What Changes Would You Make to the English Language?

[WelshBluebird]

(My bolding) -- as per my understanding, that has essentially been standard practice in English for hundreds of years: with references being to the male gender -- "man / men"; but with it being understood and agreed that when in context, women were being referred to also -- it's that way in the King James Bible, for instance. Those using the language thus would, I'm sure, mostly have said that their doing so was not out of misogyny or sexism; but just handling language succinctly, in a way which avoided getting tangled in convoluted "and / or" knots.

I guess the real question though is why that was the case? Why wasn't the female alternative chosen as the single option instead? And the reason for that is what the role of women has been throughout history. Not in a direct "women are worth less" type of sexism, but absolutely the fact that women were often seen as men's property etc etc.

 

[biko]

I suspect the complications of German grammar mean that even the Dutch need some formal lessons in German in order to speak it to a reasonable standard. On the other hand, as in many countries, most of the locals will be delighted that you take the trouble to speak to them in their own language and will make generous allowance for any shortcomings. I wish I could say the same for the Netherlands: there any attempt to speak Dutch with an obvious English accent is almost inevitably met by a response in fluent English!

True, I had formal lessons at secondary school for two years, but that really isn’t sufficient to have a proper conversation. I can order food and a drink and that’s it. Understanding it is relatively easy especially for Dutch people living around the border as their dialect is basically in between languages. Apparently people who speak dialect at even understood at the other side of the border!

It was the use of diens that I was thinking of, but the example was not a good one. I found in Germany that because of the similarity of the languages, Dutch words came unbidden to my tongue when I wanted a German one; if I wasn't careful I would be tempted to make up a German word on a Dutch model and say things like "entbeissen" for "frühstucken" (breakfast) or überschreiten for umsteigen (change trains).

Haha, that always happens to me if trying to speak German.

One peculiarity of Dutch that has cropped up in nearly all the books I've translated from it, has been the use of the same word "neef" for nephew and cousin

Certainly weird indeed. I find it often confusing in conversations, so Dutch would improve by adding this distinction.

As for the English tenses, I always found that my Dutch friend, a retired professor of New Testament Greek at Leiden, got the perfect and the simple past mixed up and would write things like "Erasmus has died in 1536".

I also find that difficult. It was taught at school but I didn’t fully understand all nuances. It seemed like every sentence in the assignments was an exception to the rule. I am pretty sure I still make a lot of mistakes with these tenses.

 

[BluePenguin]

I would remove the definition of the word “partner” to mean spouse from the dictionary. Then everyone would be labelled as girlfriend, boyfriend, wife or husband accordingly. Removing the sensitive issue of having to either ask or guess a person’s sexuality would make my job a lot easier. Especially as we shouldn’t ask with the new equality guidelines in place.

“Partner” is typically only used by those in stagnant relationships. It lacks clarity on how significant the other person is. If an endearing label is not used or someone is branded as “the” we question whether the couple is actually a couple.

We cannot assume all men have wifes and all women husbands, but the truth is we do. But as soon as “partner” is uttered the assumption is the person is being discreet about being gay.

Sexual partner, romantic partner, business partner, gaming partner or dancing partner? Nobody knows!

 

[GatwickDepress]

I would remove the definition of the word “partner” to mean spouse from the dictionary. Then everyone would be labelled as girlfriend, boyfriend, wife or husband accordingly. Removing the sensitive issue of having to either ask or guess a person’s sexuality would make my job a lot easier. Especially as we shouldn’t ask with the new equality guidelines in place.

“Partner” is typically only used by those in stagnant relationships. It lacks clarity on how significant the other person is. If an endearing label is not used or someone is branded as “the” we question whether the couple is actually a couple.

We cannot assume all men have wifes and all women husbands, but the truth is we do. But as soon as “partner” is uttered the assumption is the person is being discreet about being gay.

Sexual partner, romantic partner, business partner, gaming partner or dancing partner? Nobody knows!

