Monosyllabic English

[Guest MacPhee]

By short words, I mean in this case, words which can be said with just one try of the voice. Like "try", not eff-ort.

If we kept to brief words like these, could we change all books to use them, and still get what the books mean. Books like the Bible, which starts (RSV version):

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters"

If we used short words, it would go like this:

 

"At the start, God made the sky and the earth. The earth had no form, and was void, and the dark was on the face of the deep; and the Ghost of God moved on top of the seas."

 

That sounds quite good! It brings up the thought - could the text of all this Book, and all books, be put in short words - or would that throw up some hard points, which could not be coped with? Could a Science book just have short words?

[Turtle]

how unfortunate you could find no better example than the bible. in any case, no. if for no other reason, the combinatorics of the english alphabet would preclude using only short words because there are far more concepts than just a few letters could discriminate. moreover, why would we want to squash out the richness of nuance and specificity that our language(s) have developed?

[Qfwfq]

Just look at Chinese. Every single syllable has a meaning. This doesn't mean though that all words of ours can translate to a single syllable, they have many compound words. There are none like window -- which has nothing to do with the meaning of win nor of doe, dough etc. If you don't count that as a monosyllabic language I think your suggestion runs into difficulty.

 

Even with a very fine grained phonetic distinction, a language could hardly have fifty thousand or so syllables before it gets too hard to listen too or, at least, has no advantage over polysyllabic words. In English we have enough puns to figure out while listening, even more in French, I'd like to see communication being effective if we designed such a language.

[Guest MacPhee]

how unfortunate you could find no better example than the bible. in any case, no. if for no other reason, the combinatorics of the english alphabet would preclude using only short words because there are far more concepts than just a few letters could discriminate. moreover, why would we want to squash out the richness of nuance and specificity that our language(s) have developed?

 

Yes, the bible wasn't perhaps the most judicious choice for a science forum! I only used the opening words of Genesis, because I thought it would be familiar enough for everyone to recognise the changes in wording.

 

I'd like to return to this subject soon - thanks for your reply.

[Guest MacPhee]

Just look at Chinese. Every single syllable has a meaning. This doesn't mean though that all words of ours can translate to a single syllable, they have many compound words. There are none like window -- which has nothing to do with the meaning of win nor of doe, dough etc. If you don't count that as a monosyllabic language I think your suggestion runs into difficulty.

 

Even with a very fine grained phonetic distinction, a language could hardly have fifty thousand or so syllables before it gets too hard to listen too or, at least, has no advantage over polysyllabic words. In English we have enough puns to figure out while listening, even more in French, I'd like to see communication being effective if we designed such a language.

 

Thanks Qfwfq - your mention of Chinese is very interesting, because I've always wondered how the Chinese manage Science with their phonetically impoverished language. I recently did some research with an English/Chinese dictionary, to find out how they named the chemical elements, but unfortunately have temporarily mislaid my notes - I seem to remember that "Chlorine" is just "Green" in Chinese. And there are other feeble equivalents, which sound akin to 18th Century pre-Lavoisier terminology with its "Pearl-ashes", "Soap-lees" and stuff!

 

As for French - it looks alright in the written form, when you can see the different spellings, but spoken French is so homophonous! If I may, I'll come back to you on that a bit later, thanks again.

[JMJones0424]

MacPhee- if it is your assertion that that the Chinese language suffers from a lack of syllables, then perhaps you can provide better evidence than that the Chinese word for chlorine means green. I wonder if you've ever bothered to look up the etymology of chlorine? And what makes you think a language that invents new words wholesale is natural, or even preferable, to one that frequently constructs new words from old. English does this as well. Have some fun and find the etymological roots for most of the English element names and you will find you need to revisit your hypothesis.

[Turtle]

Yes, the bible wasn't perhaps the most judicious choice for a science forum! I only used the opening words of Genesis, because I thought it would be familiar enough for everyone to recognise the changes in wording.

 

I'd like to return to this subject soon - thanks for your reply.

 

you're welcome. besides the science/religion disjoint there is the problem of the historical record. for examples, where would be the benefit(s) in re-writing darwin or newton or shakespeare? it seems to me languages have developed as they should "naturally" to meet whatever particular needs arise and it's not as if they are planned by some committee.

 

by the same token, i heartily endorse and diligently practice brevity and clarity in writing and i find no better instructive and illustrative work on this matter than strunk & white's elements of style.