5 ms·

English spelling becomes a lot more rational [1] when you understand that you are spelling words largely according to Middle English. Sound changes that occur a

English spelling becomes a lot more rational [1] when you understand that you are spelling words largely according to Middle English. Sound changes that occur after that are largely not reflected in English spelling. As for why English doesn't use diacritics, well, my hypothesis is that Middle English just didn't need them. Per the Wikipedia article on Middle English phonology, there's 5 short vowels + unstressed vowel + 7 long vowels + diphthonging with /j/ or /w/. With just 5 short vowels, it's possible to write every one with the 5 basic vowels of Latin script, and the long vowels and diphthongs can be written with paired vowels, using different vowels for the extra long vowel sounds (cf. ee versus ea)--no need for diacritics, even if it is a little clumsy. The Great Vowel Shift came along and fucked up all the long vowels, and separate changes caused "a" to break into 2-3 sounds (crowding into the "o" sound, as well), leaving us with clearly multiple sounds for the same short "a" and "long" vowel spellings that bare little to no resemblance to their corresponding pronunciations. Some of the sounds (in particular, ee and ea) merged into one sound as part of the Great Vowel Shift, too. [1] The other thing that ruins English spelling is a proclivity to borrow foreign words with foreign pronunciation and foreign spellings (even if it's not written in Latin script!), so to some extent, you have to play a guessing game as to etymology to work out spelling. But ignoring those cases, you can actually pretty reliably work out the pronunciation of most English words by effectively applying the (mostly regular) phonological changes from Middle English.

marktani 3y ago
very interesting! can you share a couple examples of words borrowed with foreign, non-Latin script? I'm having trouble imagining how this could look like
- jcranmer 3y ago
  Words like 'manga' or 'anime' come from Japanese (written in kanji) or Greek words like onomatopoeia (Greek is a different alphabet from Latin) are ones that come to mind.
  - P-Nuts 3y ago
    Anime isn’t written in kanji in Japanese because it’s a loanword, and loanwords are written in katakana.
  - marktani 3y ago
    I realize my question was asking for examples of loanwords, but my intention was to ask for loanwords that also adapt the "foreign pronunciation and foreign spelling". I am well aware that English borrowed plenty of words originating from non-Latin scripts, however based on your phrasing I thought you are saying something more than that is going on. When a word is borrowed from a non-Latin script into English what else could happen other than adapting/borrowing the foreign pronunciation+spelling into English as well?
- Zach_the_Lizard 3y ago
  Algebra, from Arabic
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  Pyjamas, guru, khaki, avatar, bandana, jodhpurs, and shampoo are but a few of the many words drawn from Hindi and Sanskrit. Urushiol, kudzu, futon, and karate from Japanese. Orangutan, bamboo, cassowary, paddy, ramie, rattan, gong, and camphor from Indonesian (and related languages). Ammonia, banana, bongo, cola, dengue, ebony, and gnu are of African origin (numerous languages). Algebra, algorithm, alchemy, and alcohol all come from Arabic ('al' is the definite article in Arabic). So too do numerous terms for textiles: chiffon, gabardine, satin, tafetta, and wadding. Tahini, tuna, tamarind, talc, tangerine, and talisman as well. All these use a non-Latin script, in some cases no script at all.
  - andsoitis 3y ago
    > khaki From Urdu from Persian. Persian and Sanskrit are closely related and thought to have originated from a common Proto-Indo-Iranian language from about 4000 years ago.
