/lit/ - Literature

>>15303351

Yes it's annoying in many, many ways. Some tricky, some easy. Almost all the easy problems could be fixed if just a few thousand people got together and pushed.

>>15303351
Yes, when spoken by Americans

It annoys me to read books in english because they aren't translated to my language

>>15303424
This

>>15303424
rent free

>>15303424
this

>>15303351
Hearing american females speak makes me want to blow my brains out. Its my 2a right

>>15303412

Some simple problems:

It has too many words for some things and no words for other things. Other languages have loads of words that we should have a word for. We can steal theirs but it takes time.

English is completely inconsistent in what it has words for. e.g. it has "less" for uncountables and "fewer" for countables. Fine. But it's "more" for both. Why aren't there two sorts of "more"?

Why isn't there a word for "he or she"? It would be useful. "They" is no good because "they" is already really commonly used for the plural. Yes you can often get away with it but sometimes it causes problems. Would be far better to have a dedicated word. (I know people have tried to use xe and stuff but they're always weird and unnatural-sounding, and they don't catch on.)

Some very important concepts in computer science have no even remotely sensible equivalent in English. If you want to talk about traversing a tree or minimaxing or something it's just IMPOSSIBLE without pages of excruciating twisting around. There should be a good simple English construction mapping to these new concepts. It would help people think about them more naturally.

Still on the topic of computer science - when you program a computer you can write your own low-level functions and then use them. You can even redesign how the basic operators work (e.g. overloading in C++). Why doesn't English give you the capacity to design your own grammatical structures on-the-fly, and then use them in the work thereafter?

There are many more things that anger me about English but it's late.

Never. My mother tongue is the master-language. She is perfection

It annoys me that we've gotten rid of our 2nd person singular. Maybe part of it is that "thee/thou" is a cool-sounding word. But even if you don't agree with that, you have to admit that it's stupid for us to use "you" for both the singular and the plural. We need two different words.

>>15303351
Only when niggers butcher it

When Americans use words like "ya'll" or "ma'am"

>>15303555
I was thinking of this merely two minutes ago. Speakers of other European languages are confounded by the fact that we don’t use this feature anymore.

>>15303351
It feels pedestrian. For the last few months I've been reading literature in my native language and Russian, while I only used English to shitpost. Now it is weird to go back to reading artistic texts in English.

>>15303486
1st point: English influenced by various other languages and thus greater vocabulary.

2. The proper term for opposite of "fewer" is "greater".

3. "He/she" is fine. So are words like "person" and "individual".

4. Computer programming is relatively new and languages evolve slowly. Give it time.

5. Grammar needs to have rules otherwise we wouldn't be able to communicate properly.

>>15303486
>he or she
"one" is commonly used as a gender neutral third person pronoun.

Bi-monthly means both twice a month and once every two months

>>15303662

2. Not the same. You say "there were fewer cars" but you wouldn't say "there were greater cars" - you have to say "there were more cars". Yes, you might say "there was a greater NUMBER of cars" but that's a completely different thing and using a bunch more words.

3. "He/she" isn't even close to being fine. It's clumsy and awkward and uses a punctuation symbol and is literally unsayable. You can't say "he/she" and pronounce the slash. Completely ridiculous.

5. Not an argument. Of course it has to have rules but the rules should allow for other, custom, local rules.

>>15303682
"One" is an impersonal pronoun. Consider someone asking you "Hey, you know where John is?" If you replied "One is at the supermarket," you'd only be met with a bewildered stare.

>>15303486
give a reason someone would need to just invent a grammatical structure

We should all just speak German, a superior language

>>15303424
I was gonna say when british people talk english it makes them sound like fucking faggots and forces me to do my anger control exercises where I close my eyes and count to 10

>>15304064
Every post deserves a reply

>He had had the first choice
>I don't know that that's the right choice

And other such cases

>>15303682
protip you sound like a massive faggot if you do this

>>15304088
whenever i say "had had", i always pronounce the first had as "hid"
he hid had the first choice

>>15303486
>it has "less" for uncountables and "fewer" for countables. Fine. But it's "more" for both. Why aren't there two sorts of "more"?
This is a completely made up distinction, as evidenced by most speakers not using it, in other words it's practically incorrect/nonexistent. Not sure when but I wouldn't be surprised if it was only invented in the 20th century. I intentionally break it to make the drones seethe in their complete ignorance of language but otherwise use it in personal writing even though the distinction adds nothing that context doesn't. You can tell it's fake for cognitive reasons though, there is no line between quantity and mass mentally or linguistically. Only exists by an obsession with quantification that is a unique cultural aberration of our age.

