this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2026
510 points (97.0% liked)
memes
22190 readers
3437 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Quite the statement for an English comment. English spelling is nonsensical and in desperate need of a major reform. RobWords even made the case for using runes again as it would probably fix a lot of issues already. The language simply isn't made for Latin letters.
But I don't want to make this a sole whataboutism comment. Each language poses it's own challenges. I will say that changing how roughly 100 million speak is easier said than done and would destroy a lot of culture. It would be much easier to force everyone to speak a different language entirely.
Personally I don't think it should or could be done at all. Unlike a spelling reform that English needs desperately and German had plenty of recently. There is nothing wrong with a language being complicated but there's plenty wrong with arbitrary spelling if you ask me.
As an English speaker yeah we should switch back to runes
My native language isn't English in case you were assuming that. I mention it because my native language has gone through a reform for the reasons of simplification. English may be shit, but it was much much easier to learn than the hell I am going through with German. Even Japanese, which I touched for a few years wasn't nearly as bad. The point of languages it to be simple and efficient, and they should evolve to that goal eventually.
That's one hell of an assumption to bring to the table. There is no point to language, no end goal towards which they must, or even should evolve. They're a natural creation of humans to facilitate communication, but coming from human beings, they're naturally quite irregular and odd, at times.
I mean, I get it that German isn't a cakewalk to pick up, but you're also complaining about the unreasonable complexity in one of the less morphologically complex European languages. Take a gander at Polish, Icelandic, Basque, or Finnish, and German will probably seem quite charming and quaint with its handful of cases and corresponding forms of the articles.
If a language is easy to learn and easy to use, more people will speak it. The languages that don't adapt die with the people who still insist on using it. There is an evolution and there is a goal, as you said, to communicate. A simpler language is bound to be chosen over one that adds obstacles to communication.
In the same way evolution is mostly driven by an animal's ability to pass off its genes, language is mostly driven by it's ability to be used and learned.
Now I'm thinking about Esperanto, maybe that is not completely true, idk
I would argue that this is just humans attributing intent to a natural process that has none, and is the same sort of erroneous conception as when people say that history has some grand end goal it's working towards. I believe this is amply demonstrated in the lack of success found by Esperanto and similar conlangs that were deliberately constructed in order to be easy to learn for a wide range of people as a neutral lingua franca. If what you claim about the purpose and goal of language were true, these conlangs should have seen widespread adoption and be the most widely spoken languages today, rather than their current status as quirky ideas that are mostly of no interest to people who aren't complete nerds for studying languages.
But the point of a language is not to spread to the most people, it is for the peoples using it being able to use it in a way that makes it possible to communicate with their own in a way that makes sense within the local population, its culture and history.
Different languages have a different learning curve based on what language you grew up with. What is hard for you might be a cakewalk for someone coming from a different language, especially if you are coming from a different family of languages.
I wasn't assuming that, don't worry. That's why I phrased my message like that.
I guess I agree to disagree here. Language is an expression of culture and heritage too. I would never speak German differently now just because of a reform. Neither would 99% of German speakers I assume. Yet we freely integrate English words into our language because it feels natural. These English words often come and go anyway so I'm not actually concerned the German language will become deluded from Internet lingo or anything.
I think this is a 'to each his own' sort of situation. I like the idea of kanji but am terrible at memorizing them. I'll take German grammar over kanji any day. If you specifically mean grammar, Japanese does have its own challenges as well.
According to whom? The point of language is to communicate information. There are high-context and low-context ways to do this. There are direct and indirect ways to do this, all of which encode certain cultural meaning. If you studied Japanese, think about all the indirectness, honorifics, etc. that aren't there to be simple, they're there for cultural and societal reasons, even if mostly just historical in some cases.
Would love to hear more about why English isn't made for Latin letters
I don't know about Latin letters more generally, but at least the issue with the default Latin alphabet, there just aren't enough letters to represent the sounds used in English phonetically. The English language has between 14-25 vowels, depending on dialect and accent, and a further 24 consonants. When the Latin alphabet only has 26 letters, you're naturally going to run into situations where one letter has to represent multiple sounds. With that said, I don't see any reason, aside from the sheer cultural inertia of hundreds of years not doing so, why English couldn't address the issue with diacritics on different letters to achieve the necessary number of unique letters to represent all of the sounds found in English.
Gendered nouns in German are just as stupid and arbitrary as spelling in English. Why is a pencil masculine? Why is beer neutral but coffee masculine? Why is school feminine?
It's that way because languages grow naturally and are part of a culture. Although if you have breakfast with people from different parts of Germany or even just different households, you may find yourself arguing about the nouns of a popular nougat cream brand. It's quite controversial for some reason.
Whatever the case, the same can't be said about spelling, however. Writing is often reformed in many languages many times and it generally works. A language changes the way we think as much as the way we think shapes how we speak. You can't really reform how people speak from the top. It either happens or it doesn't.