    - dredmorbius 3y ago
      Fair point as I'd chosen to use Hindi (culture) rather than India (geographic region), though of course India itself derives from Hindi (the word). A fuller set of candidate languages, from Wikipedia: Hindi, Urdu, Kannada, Malayalam, Sanskrit, Tamil, Teluga, Bengali, Assamese, Bengali, and Marathi. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Indian_origin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_India...>
      - marktani 3y ago
        You're still missing Persian, which is the direct origin of Khaki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaki#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaki#Etymology Urdu/Hindi and probably lots of other languages in that cultural region have plenty of loanwords from Persian
        dredmorbius 3y ago
        I'm sure someone will pitch in with specific sub-dialects as well shortly. I'd reported languages based on Wikipedia's citing. That's publicly-editable, and if you have sourced references the links I'd provided can be updated. See also note 1: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17436048 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17436048>
- adastra22 3y ago
  sushi, wok, jaguar
- hilbert42 3y ago
  I was intending to post a comment about foreign words imported into English in my long reply to jcranmer's point about same but the post ended up too long to do so. As I mentioned, I'm thinking of posting an addendum. Some points are likely to be controversial but I intend to explain why.
  - hilbert42 3y ago
    OK, here it is: "The other thing that ruins English spelling is a proclivity to borrow foreign words with foreign pronunciation and foreign spellings (even if it's not written in Latin script!)," You're right, I can't agree more. A pet peeve of mine is the lackadaisical way English imports words and how little attention native speakers give to their correct pronunciation. For people who aren't good spellers and who don't memorize words at first glance, spelling them can be daunting given that their pronunciation often differs wildly from their spelling. I recall as kid trying to check the spelling of précis in the dictionary and going half-mad with frustration, every attempt at looking up various variations on 'praysis' failed. Similarly, we often import words into English more out of fashion than of necessity. A quintessential example is tsunami, whilst marginally shorter than its English equivalent, it provides no descriptive meaning as do the English words, and almost no Anglophone speaker pronounces the word correctly nor even bothers do so. Instead, we get mishmashes that sound like 'sooonami', which, no doubt, not only sound terrible to Japanese speakers but also the bastardized sound pays no respect to the Japanese language. It seems very few know or bother to note that the transliterated spelling is actually very close to the original pronunciation. Given that the arrangement of its first three letters is a rather uncommon occurrence in English then one has to wonder why it doesn't automatically ring bells and alert English speakers that they need to pay careful attention to its pronunciation. Tsu, ツ - katakana, つ - hiragana, ought to be pronounced as it's written—like the sound of a hissing snake, but despite its English spelling being a good facsimile for the Japanese, one never seems to hear any pronunciation that's even close. No doubt, it takes more effort for English speakers to pronounce the unfamiliar sound but very few try—even well-spoken BBC announcers slur the word. The question remains why we English speakers bothered to steal the word and import it into English in the first instance, especially given that we've made such a hash of using it. Unfortunately, the bastardization of tsunami's pronunciation is yet another instance of the arrogance Anglophone speakers have in respect of English and their disregard for other languages (given, pro rata, the numbers who know English as a second language versus English speakers who've learned foreign languages). Amongst, English speakers it's a common assumption that the world only revolves around English and that everyone should speak the language to communicate with them. Whilst English is essentially the current lingua franca many around the globe are aware of the old racist adage "if the natives don't understand then just shout a little louder", and rightly they resent such arrogance. We ought to be very cognisant of their opinion but we're often blind to the fact. dredmorbius provides us with a good list of imported words but unlike tsunami there were no English equivalents so incorporating them into the language was just commonsense. Even here, we again see the irreverence English speakers have for some of these words. It makes sense to import the Urdu/Persian word khaki into English as it's easier than saying dust-coloured or yellowish-brown but it really grates one's sensibility to hear it being pronounced kaaake. Pronouncing Jodhpurs I reckon is more subtle and ignoring the 'h' or not trying to pronounce jodh correctly is perhaps acceptable but I'd like to hear from someone familiar with its correct pronunciation. (BTW the word conjures up bad memories, I had to wear those ugly things as a kid and hated them). Whilst dredmorbius's list uses non-Latin scripts, the time-honoured tradition of importing words from languages that use Latin scripts continues to make sense if suitable English words don't exist or if existing phrases are long, for instance, blitzkrieg and zeitgeist. are good examples of modern imports. Whether English ought to honour the capitalized noun format for imported words that are capitalized by default on grounds of authenticity is moot (but I'd reckon it'd only have a snowball's chance). Personally, I'd agree with Mark Twain on this who thought it would