The Letter K

"C" and "K" are literally pronounced the same.

Typical American education.

>kause you kan just replase
This read like ebonics of some sort.

>what is a soft c
If you read place and plake out loud is it "literally the same"?

He learnt to English from the Warhammer Ork codex.

That's just bekause you aren't used to it so it makes you unkomfortable. In a few years you'd be kompletely fine with it.

Latin never had a 'soft c'.

The Latin "C" descends from the Greek Gamma, as does the Latin G.

In Greek, Gamma has several sounds depending on context, and is related to the Kappa.

Originally Latins used a Proto-C/G Gamma derivative to refer to the same sound, which was later differentiated.

Much Later, after much Hellenization, the Romans re-borrowed Greek Letters to use for Greek Loan Words, like K and Z.

Another way to impove English is to have long vowe sounds have two vowels and short sounds have one. Also eliminating multiple spellings for the same sounds.

I baaked a staak and it tasted graat.

At this point just keeping k is better.

Fuck you, Orm

Ceell uoorcelf.

We have this discussion almost weekly.

And no, it wouldn't 'fix' English. There are far too many accents of English to represent it phonetically.

English spelling is fine.

What is this cute girl called again?

>In Greek, Gamma has several sounds depending on context,
What sounds and what context?

>The Latin "C" descends from the Greek Gamma,
Why not use the Greek symbols Γ, γ then, if they're doing it for the kappa? Because the adoption of C happened earlier?

*Phonetikkkz

You cannot justify this in any way
ncf.idallen.com/english.html
Idk why people are so intimitated by English reform. If we want to stay the lingua franca after America becomes less politically relevant then we need to streamline everything.

Cec

Try to spell and say 'ace' with a 'k' or an 's'. It doesn't work.

>What sounds and what context
Well, if it's similar to modern Greek, it has a guttural "gha" sound to it when alone in front of o or ou or a.

If in front of e or i or e(eta=h), it makes a y sound-yi, yeh, yi.

When doubled it makes a guh sound, like a hard English G, and is nasalized, ng when in the interior of a word.

>Why not use the Greek symbols Γ, γ then
Because the Greek Alphabet was not standard at all when the Latins borrowed it, so the Gamma in use at the time may have looked like a C. If they actually borrowed it from Etruria, it could have looked even different.

And her name is Christ-Chan

Eyss

Now that isnt right at all

Because it has been tried many, many times by people far, far more educated than this board; and they failed.

> I baaked a staak and it tasted graat.
How I pronounce this is different to 99.99% of all other English speakers, and so their pronunciation to every other's. So if spellings correspond with less than 1% of anyone's pronunciation with the 'fix', English may as well keep the current system.

English has a nice system of preserving the flavour or provenance of a word through a spelling, something totally lacking in other languages outside the Chinese kanji, so foreigners tend not to grasp it.

>Because it has been tried many, many times by people far, far more educated than this board; and they failed.
The French do it regularly, the Germans have done it twice, both to great success. It worked for them, so it is not impossible in general, and I don't think that there's anything about English specifically that makes it impossible either.

The reason why your suggestion is retarded is because it completely destroys hundreds of years of spelling and evolution.

It would be nearly impossible to implement, as well.

This isn't like Webster removing vestigial "u"s and moving "r"s after "e"s.

İts depends on language
C makes a unique sound in my language
But for English
Yeah c is useless and confusing makes different sounds different places
Q is kinda weird too but it makes a unique sound so that's good but x
X is basically ks sound or eks sound it works like shortcut to make words shorter with 1-2 less letters
But worst letter is ğ from my language it doesn't even makes a sound idk why that letter exist
But these things I said are probably all wrong because English is not my main language.
Sorry for bad English.

French and German are far more homologous than English.

You can never standardize English, because English is inherently Mongrelized. It's not even one Language

English will not be understandable in 100 years

That's just its nature.

English is like a garbage fire, you can't really help it.

That's because those languages have very few accents when compared to English. You have the millions of accents in England itself, and now the accents of the former colonies too.

Even in your example

> I baked a cake

In my accent would be something like

> A bayukt a kyak

So however something is spelled, it will *never* represent more than 1% of all pronunciations.

I'm cycling through all the instances of "c", and I certainly am unable to think of any times it makes a different sound to "k"

Kazakhstan

To further prove this point, I recently went through a dead relative's old recipes, handed down from older ones, and there was one written by an, apparently, semi-literate person where the spelling was phonetic.

It was difficult to parse out

>That's because those languages have very few accents when compared to English.
What are you basing this claim on?

A Bavarian accent is barely understandable to an upper Rhinelander.

French is even more extreme, and they have former colonies, too.

No one speaks Latin

It could have been funny if you knew what a long vowel was

I do.

This is a good post friendo. Do you mind if I post it to reddit?

æs

You underestimate the number of English accents.

Literally changes every mile or so.

The Roman Empire did.

And I do.