Eh? That's a bit of a leap to make. Certainly nobody I know assumes partner refers to a stagnant marriage or a same-sex relationship.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I would remove the definition of the word “partner” to mean spouse from the dictionary. Then everyone would be labelled as girlfriend, boyfriend, wife or husband accordingly. Removing the sensitive issue of having to either ask or guess a person’s sexuality would make my job a lot easier. Especially as we shouldn’t ask with the new equality guidelines in place.

Not sure why you feel you have to ask or guess a person's sexuality to be honest. In the only contexts I can think of where it would matter what gender someones partner is - you'd likely already know!

As for the actual wording - so you think that someone who has been with their partner for multiple years (or even decades) but hasn't got married should still just say boyfriend or girlfriend? Doesn't that feel like you are doing a massive disservice to some people's relationships then? Because I feel that mine and my partners relationship is much more than just "girlfriend" and "boyfriend", but we aren't married (yet). And what about people whose partners are nonbinary or the like?

“Partner” is typically only used by those in stagnant relationships. It lacks clarity on how significant the other person is.

I can't disagree enough. If anything partner is showing more significance to the person than "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" as it implies a more serious longer term relationship.

We cannot assume all men have wifes and all women husbands, but the truth is we do. But as soon as “partner” is uttered the assumption is the person is being discreet about being gay.

I mean does it? A lot of us don't make any assumption about sexuality or gender based on the use of the word partner so I am not sure why you would.

Sexual partner, romantic partner, business partner, gaming partner or dancing partner? Nobody knows!

You can usually tell from the context of the conversation!

 

[181]

As for the English tenses, I always found that my Dutch friend, a retired professor of New Testament Greek at Leiden, got the perfect and the simple past mixed up and would write things like "Erasmus has died in 1536".

I also find that difficult. It was taught at school but I didn’t fully understand all nuances. It seemed like every sentence in the assignments was an exception to the rule. I am pretty sure I still make a lot of mistakes with these tenses.

Your English seems very good to me. American English tends to use the simple past more often than British English does, which might be confusing for a learner who encountered both.

I can think of two specific words that would be useful in English. One is a singular for 'cattle' -- presumably if you only had one you knew what sex it was, but sometimes I've found myself wanting to say 'there's a ..... on the far side of the field' (e.g. as part of a conversation about the wisdom of entering the field), and 'cow or bull', 'bovine animal', 'Bos taurus', etc. don't fit very naturally into the sentence.

The other would be useful for many railway enthusiasts -- it's a word for the feeling that's similar to nostalgia, but about something that you didn't actually experience yourself but would like to have done. It's how I feel about the pre-Beeching railway.

 

[takno]

I would remove the definition of the word “partner” to mean spouse from the dictionary. Then everyone would be labelled as girlfriend, boyfriend, wife or husband accordingly. Removing the sensitive issue of having to either ask or guess a person’s sexuality would make my job a lot easier. Especially as we shouldn’t ask with the new equality guidelines in place.

People often find it easier to muddy the issue of their sexuality because they don't want to share it. If the language didn't have a way to make it unclear, it would simply be invented.

Not really sure what your job is, but if you've got guidelines in place saying you can't ask then it's probably none of your business.

 

[GusB]

I would remove the definition of the word “partner” to mean spouse from the dictionary. Then everyone would be labelled as girlfriend, boyfriend, wife or husband accordingly. Removing the sensitive issue of having to either ask or guess a person’s sexuality would make my job a lot easier. Especially as we shouldn’t ask with the new equality guidelines in place.

“Partner” is typically only used by those in stagnant relationships. It lacks clarity on how significant the other person is. If an endearing label is not used or someone is branded as “the” we question whether the couple is actually a couple.

We cannot assume all men have wifes and all women husbands, but the truth is we do. But as soon as “partner” is uttered the assumption is the person is being discreet about being gay.

Sexual partner, romantic partner, business partner, gaming partner or dancing partner? Nobody knows!

People often find it easier to muddy the issue of their sexuality because they don't want to share it. If the language didn't have a way to make it unclear, it would simply be invented.

Not really sure what your job is, but if you've got guidelines in place saying you can't ask then it's probably none of your business.