The 'many words for the same thing' comes from the fact that it is a very classist language. Think 'made up' to 'invented' or 'fabricated' as a distinction of formality and 'flavour'. I think it adds to the language but it's no good if you want to do away with classism.

>>15303486
>Why isn't there a word for "he or she"? It would be useful
There is, it's 'he'. Prior to Modern English 'its' did not exist and 'his' was used. This is because masculine is the default gender and conflated with neuter. This isn't literal gender btw, only grammatical grouping. Though grammatical gender has been lost, the pronouns align to grammatical gender not actual gender (not lexical). Without grammatical gender, pronouns would likely not have gender whatsoever as you can see in other languages. There would be lexically-gendered nouns, as we have now, and that's it.

>>15303486
>>Some very important concepts in computer science have no even remotely sensible equivalent in English.
No. You cannot make natural language into formal language or mathematics. This is not only arbitrary but so impractical that it would be rapidly discarded by the language in the like 2-3 generations even with totalitarian enforcement. You have to understand, language is biological grammatical faculty + cognition. Anything unsuited to that gets tossed, though you can unnatural retain things through sheer social indoctrination (fear of social repercussion- appearing incorrect, uneducated, etc.) there is a limit to this and most of the population will probably (rightfully) ignore it.

Defining grammatical operations/structures is obviously retarded. I shouldn't need to explain. You have a strong case of 'I like this thing why isn't everything else the same as it?'. Study linguistics and cognitive science.

One thing I dislike about loanwords is that they're kinda bleached and unevocative. Native equivalents, that existed and could exist, are much richer by knowing the parts intimately. And the meaning is more readily derived or expanded.

>>15304088
>>15304266
Yea just modulate the pronunciation or prosody, that's what everyone already does, probably because it's harder to say the same thing (exactly) in a row and harder for the listener to comprehend too.

>>15303486
>it has "less" for uncountables and "fewer" for countables. Fine. But it's "more" for both. Why aren't there two sorts of "more"?
This is a completely made up distinction, as evidenced by most speakers not using it, in other words it's practically incorrect/nonexistent. I intentionally break it to make the drones seethe in their complete ignorance of language but otherwise use it in personal writing even though the distinction adds nothing that context doesn't. I think it is a product of obsession with quantification that is a unique cultural aberration of our age.

The 'many words for the same thing' comes from the fact that it is a very classist language. Think 'made up' to 'invented' or 'fabricated' as a distinction of formality and 'flavour'. I think it adds to the language but it's no good if you want to do away with classism.

>>15303486
>Why isn't there a word for "he or she"? It would be useful
There is, it's 'he'. Prior to Modern English 'its' did not exist and 'his' was used. This is because masculine is the default gender and conflated with neuter. This isn't literal gender btw, only grammatical grouping. Though grammatical gender has been lost, the pronouns align to grammatical gender not actual gender (not lexical). Without grammatical gender, pronouns would likely not have gender whatsoever as you can see in other languages. There would be lexically-gendered nouns, as we have now, and that's it.

>>15303486
>>Some very important concepts in computer science have no even remotely sensible equivalent in English.
No. You cannot make natural language into formal language or mathematics. This is not only arbitrary but so impractical that it would be rapidly discarded by the language in the like 2-3 generations even with totalitarian enforcement. You have to understand, language is biological grammatical faculty + cognition. Anything unsuited to that gets tossed, though you can unnatural retain things through sheer social indoctrination (fear of social repercussion- appearing incorrect, uneducated, etc.) there is a limit to this and most of the population will probably (rightfully) ignore it.

Defining grammatical operations/structures is obviously retarded. I shouldn't need to explain. You have a strong case of 'I like this thing why isn't everything else the same as it?'. Study linguistics and cognitive science.

One thing I dislike about loanwords is that they're kinda bleached and unevocative. Native equivalents, that existed and could exist, are much richer by knowing the parts intimately. And the meaning is more readily derived or expanded.

>>15304088
>>15304266
Interesting preference in English is avoiding using the same words and instead (preferably) exact synonyms. In other language it's not unnatural at all to reuse a word as much as you'd like. I blame academic pseudery.

>>15304035
He was asking for a pronoun that could accommodate either gender though, wasn't he? "He or she"
>>15304255
Yeah but that's English in general though

>>15304761
>He was asking for a pronoun that could accommodate either gender though, wasn't he?
He specifically wanted a 3rd-person pronoun, which "one" is not.