be a sensible idea if English adopted the practice as a general rule for all nouns as it would help avoid confusion. But then, I'm only pipe-dreaming. If you think I'm overly pedantic about these issues then you're likely correct, but again I'd stress I've come to these opinions because I've found languages difficult. Errors in one's texts whether they be spelling mistakes or grammatical errors detract readers' attention away from the text and lessen the impact of one's message. Excellent fluency gives one freedom of expression, without it, then it pays to be cautious. I'll finish by saying again I'm of the opinion that the default keepers of English—those who have true fluency and excellent mastery of the language—often ignore these issues simply because they are fluent, as fluency gives them the ability to bend and manipulate the language at will (it's like riding a bike, once one knows how one never thinks about how it's done ever again, it's thus understandable why the mechanics of English receive so little attention these days). Unfortunately, this situation leaves the rest of us to wallow around in the complexites of English without decent guidance, and I reckon this is bad. English has already fragmented noticeably in my lifetime, it's becoming more disorderly over time. Many factors have led to its increased entropy—globalization, internationalization, the Internet and because teachers have ceased to exercise its rules in a pedantic fashion as they once did—just to mention a few. Thus, I'm now of the opinion that without some ongoing method of keeping its structure coherent that in a century or two hence or perhaps even sooner it seems likely English will spilt into almost unrecognizable dialects and cease to be a dominant world language. It'd be nice if I were to be wrong. BTW, you'll note the mixture of US and British spellings here. Normally I'd harmonize to one or other before posting but this time I've left the text as written.
atkailash 3y ago
This hypothesis seems to ignore the vast number of English words that come from French, even despite the vowel shift Divorcee (we normally say divorsay not divorsee so it should be divorcée) and especially fiance (fiancé) are good examples (employee has changed pronunciation but technically should be employée).
- Tsiklon 3y ago
  Your examples are not consistent dialectically, in my dialect and many related dialects (Northeastern Irish, Scottish and Northern English) “divorsay” is anglicised and pronounced “divorsee”. That said, wealth, and proclivity to pretentiousness, not just dialect are also factors in the stylings of one’s speech, including which pronunciation to use.
- funnybeam 3y ago
  Many of those French words in English though come from Norman French which is very different to the modern language. French having also undergone a major vowel shift as well as dropping pronunciation of some final consonants so that some of the “English” pronunciation of certain “French” words is arguably more correct
hilbert42 3y ago
Excellent comment. Whilst I'm no scholar of languages I'm aware of some of those matters to which you refer so my earlier comment is somewhat rhetorical. I became curious about diacritics decades ago when learning French at school. At best, I was only an average student of languages including English, so I found French quite a challenge—my strengths were in the science subjects and if I hadn't been pressured by my parents it's likely I wouldn't have studied it (my mother has French relatives thus I have French cousins and my father, a mechanical engineer, whose native language was English studied both French and Latin at school and later acquired some German—hence the pressure). In hindsight it was a damn good thing I was pressured as it made learning other languages later much easier (a modicum of German and Latin—learning German was out of necessity as I'd lived in Austria for some years). My French pronunciation was pretty abysmal and grimaces on my teacher's face during oral French were testament to that. However it improved after diacritics came to the rescue, I then found it easier to pronounce words such as être, café and Rue Taherè with some degree of accuracy (Rue Taherè is in Paris where my French relatives once lived, thus it was essential I pronounced the grave correctly). Sorry, but that long intro was necessary to justify my point that those who are not particularly good at languages and or spelling can benefit from the use of diacritics. At the beginning I didn't know how to pronounce those French words accurately but diacritics greatly simplified the process. What was particularly good about them was that I didn't have to remember the various pronunciations of 'e' across dozens of different words, that luxury isn't afforded to learners of English! French was hard enough with its gendered nouns and such without that additional burden. It's why I pity those who have to learn English as a second language, the lack of diacritics is just one awkward aspect of this 'tortured' language that makes learning it so difficult. One thing I've learned is that those who have a natural aptitude for languages and spelling and who develop fluency easily often fail to appreciate how really difficult they are for many people and I include native speakers here. Given my struggles with French I thought I was pretty dumb when it came to learning languages but my view changed a little some decades ago after I attended a lecture at the Australian Museum in Sydney given by Noam Chomsky. The notable linguist made an unexpected (and what I thought was a rather extraordinary) offhanded remark that I'll never forget which went something to the effect: "I am not good at acquiring languages, a new language can waft down the corridors of MIT and it can completely pass me by only for me to later find that my colleagues acquired