tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377709913595182916.post6081886166341692906..comments2024-03-14T10:31:26.918+00:00Comments on DCblog: On simplifying EnglishDChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10192779827863835310noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377709913595182916.post-36251239701961917782008-01-25T20:12:00.000+00:002008-01-25T20:12:00.000+00:00This was one of a number of neologisms that were u...This was one of a number of neologisms that were used by Hogben and others to try to capture the various semantic distinctions they wanted to express. A eunym was a word with a single characteristic meaning - for example, number words such as <I>three</I> and <I>four</I>. The contrast was with words with several meanings. I don't think the term ever caught on. A more widely used terminology today distinguishes <I>monosemic</I> and <I>polysemic</I> words.DChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10192779827863835310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377709913595182916.post-63875023024541638962008-01-25T00:16:00.000+00:002008-01-25T00:16:00.000+00:00Hello Dr. Crystal,I encountered the word "eunymic"...Hello Dr. Crystal,<BR/><BR/>I encountered the word "eunymic" in Lancelot Hogben's Essential World English. I looked it up in the OED, in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, and the American Heritage College Dictionary but with no success. I only came up with "euonymus" but I am not sure if the terms are related.<BR/>Thank you very much.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377709913595182916.post-25648308256448715472007-09-28T15:50:00.000+00:002007-09-28T15:50:00.000+00:00I haven't done any new counting since 2003, but gi...I haven't done any new counting since 2003, but given the way population has grown in certain critical nations (especially India), plus the renewed emphasis on English in China (anticipating the Olympics), the figure must by now be well on its way to 2 billion. This is in line with other current estimates, such as David Graddol's. See especially his <I>English Next</I> (2006).DChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10192779827863835310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377709913595182916.post-47104070786406624412007-09-24T16:45:00.000+00:002007-09-24T16:45:00.000+00:00Hello Dr. Crystal,For my research on linguistic si...Hello Dr. Crystal,<BR/><BR/>For my research on linguistic simplification, I would like to know what is the most current estimate of English language speakers in the world today, whether as first or second language users. Which of your works, or any other, could you refer me to find this information? Your 2003 "English as a GLobal Language" states that by that time it was used by 1.5 billion people. Has this estimate changed?<BR/>Thank you very much.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377709913595182916.post-74319135974373304762007-08-04T11:37:00.000+00:002007-08-04T11:37:00.000+00:00The problem with all forms of simplified language ...The problem with all forms of simplified language is that they are much much easier to understand than to produce. (The same point applies to artificial languages.) I would be able to understand A's simplified English well enough, but learning all the rules that A has devised for it would be quite a task. And because I am already a fluent speaker of unsimplified English, there would always be interference from that source.<BR/><BR/>This difficulty especially affects vocabulary. It was bad enough with the restricted range Ogden used. People were always wanting to add 'just one more word', to help them out when Basic let them down. It is the same even with a more extensive restricted defining vocabulary, such as the one Longman uses in LDOCE. This has 2000 words, but you could argue that for teaching purposes this was either too many or too few.<BR/><BR/>It isn't just a matter of 'adding words'. Another complication is that words don't exist independently of grammar. The choice of many words controls which preposition follows them, or which type of complement construction, for instance. A 'simple' word, such as <I>put</I> may have complex grammatical consequences (e.g. requiring an adverbial).<BR/><BR/>My feeling is that any proposed system of simplified English would quickly face the same problems as those who propose systems of simplified spelling. People quickly fall out over what counts as 'simple'. Could there be agreed notions of simplification? One could get some clues from the ad hoc simplifications which teachers instinctively introduce when working with beginners or which authors use in writing books for young children. Even there, though, there is likely to be a great deal of variation in level and inconsistency.DChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10192779827863835310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377709913595182916.post-70217119822963022112007-08-02T15:49:00.000+00:002007-08-02T15:49:00.000+00:00Hello Dr. Crystal,As to your doubts concerning the...Hello Dr. Crystal,<BR/><BR/>As to your doubts concerning the attainability of a simplified English, I was wondering the following. Do you think it would be possible to have a simplified form of Egnlish parallel to, not as a replacement of, the full form of English? I envision this simplified form as one used worldwide for international communications, not as a replacement of the language in its current form in English-speaking countries.