What's a surefire way to improve me english writing? I suppose the usual advice is:
1) to read more, but this is /lit/ so that's out of the question
2) write more
any other pointers in the grammatical sense or similar that could be useful?

t. spic

>>15305630
Read authors with great prose in the English language. Novels such as Moby Dick improve more than efficiently our writing.

1. Silent words. Queue is same as 'Q'.
2. No gender nouns for non-living things. No way to express yourself without using He/She/Him/Her, always dividing the narrative.
3. No easy way to combine words to create new ones. 'LugenPresse' or lying press.
4. Too many cucks bitching about the right way to say 'Theirs', 'They're' and 'There'.
5. Only three tenses, always creating a narrative from past causes to future effects. No way to denote eternal tense.
6. Specially/Especially.

>>15303351
It feels utilitarian.

>>15307635
This is just absurd. English has so many synonyms, flourishes, ways to stretch and play outside of common usage, and varieties of expression. I can see the charge of English being nonsensical before utilitarian.

>>15303351
Yeah, when you use it to ask your stupid fucking questions.

>>15303351
I can’t see something as benign as a language rule invoking annoyance in me, but maybe it’s more of an issue for ESL trying to learn it.

>>15307622
Eternal tense is interesting. This is a feature more common in Asian languages no?

>>15307635
It feel utilitarian because of our global social climate and the languages ubiquity, not because of the language itself

I hate crap like
>either - Eye-There
>neither - Knee-There

Normal languages of civilized humans
>Past tense for shit that happened in the past
>Present tense for shit that happens right now
>Future tense for shit that will or might happen in the future

Language of *nglo bugmen who need clear instructions from their jewish lords and are incapable of induction
>PAST SIMPLE PERFECT CONTINUOUS IN THE FUTURE PAST SUBJUNCTIVE

>>15307690
Both inflections for both words are correct. Alternatively, adding a prefix or suffix may often change the pronounciation of the root according to the new rhythm from the added syllables.

>finite
>infinite

>telekinetic
>telekinesis

Sporting a nonsensical syntaxical structure, the thing meant to be said often comes before the preceding information, which is annoying. As opposed to saying: the thing meant to be said often comes before the preceding information, giving an Aire of nonsensical syntax structure.

The orthography is the main one for me. Whenever someone asks how to pronounce a word that they read I cringe a little, this literally should not be an issue in a written language.

>>15303424
color
theater
organize
fuck you

i hate when pronunciation guides in (foreign) language textbooks assume the reader speaks english with the same accent as the author. recently i came across one where it differentiated between two "I" sounds in a foreign language by constanting the I's in pin and pink... they both sound exactly the same to me

>>15307635
That’s because it’s the lingua franca.

>>15307722
t. German

>>15309301
Actually I'm Finnish but German is the same in this regard

>>15303351
i hate that im expected to understand ESL retards that, in turn, give monolingual anglos nothing but shit for trying to learn a language. fuck all you cunts. literally the only esl people i can understand most of the time are dutch and Scandinavian. germans seems to be hit and miss. indians, chinese, french, and everyone else all need to just fuck off.

>>15309479
russians too. fuck them i dont understand a think you say

>>15304060
German is a great language. It's complex, yet familiar. As far as difficulty goes, once you look beyond German you get into crazy territory. All different kinds of scripts, numerous cases, and so on...it just seems impossible to learn languages like Russian, Greek, Hungarian, Finnish, etc. And beyond these it's completely alien. I truly admire those who learn Arabic, Japanese, Chinese, etc. what a feat it is.

>>15303486
>it has too many words for some thing and no words
this is totally false. Buy a dictionary, or better yet, a thesaurus. This is why poetry and suchlike is frequently so good in english. A vast lexicon of words for pretty much any situation. (inb4 eskimos have 50 words for snow, nobody give a shit)

>completely inconsistent
not really. The grammar is relatively consistent and there are a lot of rules that apply through all verbs for example (gerunds, etc) I'm an english teacher I should know

>some important concepts exist in computer science have no equivalent in english
true, but isn't that true for all other human languages? Not really a fault of english in particular, is it?

>why isn't there a word for "he or she"?
there is, like you explained. It's they. You can use it in in pretty much any sentence and there will very rarely be any confusion. It's much better than in french, where there simple is no neutral pronoun. Besides, you don't need to use the word "they" unless you're into woke tranny shit. You already have "he", "she" and "it"

>why doesn't english give you the
nobody will understand a fucking word you're saying retard. The grammatical rules have to be more or less rigid in order for a language to actually communicate anything and be understood by people. You are a fucking retard who cannot into basic linguistics, seriously.