it with considerable ease—much to my chagrin." What Chomsky taught me was something that I was already subliminally aware of, which is that people can acquire language skills in quite different ways and those who acquire them with ease do so in ways different to those of us who have difficulties (it's why they often don't understand why some of us find learning languages difficult). I learn languages like mathematical equations, I atomise them bit by bit which means I want exact literal translations of foreign words and phrases before I'll parse them into idiomatic/vernacular English. Those who are good at languages don't do this, they learn to go directly from the foreign language to their native vernacular sans atomization. Atomization is a mode of thinking and it comes from a reductionist mind. Whilst experience has taught me that reducing languages to atomized bits is not conducive to learing them it's nevertheless very hard to kick the habit. "The Great Vowel Shift came along and fucked up all the long vowels, and separate changes caused "a" to break into 2-3 sounds..." This, I reckon, is still very relevant to present-day English. Whilst only part of the problem it accounts for the peculiarities we now have with, say, 'gh' words such as cough and though which I've mentioned. Though they've morphed from their earlier guttural sounds their spelling hasn't yet caught up. Combine, this with the many other influences on English, Anglo Saxon, Norman invasion, etc., etc. and it's little wonder the language is in a complicated mess. I don't have any specific proposal about how diacritics could sort this out, I'm only suggesting that it would make sense if we English speakers spelled [spelt] words the way we pronounced them, say, somewhat akin to German. Of course, attempting to force change on a language is doomed to failure, it seems the only way is for it to evolve. The 'z' and 's' spelling differences between US and British English are already controversial enough without trying to change, say, you to just u, or through to thru. And that's just spelling, imagine the difficulties of trying to force through grammatical changes such as changing the second person you to youse or to the archaic thou even though it would make sense. Incidentally, my father's old German textbook translated the German second person du as thou. I've not seen this done in any modern textbook but it's an almighty powerful way of embedding the notion of never committing the faux pas of using du and that sie must always be used unless of course it's very clear the situation calls for it. What I find annoying is that few Anglophone speakers care about these mstters. Unlike the Académie française, (which although essentially ineffective, it at least acts as a reminder), there's never been any authorative oversight of English (and with its dubious history it's doubtful that any oversight would have ever been possible). Nevertheless, without it English has been left to self-styled people like Noah Webster to make improvements, however without any formal structure in place there's little to propel ongoing effort forward after they're dead. Murray, OED et al have done an excellent job at documenting word meanings and their spellings but they've had little impact on actual word usage. Moreover, it also seems that dictionaries have little impact on word usage in orher languages, words only get added to dictionaries after they've taken hold in a language, not before (I recall a once Dutch girlfriend of mine making this exact point about that remarkable Dutch tome—the Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal). In essence, whilst reformers such as Webster have done good work and have done so with good reason, in some ways they've made matters worse. For instance, the fragmented spelling caused by differences between British and American English is already a nuisance and counterproductive in today's global world. Yes, it's perhaps only a small matter in the grand scheme of things but it's indicative of how difficult it is to make changes to a language, especially so English. Whilst, say, German has had minor reforms to its spelling and punctuation in recent decades (the German orthography reform of 1996), such reform is hardly applicable to English and can't be used as a test case for a number of reasons. For starters, German has changed very little over hundreds of years, and with a little effort modern-day German speakers can read texts going on a thousand years old but obviously that's nigh on impossible with English without special training. Moreover, the tortuous history of English has left us with an almost incomprehensible English grammar. By that I mean it doesn't have 'clean' rules, it's much messier and less consistent than say Latin, or French, or German, and I'd suggest that there's no one who comprehensively understands all of its rules. I own a copy of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language which, going on 1,900 pages of fine type, is testament to the fact. I've often thought this book should always be hidden from prospective learners of English for fear of giving them apoplexy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cambridge_Grammar_of_the_English_Language https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cambridge_Grammar_of_the.... If you read that Wiki then it'll be obvious that even with such a well-researched book about English grammar written by experts in the field that there is still noticeable disagreement amongst them (see the section headed Reception). These disagreements back up assertions about inconsistencies in the language. I was intending to comment on your point about words imported into English as it's an important aspect of the problem but the post is already too long. I'll think about it and perhaps I'll post it as an addendum.