<BR/>One of the criticims against Ogden's BASIC English was that it was too restricted, which gave as a result more complex sentences. Is it possible that this could be solved by adding more vocabulary than he proposed? <BR/>With this simplified language system I imagine (naively perhaps?), non-English speakers around the world could receive instruction in the simplified form, as well as native English speakers who know they will have to interact with speakers who handle the simplified form. Instruction in the full form could continue for those who are really interested in and have the time to learn the language in more detail. <BR/>Is there anything that can be done about those students, often adults, that find out they will attend a conference say in England and are desperate to learn the language in months? As an EFL teacher I am aware that students often expect magical solutions and teachers are no magicians! However, if a simplified form existed, perhaps the immediate needs of these students could be satisfied. What are your thoughts on this? Thank you very much.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377709913595182916.post-48522481332927259052007-06-21T19:07:00.000+00:002007-06-21T19:07:00.000+00:00I wouldn't call it 'trouble'. If that message appe...I wouldn't call it 'trouble'. If that message appears one day, all it will mean is that a new spelling has by then arrived, replacing an older one. If Google had been around in Dr Johnson's day, the message to anyone who typed in <I>music</I> would have been 'did you mean <I>musick</I>?' A generation later, it would have been the other way round. And of course, if both spellings gain equal acceptance, Google will simply pass over the variation in silence, as it does at present with such alternates as <I>judg(e)ment</I>, <I>p(a)ediatrics</I>, and so on.DChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10192779827863835310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377709913595182916.post-87373874663386038182007-06-18T14:18:00.000+00:002007-06-18T14:18:00.000+00:00Thank you for your considered reply. I had complet...Thank you for your considered reply. I had completely overlooked the accent factor in I.T.A.use.<BR/><BR/>Google and spelling: We will know when we are in trouble when the message coming up is: Did you mean rubarb?<BR/><BR/>I am puzzling today over 'kernel' and 'colonel', wondering if etymology will give way to pronunciation or vice versa.<BR/>A combination of '<B>colo</B>ny' and 'pimper<B>nel</B>' seems quite feasible phonetically, but how will the army react ;-)<BR/><BR/>With kind regards,<BR/>J.C.jocohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08443120495036936430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377709913595182916.post-39184689219410600002007-06-17T14:22:00.000+00:002007-06-17T14:22:00.000+00:00Well I don't like zapping comments, especially whe...Well I don't like zapping comments, especially when they raise new issues. I assume you mean the Pitman i.t.a. (several other 'initial teaching alphabets' have been proposed). This was a really interesting experiment, I thought. I met James Pitman once, and was impressed with his mix of evangelism and common sense. Kids seemed to like it, many started to read twice as quickly, and most didn't have a problem with the transition to standard orthography, as had been feared. But there were difficulties - for instance, it wasn't so good if you had an accent which wasn't accurately reflected in the i.t.a. symbols. And there was always a problem over the fact that, while the children were learnng i.t.a. in one learning environment, they were being exposed to traditional orthography everywhere else. After a while, there were lots of pros and cons, and the end result was that the approach never had the permanent impact its proponents hoped for. I haven't seen it in use for ages. <BR/><BR/>i.t.a. wasn't so much a method of simplification as a method of avoiding irregularity - or, rather, postponing it until children had grasped the notion that writing is essentially a regular relationship between sounds and spellings. What I think i.t.a. did was help focus minds on the relationship between phonology and orthography. It thus helped form a climate for the later development of a systematic phonics.DChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10192779827863835310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8377709913595182916.post-37795974194480352702007-06-17T12:01:00.000+00:002007-06-17T12:01:00.000+00:00Hello there,As regards 'r(h)ubarb', not only do we...Hello there,<BR/><BR/>As regards 'r(h)ubarb', not only do we have to expect to be googled-down any day now, but we also have to arm ourselves against losing readers, by means of dual spelling.<BR/><BR/>My yog(h)urt making pages are a case in point. I have to admit, Yahoo has always been more flexible, but how long is that going to last?<BR/><BR/>May I ask how you think the ITA (Initial Teaching Alphabet) fits/has fitted into the simplification attempts?<BR/><BR/>My own experience in teaching with it has been very favourable, with hardly any sign of transition problems.<BR/><BR/>I only found your site last night and my head is swirling with queries. Far too many to bring up here. I wonder if I may point you to a page where I could upload some. Please zap this comment, as it doesn't really come up to the standard of your pages.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com