You sound like a nerd btw. A human language isn't supposed to be like a computer language.

French is much more annoying than english to learn. Every other word is a homonym, and the pronounciation is often extremely subtle. Nevermind french people being exceedingly pedantic about how you speak their language.

As an english native speaker, you have to hear people raping your language everyday, because it's spoken all over the world for business etc.

>>15309538
I find the grammar to be unnecessarily complex, presenting a significant barrier to entry. It's a kino language though.

>>15309479
french bastards are often complete retards in english in terms of pronounciation. They make literally zero effort to improve but want to speak to you in english to "practice". Absolutely does my nut in desu as an expat in france.

>>15303351
chopsticks
badmiNton
had had
that that
in general it's just overly simple and hard to make beautiful. its' really a barbaric tongue invented by a fat lot of shithead angloids. i wish i was speaking french right now. ah, fuck the english.
>>15304060
lol nah you shitlicker

only one way to say "I". Japanese has like 27. holy fuck you niggers don't know how cool japanese pronouns are. 俺僕私わたくし我々アタシあたし儂お前彼女彼ら皆殿方。shit there's like a million more i cant even remember. they have a version of "I" that is JUST for sumo wrestlers. someone is saying watashi wa, watashi wa, and then they switch to ORE WA and you know shit just got real.
you can't generate hype factor with english. or have the miracle that is bokuko/oreko.

>>15309717

Mekkaloved this post

>marijuana
>colonel
>Wednesday
>had had
>that that
>y'all
>prolly
>tryna

>>15303486
stfu STEM tranny lmao

>>15307622
Q sounds like Qu. The name of the letter is different than the sound it makes. Q would sound like "k".

>>15309717
>holy fuck you niggers don't know how cool japanese pronouns are.

>>15307622
Queue sounds like Qu. The name of the letter is different than the sound it makes. "Q" would simply sound like "k".

Phonemic orthography or whatever you call it makes ZERO sense and it's absolutely inconsistent. Example: the "dice" in "dice" and "prejudice" sounds different.

>>15310955
>he was never taught the alphabet
look at this guy

>>15311134
Q alone as a word doesn sound like what you think it sounds. It's just a stupid r*ddit meme you are probably parrotting.

>>15304035
One mustn't be so hasty in drawing generalizations.

>>15310990

Literally every language has this. Fuck off.

>>15311170
tell me more about how you are so familiar with reddit

I don't like the weird spellings. Everything else is fine, I guess.

>>15303351
multiple times daily.
native speaker, btw
all the homophones and homonyms, just for one example. yes, I know how to use them all correctly and spell them all correctly. doesn't mean it isn't annoying.
but I get why it is that way.
https://aeon.co/essays/why-is-english-so-weirdly-different-from-other-languages
there's nothing for it but to learn and use them all properly.

>>15311299
WRONG. English is the most irregular language phonemics-wise.

Why does "ph" even exist when "f" can perfectly work?

>>15304035
you wouldn't reply that way because John is male and one is gender neutral. they have to agree. you only use one the same way you would use "anyone".
"One can find him at the supermarket" is correct and not at all awkward, but "You can find him ..." is said more commonly.

>>15311800
i can think of a loophole to that statement

>>15307828
>when SPOKEN by americans
>brings up spelling that doesn't affect pronunciation
retard

>>15307622
>2. No gender nouns for non-living things
why would you want that? giving gender to something that doesn't have it is retarded. it's a rock, it doesn't have a dick or a pussy.

>>15312003
>grammatical gender is the same as biological gender
Never go full retard.

>>15303351
Why are you utter betas getting rid of words like actress and poetess? What's the deal here?

>>15309673
>i wish i was speaking french right now
there are literally millions of websites where French is spoken. you should go to one of them and never come here again.

>>15312058
The francophones on this board that are butthurt about English are absolutely pathological

>>15310917
>marijuana
that's Spanish, dipshit.

>>15312086
That's the thing, pal. It's called "marihuana" in Spanish (rarely also "mariguana"). The spelling "marijuana" does not correspond to either English or Spanish. It doesn't work in either language. It's a completely nonsensical word, only made "exotic" by some ridiculous political propaganda.