marktani 3y ago

very interesting! can you share a couple examples of words borrowed with foreign, non-Latin script? I'm having trouble imagining how this could look like

jcranmer 3y ago
Words like 'manga' or 'anime' come from Japanese (written in kanji) or Greek words like onomatopoeia (Greek is a different alphabet from Latin) are ones that come to mind.
- P-Nuts 3y ago
  Anime isn’t written in kanji in Japanese because it’s a loanword, and loanwords are written in katakana.
- marktani 3y ago
  I realize my question was asking for examples of loanwords, but my intention was to ask for loanwords that also adapt the "foreign pronunciation and foreign spelling". I am well aware that English borrowed plenty of words originating from non-Latin scripts, however based on your phrasing I thought you are saying something more than that is going on. When a word is borrowed from a non-Latin script into English what else could happen other than adapting/borrowing the foreign pronunciation+spelling into English as well?
Zach_the_Lizard 3y ago
Algebra, from Arabic
dredmorbius 3y ago
Pyjamas, guru, khaki, avatar, bandana, jodhpurs, and shampoo are but a few of the many words drawn from Hindi and Sanskrit. Urushiol, kudzu, futon, and karate from Japanese. Orangutan, bamboo, cassowary, paddy, ramie, rattan, gong, and camphor from Indonesian (and related languages). Ammonia, banana, bongo, cola, dengue, ebony, and gnu are of African origin (numerous languages). Algebra, algorithm, alchemy, and alcohol all come from Arabic ('al' is the definite article in Arabic). So too do numerous terms for textiles: chiffon, gabardine, satin, tafetta, and wadding. Tahini, tuna, tamarind, talc, tangerine, and talisman as well. All these use a non-Latin script, in some cases no script at all.
- andsoitis 3y ago
  > khaki From Urdu from Persian. Persian and Sanskrit are closely related and thought to have originated from a common Proto-Indo-Iranian language from about 4000 years ago.
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    Fair point as I'd chosen to use Hindi (culture) rather than India (geographic region), though of course India itself derives from Hindi (the word). A fuller set of candidate languages, from Wikipedia: Hindi, Urdu, Kannada, Malayalam, Sanskrit, Tamil, Teluga, Bengali, Assamese, Bengali, and Marathi. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Indian_origin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_India...>
    - marktani 3y ago
      You're still missing Persian, which is the direct origin of Khaki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaki#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaki#Etymology Urdu/Hindi and probably lots of other languages in that cultural region have plenty of loanwords from Persian
      - dredmorbius 3y ago
        I'm sure someone will pitch in with specific sub-dialects as well shortly. I'd reported languages based on Wikipedia's citing. That's publicly-editable, and if you have sourced references the links I'd provided can be updated. See also note 1: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17436048 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17436048>
adastra22 3y ago
sushi, wok, jaguar
hilbert42 3y ago
I was intending to post a comment about foreign words imported into English in my long reply to jcranmer's point about same but the post ended up too long to do so. As I mentioned, I'm thinking of posting an addendum. Some points are likely to be controversial but I intend to explain why.