People often don't want to share the issue of their sexuality because historically it has been frowned upon and saying "my partner" has been a polite way of saying "I'm not single" while at the same time not revealing to anyone else that you're in a relationship with someone of the same sex. Similarly it's used by heterosexual couples who may be in a long-term relationship who neither don't want to nor feel the need to get married. While acceptance of gay couples is a fairly recent thing, it wasn't much longer before that when unmarried heterosexual couples were frowned upon. "Partner" is as good as any description as any.

I'd argue that if you're introducing someone as your dancing partner or business partner without there being any romantic connection between you, you'd probably mention it up-front.

Have we really failed to progress beyond the nudge-nudge, wink-wink "is (s)he or isn't (s)he one of them?" mentality? That's before we go anywhere near the issue of they and them!

The word "partner" is fine. It applies to a multitude of situations and if you feel that you can't get your head around it then you should A) probably mind your own business, accepting the fact that two people have decided to share their lives together and B) ask if you don't understand.

 

[chorleyjeff]

Imagine English had a body similar to - say - the Académie française for French, which was charged with regulating and suggesting improvements to the English Language, and you worked for it. Are there any changes you'd recommend or that you'd like to see? I'm talking minor tweaks here, not wholesale rewrites of the language.

The one for me that got me thinking about this is that I feel we really need to add a gender-neutral pronoun to supplement he/she (plus a form for him/her) for referring to a single human being without specifying gender. Though I have no idea what words should be used for that. Ideally something that is intuitive and has some existing connection with the language.

Any others that people would like to see?

Gender neutral pronouns ? Why ? Just let the language evolve. If there is a need for change it will happen.

 

[xotGD]

We need a word for an individual virus thing. It isn't an organism, it isn't a particle. What is it?

 

[Ediswan]

I can think of two specific words that would be useful in English. One is a singular for 'cattle' -- presumably if you only had one you knew what sex it was, but sometimes I've found myself wanting to say 'there's a ..... on the far side of the field' (e.g. as part of a conversation about the wisdom of entering the field), and 'cow or bull', 'bovine animal', 'Bos taurus', etc. don't fit very naturally into the sentence.

People I know use the word 'beast' in exactly that situation.

 

[Calthrop]

Your English seems very good to me. American English tends to use the simple past more often than British English does, which might be confusing for a learner who encountered both.

I can think of two specific words that would be useful in English. One is a singular for 'cattle' -- presumably if you only had one you knew what sex it was, but sometimes I've found myself wanting to say 'there's a ..... on the far side of the field' (e.g. as part of a conversation about the wisdom of entering the field), and 'cow or bull', 'bovine animal', 'Bos taurus', etc. don't fit very naturally into the sentence.

@Ediswan said: "People I know use the word 'beast' in exactly that situation."

I'd suggest, with respect, that this is a decidedly minority usage. It would indeed be useful if more widespread; but I have the impression that for the majority of the population, the word "beast" would conjure up either a hideously-misbehaving human; or a mysterious / hard-to-identify member of the animal kingdom, of a frightening kind.

The other would be useful for many railway enthusiasts -- it's a word for the feeling that's similar to nostalgia, but about something that you didn't actually experience yourself but would like to have done. It's how I feel about the pre-Beeching railway.

I have always reckoned that "nostalgia" can apply either to something which one has personally known in the past, but is now -- at least for oneself -- no more; or with equal validity, to stuff which your post puts in the other category, such as -- for yourself -- the pre-Beeching railway. Per the Shorter Oxford Dictionary (my italics, therein): one meaning for "nostalgia" -- "Regret or sentimental longing for the conditions of a period of the (usually) recent past; regretful or wistful memory or imagining of an earlier time."

Whatever theoretical limitations there might be, on the word's applicability: a significant proportion of the content of this site's "Railway History and Nostalgia" sub-forum, would seem to feature on the poster's part, not merely interest in railway scenes which poster never knew first-hand (before poster was born / poster never in a position to go there, even when a contemporary of such scenes); but plenty of wishing that poster had known same first-hand -- in fact, wistful longing for that ! This suggestive at least, that many of us are OK with the word "nostalgia" in the "not-known-first-hand" sense.

