY” COME FROM? (HI; HIER; HIEST) ANOTHER “GENIUS” SUGGESTED “BIG; BIGGER; BIGGEST”. (BIG; BIGER; BIGEST). ONE MUST AT LEAST ASK, WHAT DID HE/SHE HAVE TO GAIN FROM “DECIDING” (DECREEING?) THAT THE CONSONANT MUST BE DOUBLED IN ORDER TO SPEAK/WRITE THIS ADJECTIVE CORRECTLY?

ANOTHER DREADED AREA, AMONG POTENTIAL LEARNERS OF STANDARD ENGLISH, ARE THOSE WORDS POLITELY KNOWN AS VERBS WHICH TEND TO COME WITH FRIGHTENING REGULARITY IN THE “IRREGULAR” FORM. :-) THE AUTHOR HASTENS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT VARIOUS UNPRINTABLE ADJECTIVES ARE OFTEN ATTACHED TO SUCH VERBS. THAT IS NOT TO SAY THAT THERE ARE NO IRRATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS IN OTHER LANGUAGES, E.G. THE RANDOM ASSIGNMENT OF GENDER TO INANIMATE OBJECTS. SUCH CHARACTERISTICS DEFY REASON TO THOSE INTERESTED IN COMMUNICATION. THOSE WHO IMMERSE THEMSELVES IN THE STUDY OF LANGUAGE(S) MAY OFFER A PROFOUND ETIOLOGICAL BASIS FOR THEIR EXISTENCE, BUT THAT BEGS THE QUESTION, “WHY CONTINUE THE INSANITY”? USING PARSIMONY AS THE BASIS FOR I.E. IS PARAMOUNT TO THE AUTHOR.

THE AUTHOR SUGGESTS THAT REGULARITY IN VERBS IS ALSO A CRITICAL COMPONENT IN A USEFUL INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE. AS ONE MIGHT EXPECT, THIS NECESSITATES THE SIMPLIFICATION OF VERB USAGE, MUCH THE SAME AS N.A.S.A. NOW CONCLUDES THAT MANY OF THE DEFICIENCIES IN THE “CAMEL”, KNOWN AS THE SPACE SHUTTLE, DERIVE FROM AN OVERLY COMPLICATED VEHICLE WHEN LOOKED AT FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF “SAFELY AND EFFICIENTLY” ENTERING AND RETURNING FROM SPACE, BUT, THAT IS ANOTHER SUBJECT.

IN COMMUNICATING WHAT OCCURS, WHICH I BELIEVE IS THE PURPOSE OF VERBS, IT IS THOUGHT THAT ONLY A TIME FRAME IS NEEDED TO GIVE MEANING TO THE SUBJECT. HOWEVER, BOWING TO “CONVENTION”, ONE MUST ALSO DEAL WITH “AGREEMENT IN NUMBER” BETWEEN SUBJECT AND VERB. SINCE THE AUTHOR KNOWS OF ONLY THREE TEMPORAL CONCEPTS, PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE THAT ARE “NECESSARY” TO FRAME COMMUNICATION, THEY SHOULD SUFFICE FOR I.E.. A VERB WHICH EXISTS IN THE PRESENT FORM, IF SPELLED USING THE PRINCIPLE OF VOWELS WITH TWO SOUNDS AND DELETING SILENT LETTERS, LEAVES AVAILABLE THE ADDITION OF “ED”, AS A SEPARATE SYLLABLE, TO THE VERB TO INDICATE THAT THE ACTION OCCURRED IN THE PAST. IMMEDIATELY, THE CONFUSION PRESENTLY ENCOUNTERED, AS TO WHETHER THE WORD THEN RETAINS THE SAME NUMBER OF SYLLABLES OR REQUIRES ANOTHER, IS RESOLVED BY THE AUTHOR’S “NEW NORMAL” OF HAVING A SYLLABLE FOR EACH VOWEL. FOR EXAMPLE, THE PAST OF “RUN” IS NOT “RAN” BUT IS WRITTEN BY ADDING “ED” (RUNED), TO BE PRONOUNCED IN TWO SYLLABLES, “RUN-ED”. FORTUNATELY, THE USE OF A “SINGLE” MODIFIER, “WILL” (WIL), RATHER THAN A PLETHORA OF INDICATORS (MIGHT, COULD, SHOULD, MAY, ET. AL.) UNIFORMLY PLACES THE ACTION IN THE FUTURE.