- hilbert42 3y ago
  OK, here it is: "The other thing that ruins English spelling is a proclivity to borrow foreign words with foreign pronunciation and foreign spellings (even if it's not written in Latin script!)," You're right, I can't agree more. A pet peeve of mine is the lackadaisical way English imports words and how little attention native speakers give to their correct pronunciation. For people who aren't good spellers and who don't memorize words at first glance, spelling them can be daunting given that their pronunciation often differs wildly from their spelling. I recall as kid trying to check the spelling of précis in the dictionary and going half-mad with frustration, every attempt at looking up various variations on 'praysis' failed. Similarly, we often import words into English more out of fashion than of necessity. A quintessential example is tsunami, whilst marginally shorter than its English equivalent, it provides no descriptive meaning as do the English words, and almost no Anglophone speaker pronounces the word correctly nor even bothers do so. Instead, we get mishmashes that sound like 'sooonami', which, no doubt, not only sound terrible to Japanese speakers but also the bastardized sound pays no respect to the Japanese language. It seems very few know or bother to note that the transliterated spelling is actually very close to the original pronunciation. Given that the arrangement of its first three letters is a rather uncommon occurrence in English then one has to wonder why it doesn't automatically ring bells and alert English speakers that they need to pay careful attention to its pronunciation. Tsu, ツ - katakana, つ - hiragana, ought to be pronounced as it's written—like the sound of a hissing snake, but despite its English spelling being a good facsimile for the Japanese, one never seems to hear any pronunciation that's even close. No doubt, it takes more effort for English speakers to pronounce the unfamiliar sound but very few try—even well-spoken BBC announcers slur the word. The question remains why we English speakers bothered to steal the word and import it into English in the first instance, especially given that we've made such a hash of using it. Unfortunately, the bastardization of tsunami's pronunciation is yet another instance of the arrogance Anglophone speakers have in respect of English and their disregard for other languages (given, pro rata, the numbers who know English as a second language versus English speakers who've learned foreign languages). Amongst, English speakers it's a common assumption that the world only revolves around English and that everyone should speak the language to communicate with them. Whilst English is essentially the current lingua franca many around the globe are aware of the old racist adage "if the natives don't understand then just shout a little louder", and rightly they resent such arrogance. We ought to be very cognisant of their opinion but we're often blind to the fact. dredmorbius provides us with a good list of imported words but unlike tsunami there were no English equivalents so incorporating them into the language was just commonsense. Even here, we again see the irreverence English speakers have for some of these words. It makes sense to import the Urdu/Persian word khaki into English as it's easier than saying dust-coloured or yellowish-brown but it really grates one's sensibility to hear it being pronounced kaaake. Pronouncing Jodhpurs I reckon is more subtle and ignoring the 'h' or not trying to pronounce jodh correctly is perhaps acceptable but I'd like to hear from someone familiar with its correct pronunciation. (BTW the word conjures up bad memories, I had to wear those ugly things as a kid and hated them). Whilst dredmorbius's list uses non-Latin scripts, the time-honoured tradition of importing words from languages that use Latin scripts continues to make sense if suitable English words don't exist or if existing phrases are long, for instance, blitzkrieg and zeitgeist. are good examples of modern imports. Whether English ought to honour the capitalized noun format for imported words that are capitalized by default on grounds of authenticity is moot (but I'd reckon it'd only have a snowball's chance). Personally, I'd agree with Mark Twain on this who thought it would be a sensible idea if English adopted the practice as a general rule for all nouns as it would help avoid confusion. But then, I'm only pipe-dreaming. If you think I'm overly pedantic about these issues then you're likely correct, but again I'd stress I've come to these opinions because I've found languages difficult. Errors in one's texts whether they be spelling mistakes or grammatical errors detract readers' attention away from the text and lessen the impact of one's message. Excellent fluency gives one freedom of expression, without it, then it pays to be cautious. I'll finish by saying again I'm of the opinion that the default keepers of English—those who have true fluency and excellent mastery of the language—often ignore these issues simply because they are fluent, as fluency gives them the ability to bend and manipulate the language at will (it's like riding a bike, once one knows how one never thinks about how it's done ever again, it's thus understandable why the mechanics of English receive so little attention these days). Unfortunately, this situation leaves the rest of us to wallow around in the complexites of English without decent guidance, and I reckon this is bad. English has already fragmented noticeably in my lifetime, it's becoming more disorderly over time. Many factors have led to its increased entropy—globalization, internationalization, the Internet and because teachers have ceased to exercise its rules in a pedantic fashion as they once did—just to mention a few. Thus, I'm now of the opinion that without some ongoing method of keeping its structure coherent that in a century or two hence or perhaps even sooner it seems likely English will spilt into almost unrecognizable dialects and cease to be a dominant world language. It'd be nice if I were to be wrong. BTW, you'll note the mixture of US and British spellings here. Normally I'd harmonize to one or other before posting but this time I've left the text as written.