>>15304064
stay mad, mutt, and get your own language while you’re at it

brits pronouncing h be like "hatche"
they also do that thing where that add an r at the end of words ending in A like soda > soder
fucking retards learn to speak properly

>>15303351
When Americans pronounce their Ts like DDs. Example: water = wudder or better = bedder. I don't even know how to describe it but it's an annoying and disgusting childish sound. It's a fucking T. Fucking pronounce it as as T. This is why you see faggots here complaining that Nabokov's tongue/mouth description when people say "Lolita" is not accurate. Because you faggots are saying "Lo-lee-dduh" or some shit, not "Lo-lee-ta."

>>15311800
probably because English was always descriptive rather than prescriptive, so there was no central authority, a monarch or academic entity, making the rules. at the same time, it was the common speech and as such, there was no written form; the only writing happening in England was Latin by the church, and French after the Norman conquest but only by the royal court. all of a sudden, the printing press is invented and commoners want to read the Bible, and then other stuff. so whoever owned the printing press just had to come up with spellings of English words using the Latin alphabet as they went along. result: clusterfuck. eventually everyone more or less agreed on the most popular spellings (as opposed to what was most "correct") but shit like "ph" for "f" persisted.

The way you have to learn twice any word. How it is written and how it is pronounced

>>15312016
you just did.

>>15312199
On this note: would English be better with accents?

>>15312206
No, you did. You genuinely think biological gender and grammatical gender are the same. You think male nouns have dicks and female nouns have cunts. Come the fuck on, kid.

>>15312100
tell me, how would you spell and pronounce the Spanish form of the name "John"?

>>15312220
Spanish J sounds like the "ch" in "loch", not like some W or whatever the hell you think sounds like. All the stupid r*ddit/twatter memes about "lol Juan=one" are wrong. The error was cute at first but someone had to say it: It's wrong.

>>15312213
>You think male nouns have dicks and female nouns have cunts

no, I don't think that. I explicitly said they don't. that was my point.
giving inanimate objects gender serves no purpose. there is no advantage in using gendered articles that way. English has a lot of retarded rules, but gendering objects isn't one of them.

I hate how the English language is setup in a way such that you never get a straight answer. For example: "this is one of the tallest buildings in the city." There's only one tallest building, isn't there? This was very confusing to me when I first learned English.

>>15312242
I work with a man named Juan. everyone calls him "wan" as pronounced in phonetic English, including all the other spics.

>>15303351
>Does the English language ever annoy you at times? In what ways?
Ebonics is considered legitimate. That's all you need to know to dismiss English as a meme.

>>15312304
You're either not listening carefully and mistake the sounds or they have a shit burgerized pronunciation.

>>15312301
what language do you speak where estimation is not allowed?
if you don't have hard data on the height rankings of all the buildings in your town, are you not allowed to refer to a building's height? do the cops arrest you for getting a ranking wrong?

>>15312304
there is nothing wrong with my ears.

>>15312348
It's a quote from the game Seaman, his native language is Ancient Egyptian.

>>15312318
they're all ESL, they barely speak English at all, their pronunciation is definitely not anglicized. neither is anything wrong with my ears.

>>15312379
Spanish speaker here. The anon you're talking to isn't entirely correct, in the Iberian peninsula J is pronounced /x/ as in loch, but in many Latin American countries it's closer to the English /h/. Similarly to English some dialects don't pronounce it at all (e.g. English 'ouse instead of house), or it's diminished.

Are you sure they're saying *wan* and not something along the lines of *u'an*? There is a difference.

>>15312379
I don't think you speak Spanish at any serious level. You're not accostumed to its sounds so you compare them to the closest sounds in your language even though it's wrong. It happens a lot (Example: "fuck" sounds like "fock" to the untrained Spanish ear, it's a subtle but important difference). Anyway, "Juan" is not pronounced like "wan." The US goverment simply decided to popularize the "marijuana" spelling back in the 1930s or so because it sounded and looked exotic and they wanted to stigmatize it somehow. That's a well-known fact. Sorry to break it to you but the spelling doesn't work in Spanish nor English, for that matter.

>>15312418
>Similarly to English some dialects don't pronounce it at all (e.g. English 'ouse instead of house), or it's diminished.
What dialects exactly? I don't know of any.

>>15311959
Do it then.

>>15312467
Dunno but I know Caribbean Spanish for sure pronounce J like English H. I know because a bunch of Cubans bullied me among other things for pronouncing shit with guttural j's, as is customary in Spain.

>>15312490
So you have no proof for the claims you're making? kek go to bed, Iñaki.