 

[181]

I have always reckoned that "nostalgia" can apply either to something which one has personally known in the past, but is now -- at least for oneself -- no more; or with equal validity, to stuff which your post puts in the other category, such as -- for yourself -- the pre-Beeching railway. Per the Shorter Oxford Dictionary (my italics, therein): one meaning for "nostalgia" -- "Regret or sentimental longing for the conditions of a period of the (usually) recent past; regretful or wistful memory or imagining of an earlier time."

Whatever theoretical limitations there might be, on the word's applicability: a significant proportion of the content of this site's "Railway History and Nostalgia" sub-forum, would seem to feature on the poster's part, not merely interest in railway scenes which poster never knew first-hand (before poster was born / poster never in a position to go there, even when a contemporary of such scenes); but plenty of wishing that poster had known same first-hand -- in fact, wistful longing for that ! This suggestive at least, that many of us are OK with the word "nostalgia" in the "not-known-first-hand" sense.

Interesting. I'd always thought of it as referring to something that the nostalgic person had actually experienced (even if their memories of it weren't entirely accurate). If it can have the wider meaning, it could be argued that this creates the need for a non-circumlocutory way to distinguish between the two situations.

 

[Jamesrob637]

Forty be changed to fourty in British. Looks too American without the 'u'.

 

[takno]

Forty be changed to fourty in British. Looks too American without the 'u'.

"It's got high walls with battlements on the top - looks pretty fourty to me"

 

[Calthrop]

Interesting. I'd always thought of it as referring to something that the nostalgic person had actually experienced (even if their memories of it weren't entirely accurate). If it can have the wider meaning, it could be argued that this creates the need for a non-circumlocutory way to distinguish between the two situations.

Going off-topic, with this thread being about the English language -- however: with the Germans tending to be in tune with this kind of thing, I wondered whether German might have a different word for -- as per discussion -- each aspect. But my German / English dictionary (fairly decent-sized and inclusive, though not a multi-volume work of scholarship) gives just -- as with our language -- the one word "Nostalgie". (Bringing to mind the bit of wordplay from recent decades: "Ostalgie" -- fond recalling of the rather few "upsides" of the one-time German Democratic Republic, now that no-one actually has to live in-and-on that scene.)

 

[tspaul26]

I can think of two specific words that would be useful in English. One is a singular for 'cattle' -- presumably if you only had one you knew what sex it was, but sometimes I've found myself wanting to say 'there's a ..... on the far side of the field' (e.g. as part of a conversation about the wisdom of entering the field), and 'cow or bull', 'bovine animal', 'Bos taurus', etc. don't fit very naturally into the sentence.

“There’s a pecus on the far side of the field.”

Although I would not necessarily expect the person with whom I am conversing to have any idea what I am going on about!

Or even:

“There’s a head of cattle on the far side of the field.

 

[Purple Orange]

To echo others, I’d like to see ‘they’, ‘their’ and ‘them’ to mean both the singular as well as the plural. He/she, his/hers, him/her doesn’t always work appropriately and a perfect example of that is an onlinr forum and social media generally. Nobody here knows what any forumer’s sex or gender is unless it has been revealed, so how would anybody know what pronoun to use?

I’ve also never liked ‘mankind’ and ‘man-size’, or the use of ‘man’ to refer to homo sapiens. There are better words to use, like ‘human’ and ‘large’ for ‘man-size’.

 

[py_megapixel]

I’ve also never liked ‘mankind’ and ‘man-size’, or the use of ‘man’ to refer to homo sapiens. There are better words to use, like ‘human’ and ‘large’ for ‘man-size’.

"man-size" is a really stupid word, I'll agree on that.

"Peoplekind" as an alternative to mankind has always grated with me a bit - "humankind" seems like a better alternative but I've never seen it used (and I think even "peoplekind" was somewhat satire anyway)

 

[Purple Orange]

"man-size" is a really stupid word, I'll agree on that.