atkailash 3y ago

This hypothesis seems to ignore the vast number of English words that come from French, even despite the vowel shift Divorcee (we normally say divorsay not divorsee so it should be divorcée) and especially fiance (fiancé) are good examples (employee has changed pronunciation but technically should be employée).

Tsiklon 3y ago
Your examples are not consistent dialectically, in my dialect and many related dialects (Northeastern Irish, Scottish and Northern English) “divorsay” is anglicised and pronounced “divorsee”. That said, wealth, and proclivity to pretentiousness, not just dialect are also factors in the stylings of one’s speech, including which pronunciation to use.
funnybeam 3y ago
Many of those French words in English though come from Norman French which is very different to the modern language. French having also undergone a major vowel shift as well as dropping pronunciation of some final consonants so that some of the “English” pronunciation of certain “French” words is arguably more correct

hilbert42 3y ago

Excellent comment. Whilst I'm no scholar of languages I'm aware of some of those matters to which you refer so my earlier comment is somewhat rhetorical. I became curious about diacritics decades ago when learning French at school. At best, I was only an average student of languages including English, so I found French quite a challenge—my strengths were in the science subjects and if I hadn't been pressured by my parents it's likely I wouldn't have studied it (my mother has French relatives thus I have French cousins and my father, a mechanical engineer, whose native language was English studied both French and Latin at school and later acquired some German—hence the pressure). In hindsight it was a damn good thing I was pressured as it made learning other languages later much easier (a modicum of German and Latin—learning German was out of necessity as I'd lived in Austria for some years). My French pronunciation was pretty abysmal and grimaces on my teacher's face during oral French were testament to that. However it improved after diacritics came to the rescue, I then found it easier to pronounce words such as être, café and Rue Taherè with some degree of accuracy (Rue Taherè is in Paris where my French relatives once lived, thus it was essential I pronounced the grave correctly). Sorry, but that long intro was necessary to justify my point that those who are not particularly good at languages and or spelling can benefit from the use of diacritics. At the beginning I didn't know how to pronounce those French words accurately but diacritics greatly simplified the process. What was particularly good about them was that I didn't have to remember the various pronunciations of 'e' across dozens of different words, that luxury isn't afforded to learners of English! French was hard enough with its gendered nouns and such without that additional burden. It's why I pity those who have to learn English as a second language, the lack of diacritics is just one awkward aspect of this 'tortured' language that makes learning it so difficult. One thing I've learned is that those who have a natural aptitude for languages and spelling and who develop fluency easily often fail to appreciate how really difficult they are for many people and I include native speakers here. Given my struggles with French I thought I was pretty dumb when it came to learning languages but my view changed a little some decades ago after I attended a lecture at the Australian Museum in Sydney given by Noam Chomsky. The notable linguist made an unexpected (and what I thought was a rather extraordinary) offhanded remark that I'll never forget which went something to the effect: "I am not good at acquiring languages, a new language can waft down the corridors of MIT and it can completely pass me by only for me to later find that my colleagues acquired it with considerable ease—much to my chagrin." What Chomsky taught me was something that I was already subliminally aware of, which is that people can acquire language skills in quite different ways and those who acquire them with ease do so in ways different to those of us who have difficulties (it's why they often don't understand why some of us find learning languages difficult). I learn languages like mathematical equations, I atomise them bit by bit which means I want exact literal translations of foreign words and phrases before I'll parse them into idiomatic/vernacular English. Those who are good at languages don't do this, they learn to go directly from the foreign language to their native vernacular sans atomization. Atomization is a mode of thinking and it comes from a reductionist mind. Whilst experience has taught me that reducing languages to atomized bits is not conducive to learing them it's nevertheless very hard to kick the habit. "The Great Vowel Shift