AGREEMENT IN NUMBER IS ANOTHER DIFFICULTY ENCOUNTERED WHEN THE NOUN CHANGES FROM ONE TO “MORE THAN ONE”. FOR EXAMPLE, I, YOU, HE, SHE, IT “GO” IS SUFFICIENT FOR UNDERSTANDING. WE, YOU, THEY) (PLURALS) IS WRITTEN AS “GOS” TO AGREE IN NUMBER WITH THE SUBJECT. IF THE ABOVE ACTION OCCURRED IN THE PAST, SIMPLY WRITE/SAY “GOED” (TWO SYLLABLES, GO-ED) OR GOEDS FOR PLURAL. AS FOR THE FUTURE, “WILL GO” (WIL GOS) COMMUNICATES ALL THAT IS NEEDED IN THE REAL WORLD.

SOME ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES MAY BE IN ORDER. THE VERB “TO BE” IS NORMALLY ENOUGH TO CAUSE ALL BUT THE MOST TALENTED AND PERSISTENT STUDENTS OF STANDARD ENGLISH TO GIVE UP. I “AM/WAS”, HE “IS/WAS”, WE “ARE/WERE”, ALL “WILL BE” AND “?”, CAN EASILY USE “ARE” SINCE THE PLURAL INCLUDES THE SINGULAR RATHER THAN THE REVERSE. TO EXPOUND; I “WALK”/”WALK-ED”, YOU WALKED/WALK-ED. THEY WALKS; WALK-EDS; AS THE PLURAL. THE FUTURE IS “WILL WALK/WALKS” DEPENDING UPON THE NUMBER INVOLVED.

AS MENTIONED BEFORE, THE USE OF DOUBLE LETTERS, WHERE SINGLE LETTERS (LETERS) WILL (WIL) DO, CAN BE DISPENSED WITH. (REALLY “BAD GRAMMAR”, I KNOW) STILL, ONE MIGHT REJOICE AT THE IMPROVEMENT IN SPELLING (AND TEST SCORES) AMONG THE USERS OF I.E. WHEN THESE “LANDMINES” ARE REMOVED FROM THE SKILLS (SKILS) NEEDED TO COMMUNICATE. (KOMUNIKAT)

AS SUGGESTED BEFORE, THE CREATION OF PLURALS IS ACHIEVED BY SIMPLY ADDING “S”, WITHOUT CREATING A NEED TO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL SYLLABLE. CARS ARE SIMPLY “KARS”. HOMES ARE SIMPLY “HOMS” ET. AL. OBVIOUSLY, ABANDONING THE USE OF SYNONYMS WILL GREATLY REDUCE THE NEED FOR VOCABULARY, WHICH SHOULD (WIL?) BE GOOD NEWS TO LEARNERS (AND TREES). FORTUNATELY, THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HOMONYMS MAY BE “DEFINED” BY CONTEXT.

USING THE ABOVE CRITERIA (KRITEREA) A PERSON (PERHAPS NOT A COMMITTEE) COULD CREATE A DICTIONARY OF I.E. IN A RELATIVELY SHORT TIME AND RETIRE ON THE ROYALTIES. ONE DOUBTS THAT “ANY” INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS COULD RESIST THE LURE OF A MEANS FOR COMMUNICATING WITH THEIR ASSOCIATES AND CLIENTS. OF COURSE, GOVERNMENTS, INSTITUTIONS, INCLUDING THE UNITED NATIONS AND CULTURES MORE CONCERNED WITH MAINTAINING THEIR SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND DIVERGENT TONGUES ACCORDING TO POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WILL PROBABLY DITHER THEMSELVES TO DISTRACTION WHILE COMMON SENSE WILL LEAD THE PROGRESS IN WORLD COMMUNICATION.

AS NOTED, THIS IS THE “SAME PROCESS” USED IN THE TRANSITION TO THE METRIC SYSTEM, WHICH GREATLY SIMPLIFIED THE MATHEMATICS INVOLVED IN SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND COMMERCE THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, (EXCEPT IN THE “GOOD Ol’ U.S.A.). IN TIME, THE HACKS IN GOVERNMENT AND EDUCATION WILL EVENTUALLY BE FORCED TO PROVIDE FOR SUCH CHANGES OR BECOME EVEN MORE IRRELEVANT AND PROVINCIAL IN THEIR EFFORTS TO BURY THEIR HEADS IN THE SAND AND PROTECT “TRADITION”. WHY, THE AUTHOR WONDERS, HAVE NOT THE INSTITUTIONS OF LEARNING TAKEN THE LEAD IN A WORLD WHERE ARTIFICIAL BOUNDARIES ARE INCREASINGLY BREACHED IN SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC LIFE?