"Peoplekind" as an alternative to mankind has always grated with me a bit - "humankind" seems like a better alternative but I've never seen it used (and I think even "peoplekind" was somewhat satire anyway)

I’d say ‘humankind’ is a rather needless word too. Keep it simple: ‘humans’.

 

[NorthOxonian]

Separate words for the plural and singular forms of "you" and "your", and the inclusive and exclusive forms of "we" and "our"

In the North East, most people would say "yous", particularly those who were my age. It's also used in a number of other areas of the UK as well as some cities abroad - I don't know where it originally came from.

However, it isn't a formal term - it's probably more like the German "ihr" in meaning than an actual catch-all plural "you". And there's no equivalent for "your".

 

[takno]

In the North East, most people would say "yous", particularly those who were my age. It's also used in a number of other areas of the UK as well as some cities abroad - I don't know where it originally came from.

However, it isn't a formal term - it's probably more like the German "ihr" in meaning than an actual catch-all plural "you". And there's no equivalent for "your".

I took to saying yous at some point, almost certainly when my brother was at uni in Newcastle. Everybody seems to understand it and it definitely makes things clearer

 

[Purple Orange]

Yes, I like ‘yous’.

 

[Calthrop]

“There’s a pecus on the far side of the field.”

Although I would not necessarily expect the person with whom I am conversing to have any idea what I am going on about!

A new word to me; have just been looking it up. Sorry to seem miserable-and-negative -- but if my understanding from said looking-up, is correct: "pecus" -- which can be either collective or singular -- applies not solely to "cow-kind": admittedly, more to "cattle and equines" than to other creatures; broadly applicable, however, to any kind of domestic mammal. Not sufficiently specific, I tend to opine, for @181's purpose -- though he of course, may think otherwise !

At all events: a splendid newly-discovered word for Scrabble !

 

[tspaul26]

A new word to me; have just been looking it up. Sorry to seem miserable-and-negative -- but if my understanding from said looking-up, is correct: "pecus" -- which can be either collective or singular -- applies not solely to "cow-kind": admittedly, more to "cattle and equines" than to other creatures; broadly applicable, however, to any kind of domestic mammal. Not sufficiently specific, I tend to opine, for @181's purpose -- though he of course, may think otherwise !

At all events: a splendid newly-discovered word for Scrabble !

I will concede that it is really very archaic!

There’s a wider legal background which I won’t go into which means that in this context the word pecus would connote the single moo-cow rather than the herd or a horse.

Pecu (cattle, domestic animals - as a collective), pecus (a head of cattle) - not to be confused with pecus (a herd), pecudes (several herd animals), pecora (several herds)

 

[Mcr Warrior]

“There’s a pecus on the far side of the field.”

Although I would not necessarily expect the person with whom I am conversing to have any idea what I am going on about!

Don't think that this word is in most people's typical 20,000 to 30,000 word, commonly used, English language vocabulary.

Must be many, many other aspects of the English language that could more usefully be looked at!

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

I should like to enforce correct use of 'can' and 'may'.

 

[Calthrop]

I will concede that it is really very archaic!

There’s a wider legal background which I won’t go into which means that in this context the word pecus would connote the single moo-cow rather than the herd or a horse.

Pecu (cattle, domestic animals - as a collective), pecus (a head of cattle) - not to be confused with pecus (a herd), pecudes (several herd animals), pecora (several herds)

I feel here a bit, like the dim pupil: "Ignoro, O Domine: imploro, non me severissime flagellate..."


ETA: could there perhaps be "pecora" as above, of peccaries (South American wild pigs)?

 

[tspaul26]

could there perhaps be "pecora" as above, of peccaries (South American wild pigs)?

That wouldn’t really work in this example because the pigs are wild.

Squadrons would work or perhaps sounders, although the latter is more properly boar I think.

ETA

Elvis Tribute Artist?

 

[swt_passenger]

I should like to enforce correct use of 'can' and 'may'.

arrrggghhh and also “Can I get”, in a queue at a counter, especially coffee shops.