>>15312518
Literally cope.

>>15312526
cope

>>15312532
-ing, yes it's what you should be doing.

>>15312534
At least all I said is correct. You literally said "Dunno" when questioned about the proof for your claims. Maybe in Faggotland where you're a permanent resident they pronounce "Juan" as "wan" but not in any known Spanish-speaking country.

>>15312418
I'll give you that, but to anglophone ears, the difference is so subtle as to be non-existent when it comes to spelling. I mean, look at the spelling you had to resort to in making your point. I get the phonetic distinction you're making, but "u'a" is not a spelling that's ever used for anything in English. I mean, for us, there's a difference in the "o" in told and top, but we spell them both with the same letter "o". I think the confusion hinges merely on the fact that english and Spanish pronounce the letter J in a fundamentally different way.

>>15312481
r/whoosh

>>15312566
Curious are you American by chance.

>>15312467
Cockney

>>15312572
No shit. What a brilliant conclusion. Bravo.

>>15312572
>I think the confusion hinges merely on the fact that english and Spanish pronounce the letter J in a fundamentally different way.
Yes but mutts try to distort Spanish's phonology to fit English's.

>>15307715
While it can be annoying to digest the words if you aren't listening at the beginning of the sentence, English allows us to suggest to the listener what we are about to start speaking to them about. So if I said: "Walking down the street, Mary glimpsed a common face", then the listener would already understand halfway through the sentence that what is about to happen is taking place on a street to Mary. Instead of the reverse: "Mary glimpsed a common face walking down the street", here it isn't clear who's doing the walking, Mary or the face. It also sounds boring because the context is tacked on afterwards as opposed to the contextual statement behaving as an introduction to the scene, like it's supposed to.

>>15303662
>>15303682
Historically, he was the masculine and neuter form of the word so it wasn’t a problem. Kinda like how men can refer to the masculine or just the species of homo sapien in general. It only became an issue when people thought the language gave priority to the masculine and people wanted to change it. There are similar masculine/neuter structures in other languages like Latin.

>>15312615
You're a genius, Iñaki. Nobody had thought of this.

>>15312615
fine. from now on I'll spell it "mari-u'ana" to please people who don't speak English and whom I'll never meet because some faggot on a Nepalese yak butter churning forum got his panties in a twist.
the Japanese add vowels to the end of all their English loan words because that's how their language works e.g. bas-su ba for baseball but nobody jumps down their throat.

>>15312658
Why are you being such a Tsundere

>>15312667
IÑAKI BTFO by BASED FAGGOT

>>15312667
>but nobody jumps down their throat.
Because they don't claim to know the intricacies of Spanish pronunciation like you did here >>15312379

I love how Iñaki the Pedant came unsolicited out of nowhere to attack me and then the other guy just fucking ripped him a new one kek this is the quality content I come here for everyday

>>15312679
nigger, if I'm speaking and writing English, the intracacies of Spanish pronunciation doesn't enter into it. I'm quite certain you do not speak any English loan words with perfect, uninflected, unaccented English.
nor does anyone expect you to. why does the reverse bother you so much?

>>15303351
I like the General American accent because it doesn't sound faggy. Most British accents are fine though. Except Kent's accent. That's pure horseshit.
Scots is the best English dialect though.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

My name isn't Iñaki btw.

>>15312720
You're missing the point. "Marihuana" was the loanword then changed to "marijuana" for literally no reason. The point of the matter is not the pronunciation but rather that the spelling is retarded and makes no sense.

>>15303351
not really, it's easier to speak, read and understand than spanish which is my mother tongue

>>15312770
You must be mentally retarded if you have any issues speaking, reading and understanding Spanish as your native language.

>>15312751
okay, Hhhhuan.

>>15312797
>say something stupid
>get called out for it
>ok retard I don't care
shut the fuck up

>>15312807
Take it easy, Iñaki.

>>15312814
not even the same anon

>>15312819
Take it easy, Iñaki's boyfriend.

>>15312821
Have sex.

>>15312827
no u

>>15312844
Bend over.

>>15312853
not even the same anon

>>15312854
Bend over anon's boyfriend.

>lead/led
>read/read

>>15303351
English might be my only language (except for angelino-spanish) but I am constantly discovering new and incredible ways that it subtly perfects the transition of thoughts into words.
There's a massive lexicon, and each word has different connotations and meanings that can be used. And any two words can be strung together for exponentially MORE connotations, all of which is dependent upon grammar and context. And the various masters of the written word demonstrate the countless ways this can be used to convey meaning, tone, and emotion. Each author's words are like a fingerprint, even if they all use the same dictionary.
Sure, maybe it's not the most efficient language in the world. But who wants efficiency? Why should my writing be like filling out a timecard? There are endless ideas to be had, endless places to go. English is the world's last language, and I love it.