came along and fucked up all the long vowels, and separate changes caused "a" to break into 2-3 sounds..." This, I reckon, is still very relevant to present-day English. Whilst only part of the problem it accounts for the peculiarities we now have with, say, 'gh' words such as cough and though which I've mentioned. Though they've morphed from their earlier guttural sounds their spelling hasn't yet caught up. Combine, this with the many other influences on English, Anglo Saxon, Norman invasion, etc., etc. and it's little wonder the language is in a complicated mess. I don't have any specific proposal about how diacritics could sort this out, I'm only suggesting that it would make sense if we English speakers spelled [spelt] words the way we pronounced them, say, somewhat akin to German. Of course, attempting to force change on a language is doomed to failure, it seems the only way is for it to evolve. The 'z' and 's' spelling differences between US and British English are already controversial enough without trying to change, say, you to just u, or through to thru. And that's just spelling, imagine the difficulties of trying to force through grammatical changes such as changing the second person you to youse or to the archaic thou even though it would make sense. Incidentally, my father's old German textbook translated the German second person du as thou. I've not seen this done in any modern textbook but it's an almighty powerful way of embedding the notion of never committing the faux pas of using du and that sie must always be used unless of course it's very clear the situation calls for it. What I find annoying is that few Anglophone speakers care about these mstters. Unlike the Académie française, (which although essentially ineffective, it at least acts as a reminder), there's never been any authorative oversight of English (and with its dubious history it's doubtful that any oversight would have ever been possible). Nevertheless, without it English has been left to self-styled people like Noah Webster to make improvements, however without any formal structure in place there's little to propel ongoing effort forward after they're dead. Murray, OED et al have done an excellent job at documenting word meanings and their spellings but they've had little impact on actual word usage. Moreover, it also seems that dictionaries have little impact on word usage in orher languages, words only get added to dictionaries after they've taken hold in a language, not before (I recall a once Dutch girlfriend of mine making this exact point about that remarkable Dutch tome—the Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal). In essence, whilst reformers such as Webster have done good work and have done so with good reason, in some ways they've made matters worse. For instance, the fragmented spelling caused by differences between British and American English is already a nuisance and counterproductive in today's global world. Yes, it's perhaps only a small matter in the grand scheme of things but it's indicative of how difficult it is to make changes to a language, especially so English. Whilst, say, German has had minor reforms to its spelling and punctuation in recent decades (the German orthography reform of 1996), such reform is hardly applicable to English and can't be used as a test case for a number of reasons. For starters, German has changed very little over hundreds of years, and with a little effort modern-day German speakers can read texts going on a thousand years old but obviously that's nigh on impossible with English without special training. Moreover, the tortuous history of English has left us with an almost incomprehensible English grammar. By that I mean it doesn't have 'clean' rules, it's much messier and less consistent than say Latin, or French, or German, and I'd suggest that there's no one who comprehensively understands all of its rules. I own a copy of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language which, going on 1,900 pages of fine type, is testament to the fact. I've often thought this book should always be hidden from prospective learners of English for fear of giving them apoplexy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cambridge_Grammar_of_the_English_Language https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cambridge_Grammar_of_the.... If you read that Wiki then it'll be obvious that even with such a well-researched book about English grammar written by experts in the field that there is still noticeable disagreement amongst them (see the section headed Reception). These disagreements back up assertions about inconsistencies in the language. I was intending to comment on your point about words imported into English as it's an important aspect of the problem but the post is already too long. I'll think about it and perhaps I'll post it as an addendum.