# On the Evolution of English with no Gatekeepers



## Zero Angel (Sep 3, 2012)

Hi Guys, 

What are your thoughts on how English will develop moving forward in the next 10-50 years?

I ask because I believe the rise of self-published authors along with texting and e-mailing will cause English to be far more mutable than it has ever been before when the language depended on scholars and published writers. 

At the same time, it is hoped that the change will be documented, and everyone will be able to track the changes.


----------



## ThinkerX (Sep 4, 2012)

I expect serious word contractions to become the norm:

'u' gradually replacing 'you'
'r' gradually replacing 'are'
'+' gradually replacing 'and'

that sort of thing.

Possibly some simplified spelling of more complex words.


----------



## ShortHair (Sep 4, 2012)

My feeling is that texting will be considered a dialect and that the general, spoken, language will change more slowly.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 4, 2012)

I'm in texting hell. Someone above help us.

I'm still trying to work out what this XD thing is.


----------



## JCFarnham (Sep 4, 2012)

Seeing as how text language isn't a verbal language, it would be very difficult for it to fall into popular use. The written esperanto, if you like. 

I honestly think the more ridiculous it becomes the less people will use it in formal situations. I define formal situation as books, etc. This won't change until every single author using current language dies and the only people left to write fiction are the kids now in high school who know shit about writing. Lets face it. I don't think that will happen. People emulate people. I seriously hope there will always be someone emulating the past of written English. We do it now, more or less, so why not in the future.

Now. Instuctions, online non-fiction text, chat, that'll devolve. For sure. 

Until the complete death of traditional publishing and the professional editor (lets face it they're still getting too much money to go away just yet), we have nothing to worry about. 

I will continue to write in my version of English, and will teach my children that kind of English.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Sep 4, 2012)

ThinkerX said:


> I expect serious word contractions to become the norm:
> 
> 'u' gradually replacing 'you'
> 'r' gradually replacing 'are'
> ...



I don't know if we'll see this happen in formal prose. Big-time publishers are very unlikely to ever tolerate this sort of thing, and self-published folks are probably going to keep doing their best to look professional, which means not doing this sort of thing.

I don't in general have a problem with regularizing/simplifying a language to remove redundances or ambiguities, but there's going to be a lot of resistance to using "u" instead of "you" in formal/professional writing.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 4, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> I don't know if we'll see this happen in formal prose. Big-time publishers are very unlikely to ever tolerate this sort of thing, and self-published folks are probably going to keep doing their best to look professional, which means not doing this sort of thing.



I think that is generally true, though I will point out that there are some popular teen/YA novels written entirely in "texting" speech. For example, Amazon.com: Ttyl (9780810987883): Lauren Myracle: Books


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 4, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I think that is generally true, though I will point out that there are some popular teen/YA novels written entirely in "texting" speech. For example, Amazon.com: Ttyl (9780810987883): Lauren Myracle: Books



I think that's probably just a gimmick. If any changes were to be made to the English language, I'd want it to be the elimination of the letters c, x, and q. Because really, what purpose do they serve? With the exception of the ch sound, they only make sounds that are "stolen" from other letters. They're superfluous. Q is an especially stupid letter. It looks cool, sure. But in the grand majority of cases, it's useless unless it's got a u to back it up, and even then that sound can be made using kw.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Sep 4, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> I think that's probably just a gimmick. If any changes were to be made to the English language, I'd want it to be the elimination of the letters c, x, and q. Because really, what purpose do they serve? With the exception of the ch sound, they only make sounds that are "stolen" from other letters. They're superfluous. Q is an especially stupid letter. It looks cool, sure. But in the grand majority of cases, it's useless unless it's got a u to back it up, and even then that sound can be made using kw.



Q is awesome, you heretic! Quark! Quack! Quench! Quell! Quorum!

Edit: *QUASAR!*


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 4, 2012)

Kwark. Kwack. Kwench. Kwell. Kworum. Kwasar. And I'm debating whether or not "kwack" needs the c or "kwell" needs that extra l.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 4, 2012)

kwantas, kw-ship, kwandrant, Kweensland, nah... looks weird.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Sep 5, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Kwark. Kwack. Kwench. Kwell. Kworum. Kwasar. And I'm debating whether or not "kwack" needs the c or "kwell" needs that extra l.





Actually, if you really want to normalize spelling, you need one symbol for each sound, which means we need additional vowels. Can't have "a" pronounced four different ways (e.g. cat, car, cane, care)!


----------



## Ireth (Sep 5, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Actually, if you really want to normalize spelling, you need one symbol for each sound, which means we need additional vowels. Can't have "a" pronounced four different ways (e.g. cat, car, cane, care)!



That's what accents are for, isn't it? XD


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 5, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Actually, if you really want to normalize spelling, you need one symbol for each sound, which means we need additional vowels. Can't have "a" pronounced four different ways (e.g. cat, car, cane, care)!



I don't care if one letter has multiple sounds. It just seems odd that we have letter that only make sounds stolen from other letters.


----------

