Print

Print


On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Cheng-Zhong Su <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Yes, there are some strong reasons to introduce tone in that language. For the last few months I have repeated it many times. The strongest reason is that the English vocabulary has already over one million words. No one in the world can learn them during life time. Only if you introduce 'tone' into that language, things could be changed.


Actually, the argument against introducing tones in English is quite simple. It's not only that nobody here has accepted your argument. The more important issue is that it is impossible to do. In the same way, I might say to you, "you should change Chinese from SVO to SOV, but it would be completely impossible for you to change it as an individual. In fact, the people on this list have no power at all to change the English language, just in the same way that you have no power to change the Chinese language. I could publish an opinion letter in the New York Times saying "we should introduce tones" but it would do absolutely nothing. I really believe that it's impossible to change a natural language just through some interesting idea.

--
Jens Wilkinson
Neo Patwa (patwa.pbwiki.com)