>>15303351

Vacuum has double u's, why isn't it spelled Vacwm?

>>15313064
This thread is about things that annoy you about it, though.

>>15313093
or savvy

>>15311800
Because "ph" in English comes from the transliteration of the Greek letter phi φ which was pronounced as aspirated /p/ in Classical Greek but later changed to /f/. Same thing with "th" and "ch" in Greek loanwords. The spelling is kept for etymological reasons, same as in French or German.

>>15313375
>The spelling is kept for etymological reasons, same as in French or German.
Why do you apply a different standard for every loanword, though?

>>15303351
the word "do/does" gets me booty blistered, as does the strictness of word order

Also definite articles are utter dogshit and the prepositions are entirely inconsistent in their meanings, but I think that's true of all prepositions

>>15313397
Strictness of word order is a good thing. It prevents niggers from ruining the language even further.

>>15313391
It's such a loaded question that I suggest you to think it over because I'm not sure how to approach it.
>>15313093
W was invented for Germanic languages to denote sound /w/ in the Middle Age; it's called double u because of the shape, not functional purpose.

>>15313411
Stupidest thing I've read all day.

>>15313459
Then how do you explain V V I T C H

>>15313463
It's true, though. Niggers are ruining the English tongue.

>>15313471
Modern stylisation.

>>15303351
WHY ARE THERE SO MANY S"S I WANT A LANGUAGE WITHOUT S"S THEY ARE SO SLIPPERY SLOW AND DISGUSTING AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH LOOK AT ME GO I CANT STOP SAYING S"S FUCK

>>15313520
>S"S
what's that, old chap?

>>15312574
Well done. Shite patter.

>>15303351
It's not english itself that annoys me, it's how defensive people get about the fucked up writing system when you start talking about things like spelling reform
like, OK I get that you have stockholm from grade school english class but it would be awful nice to have more than 26 written characters to express the 40-some-odd phonemes of spoken english

>>15311987
>yankees

>>15307966
Fucking this
These cunts need to fucking start using words that are indubitably only pronounced one way.

>>15312667
>but nobody jumps down their throat.
But we should

>>15307966
You need to read big boy books where they actually have IPAs

>>15303351
Lexical redundancy: oars, paddles; mallet, maul, hammer, gavel; verbosity, verboseness, wordiness, verbiage, prolixity, grandiloquence, garrulousness, expatiation, logorrhea, sesquipedalianism;
I understand that for a person who grew up speaking the language all of these are necessary and I do not ask for your defence, but as a Russian, speaking a language which doesn't like to multiply entities, it perplexes me deeply. When I am reading a dictionary I feel like some kind of card sharp is trying to hypnotise me or some bored ancient Cambridge professor is having a laugh. I also agree with an Anglo who said it that English with all its hues and shades is a language of breaking treaties, with all its capacity of manipulating words and their meanings.
Also I wish there was a textbook on pronunciation change patterns, in such cases as: infinite - finite, I use it, there's a use, his arm is crooked, he crooked his arm.

>>15303351
at least i dont live in times when the french is the universal language

The "A", "E" and "I" when spelling is switched around for no reason. For example;
>when you say "a in "apart" a=a, but when you spell it, it's "ei"
>when you say "e" in "red" e=e, but when you spell it, it's "i"
>when you say "i" in "incel" i=i, but when you spell it, it's "ai"

Now I actually heard somewhere that it didn't use to be that way in ancient english, it just happend to evolve like that later. That was definitely confusing at first when learning the language.

>>15312115
>they also do that thing where that add an r at the end of words ending in A like soda > soder
The only time this happens is if the following word starts with a vowel, we do it to avoid having to glottal stop which is awkward. Otherwise we actually do the opposite and miss off the "r" even from words that have them due to English people not speaking with rhotic accents. Nigger and Nigga are actually pronounced exactly the same.

What annoys me is people saying they are a "native English speaker" and then it turns out they aren't even from England. You are not NATIVE unless you are from the country. Here's how you can tell whether you get to call yourself a native speaker: the word for your nationality and your first language are the same. If you are French and you speak French, you are a native French speaker. If you are Spanish and you speak Spanish, you are a native Spanish speaker. If you are American and you speak English, oops look at that they don't match so you are NOT a native speaker. It's so easy to understand but I see retards do this all the time.