GIVEN THE MELDING OF WRITTEN AND ORAL LANGUAGE IS IMMUTABLE, SOME THOUGHT NEEDS TO BE GIVEN TO THE MODE OF INTEGRATING THESE FORMS. THESE COMPLICATED PARTS OF WRITING, WHICH ARE OBVIATED IN ORAL COMMUNICATION (FOR ALL EXCEPT THE GREAT VICTOR BORGE), DEAL WITH PUNCTUATION AND CAPITALIZATION. POSSIBLY, A DECISION SHOULD BE MADE TO WRITE EVERYTHING IN EITHER CAPS OR SMALL LETTERS. OBVIOUSLY, THE AUTHOR PREFERS CAPITALS, BUT, IF ONE IS REQUIRED TO WRITE BY HAND (CURSIVE), IT IS THOUGHT THAT SMALL LETTERS MIGHT LEND THEMSELVES BETTER TO THIS ENDEAVOR. STILL, IN THE EVOLVING WORLD OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION AND THE DWINDLING ABILITY OF NASCENT GENERATIONS TO WRITE LEGIBLY, IT IS PROBABLY BETTER TO ACCEPT WHATEVER FORM THE WRITER CHOOSES TO USE AND DISREGARD THE “PRECEDENT/EDICT?” THAT SAYS “CAPITALS DENOTE YELLING”. WHAT PLANET DID THAT “GENIUS” COME FROM?.

TO REVIEW, (A COMMON PRACTICE OF ALL TEACHERS) ELIMINATING “SUPERFLUOUS” LETTERS; USING THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE OF PHONETICS; AND ELIMINATING AS MANY “IRREGULARITIES” AS POSSIBLE ALLOWS USERS OF LANGUAGE TO DEAL MORE RATIONALLY WITH THE OVERRIDING NEED FOR “COMMUNICATION” NOT “CONFORMANCE” TO AN “IRRATIONAL IDIOM”. THE ARCHAIC PROCESSES OF DECIDING BETWEEN “S”; “ES”; CHANGING “Y” TO “I” AND ADDING “ES”; ONE SYLLABLE OR TWO, ET. AL. ARE ALSO ELIMINATED.

IT WAS ALSO SUGGESTED THAT THE ELIMINATION OF IRREGULAR VERBS MAY CONSTITUTE THE “GREATEST ADVANTAGE” OF INTERNATIONAL ENGLISH OVER THE TRADITIONAL VERSION. FURTHERMORE, BY LIMITING TENSES TO “STRICTLY” PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE, ONE SIMPLY USES THE PRESENT FORM OF THE VERB AND ADDS “ED” (AS A SEPARATE SYLLABLE) TO SIGNIFY THE PAST OR INSERTS “WILL” (WIL) TO DESIGNATE THE FUTURE.

A FINAL EXAMPLE MAY CONSTITUTE “SUFFICIENT CLARITY” FOR THOSE UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO “CHANGE”, EVEN IF THE “CHANGE” IS OBVIOUSLY BENEFICIAL TO ALL. THE VERB “GO” IS CHANGED TO “WILL GO” OR “GOED” (GO-ED). THE PLURAL BECOMES “GOS”; WILL GOS; OR “GOEDS” (GO-EDS)AND IT IS NEVER NECESSARY TO “GUESS” WHETHER A NOUN IS SINGULAR (SHEEP ) OR PLURAL (SHEEP) BEFORE USING THE “APPROPRIATE VERB”.
THE EXAMPLE: SHEP GO; WILL GO; GOED! OR SHEPS GOS; WILL GOS; GOEDS TO THE BARN.

“PLEASE” REMEMBER, THE FOCUS OF AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE IS COMMUNICATION. WHATEVER LENDS ITSELF TO THAT GOAL IS THE CORRECT WAY TO GO. TO PARAPHRASE AN OLD MAXIM, “COMMUNICATION” IS TOO IMPORTANT TO BE LEFT IN THE HANDS OF “EXPERTS”. DOES ANYONE RECALL “A LANGUAGE EXPERT” IN MODERN TIMES THAT WAS THE LEAST BIT CONCERNED WITH “COMMUNICATION”?

ENJOY. TOM

Localnotions.blogspot.com

P.S. IT SEEMS PRUDENT TO “ACKNOWLEDGE THE OBVIOUS”, E.G. THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTERNATIONAL (UNIVERSAL?) LANGUAGE IS A “WORK IN PROGRESS”. AS IN THE “WIKIPEDIA PROJECT”, ANY “IMPROVEMENTS” TO THE PROCESS ARE ‘MORE THAN WELCOME”. STILL, THE AUTHOR HARBORS THE “HOPE” THAT THIS FRAMEWORK WILL PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR A COMPREHENSIVE LANGUAGE THAT WILL BE “USEFUL” TO ALL HUMANS.