>>15315827
You can thank the Great Vowel Shift.
Until the Middle Ages, English was spelled phoentically.
The causes are poorly understood, and it happened in stages over several centuries. The upshot is that the "standard" pronounciations of vowels in 1450 and 1600 were very different. Unfortunately, due to the printing press, the 1450 spelling persisted even while the language was evolving rapidly.

>>15315980
I was born in america but I am 100% english

>>15316153
Show me your British passport.

>>15312276

Imagine fighting for a language and saying there is no use of adding more features.

Suppose I wanted to represent inanimate object with a life, it's 'being-ness'. As soon as I put 'it', it's no longer alive. As soon as I put he or she, it's now male or female.

> Inb4 but why would you want something like that? No..that hurts my ideas about what language should do..

>>15315656
>a Russian, speaking a language which doesn't like to multiply entities
As a fellow Russian, I recommend you to read more books because your ignorance doesn't mean Russian lacks synonyms.

>verbosity, verboseness, wordiness, verbiage, prolixity, grandiloquence, garrulousness, expatiation, logorrhea, sesquipedalianism;
Paзгoвopчивocть, бoлтливocть, бoлтoвня, пycтocлoвиe, мнoгocлoвиe, пpocтpaннocть, cлoвooхoтливocть, cлoвoблyдиe, тpeпoтня, тpёп.

>>15304064
>brit post
>witty reply, slight subtext of irony
>amerifat
>can't capitalize
>visibly upset but won't use the good swear words
>triggered so hard he needs to remember what numbers are until the kill feelings go away

>>15316390
What you want remains dumb. Also, people have been giving "life" to objects in English without needing gendered nouns.

If you can't figure out how to write in such a manner, maybe read/write more.

>>15316390
Animate objects can be called "it". People refer to wild animals as "it" all the time.
If something lacks a personal name, you can call it "it". There's ambiguity, because you're supposed to assume that people and tame animals have names. Most people also use a singular "they" for persons whose gender is unknown.

For example, Christians would never refer to God as "it", but frequently refer to the Trinity as "it".

>>15316421
Of course, there are words which have lots of synonyms, but you can't write a book in Russian which would be unreadable because of it's vocabulary, unless you fill it with technical jargon, cf. any book popular here, be it IJ, Joyce or Shakespeare, the latter is often rewritten for children with subpar academic ability in plainer language. Can you imagine the same with, say, Tolstoy? Certainly there are occasional words which children won't understand, usually something pertaining to nineteenth century fabrics, furniture or modes of transportation or rare sentence with long and tedious structure.
Russians en masse don't possess the need to meticulously describe things, notice how we use pyкa for a hand, a forearm or an arm, цвeты for plants and flowers, жeлeзкa for any kind of metal.
>Paзгoвopчивocть, бoлтливocть, бoлтoвня, пycтocлoвиe, мнoгocлoвиe, пpocтpaннocть, cлoвooхoтливocть, cлoвoблyдиe, тpeпoтня, тpёп.
The majority of these words are the same, whereas any English dictionary would give you different scrupulous descriptions of any of their English counterparts.
Could you also give me synonyms for the words мoлoтoк and вёcлa, which would be different depending on the context?
We have several distinctions not present in English such as peвнocть-зaвиcть, гoлyбoй-cиний and so on, but there is quite a finite number of them.

>>15316583

> No...I don't like your opinion. You must be dumb and your opinions must be dumb.

Sanskrit has a way to do this for example. Yes you can give it life like I said. But it gets antheomorphized. I think of an inanimate thing as a "person" and personify it.

What if I wanted to not personify it and still give it life?

> No. Don't do that.. this doesn't make sense to me. So don't do that.

Fuck you faggot. Don't tell others what to do.

>>15316554
almost like it was purposefully baiting british people eh

>>15316634
>The majority of these words are the same,
So are the English ones. They are functionally the same, the only difference is poshness/currency of use.

After spending time learning other languages I find English am/is/to be annoying. "Stomach hungers" in Korean vs "I am hungry"

The word 'love' in English can mean fucking anything. Compare to Greek 4 variants of love and Hebrew 'ahava' as a state of giveness.

I won't be wont to rant on about trivial differences, but English modern to Old King James presents difficulties when I'm trying to have Christian fellowship.

>>15303486
you got absolutely btfo by the other anons