How do you quantify this? And how do you know whether or not this is the case for other languages?

The Vatican does.

That's not how language works. You don't create a language, it evolves.

Yeah, look at all those illegible texts from 1917

Not true, actually. Many languages are created, or standardized, by the government.

Standard Modern Greek is a conglomeration of various different dialectal variants interspersed with bits of Katharevousa.

Norwegian has a Book Language as well.

Common sense. Living in Britain, one is exposed to thousands of English accents regularly, from only a few miles away, to the other side of the world.

English has the larger number of accents *by a massive margin*, than any other on Earth. I'd bet my life on it.

Yes, and that suited those languages.

This would not work with English at all. First, the English do not like to be told what to do, especially by academics. Second, the language is too widely spoken to be 'reined' in like this. Third, people have already tried and failed.

The beauty and success of English lies in its complete anarchy and hence natural evolution.

Standardisation and regulation are death.

Ca, que, qui, co, cu = [k] (+ vowel)
Za, ce, ci, zo, zu = [θ] (+ vowel)
Letter 'k' is only found in loanwords; e.g., kiwi, Kilimajaro.

>Common sense.
That's another expression for "guessing".

>Living in Britain, one is exposed to thousands of English accents regularly, from only a few miles away, to the other side of the world.
That could only show that you're exposed to many accents, but how do you know how this compares to how many accents people living outside of Britain are exposed to?

Maybe the Dauphinian has the same experience as you do?

Denying the existence of common sense is indicative of a person without much

And relying upon it is indicative of a person with no understanding of logic or science.

>First, the English do not like to be told what to do, especially by academics.
No matter how stubborn someone is, he is not when he's a child. Language reforms are matters of generation and standard. When people grow up being used to the new model being taught in schools, the reform will eventually go through.

Please don't resort to ad hominem.

How else am I supposed to write Kalends or Kartage?

Kec

Qarthage

A "c" would work just as fine.

Q > C > K

Faqqot

...

ğ makes the sound that comes before longer. That`s it purpose.

But there is ^ this thing
And ^ is doing same thing too
Âôê...

No it does not.

I'm sure you'll get lots of carma for it.

Oh ... Okay then thanks

Fuck Latin.

>Fuck having written Language and Civilization and Shit

Okay

slavic languages

>The latin c descends from the Greek gamma

"No", shut the fuck up, you fuckng retard, they're different sounds and the shape is different too, fuck off.

ijs

>A bayukt a kyak

So many post and no e has given the correct answer. Fuck Veeky Forums.

Latin alphabet comes from Etruscan, which comes from a proto Greek alphabet. And Greek comes from Phoenician alphabet.

In Phoenician you have a letter for /g/, one for /k/ and one for /q/, all of which are different sounds in Semitic languages.

In Greek though, /k/ and /q/ are heard as the same sound, and this happens in all Indo-European languages. Thus proto Greek had the letters gamma for /g/, and kappa and qoppa for /k/. Later, qoppa was drop out from the spelling, but the letter survived as a numeral representing 90.

Etruscan then received the letters gamma, kappa and qoppa. But in Etruscan, the sounds /g/ and /k/ are allophones, therefore the three letters were used almost interchangeably. This is what Latin received.

But in Latin, /k/ and /g/ are not allophones. So first, the Latin alphabet used C for both /k/ and /g/. The letter K was used for /k/ but only if followed by and /a/, and the letter Q was used for /k/ but only if followed by a /w/.

Much later, they started to add a stroke to C to know when it has a /g/ sound, and thus we had the letter G.

This is why in classic Latin we have words spelled both with C or G, like Caius and Gaius, and why the very few words with K always have the ka syllable, like kalendae, and why Q is always followed by u, like Quintus.

This looks like German

Nigga, even Shakespeare and Chaucer are intelligible to modern native speakers

>the English do not like to be told what to do
>still have a monarchy

It only looks bad because you're not used to it. English needs an actual governing body to simplify its phonetic system because it's backwards and completely disregards the alphabetic principle.

t. Spicspeaker

>spiks

Yes it does you imbecile. C is just a rounded Γ.

Read about the sound changes.

fucc me, lol

Historically, K is the letter that had the /k/ sound first, since it comes from Greek "Kappa". C/G come from Greek "Gamma" /g/.

If anything, we should either drop, or repurpose, c.

succ

Btfo

...

It's always bothered me that, given that English has way more phonemes than its orthography has letters, we have 3-4 letters that are basically redundant. Yes I know the historical reasons, it still bugs me.

I hope we can all agree that q is the most bullshit one. Complete free rider.

The founding fathers of alphabetization knew what they were doing when they added it as the eleventh consonant.

That's mostly vowels though.

French here.
I hate that c, k, q and ch mark the same sound.
I hate that ch, in other cases, uses two letters for one sound.
I hate gn, because it should be ny.
I hate f and ph.
I hate j and g.
I hate x.

But I hate simplified spelling even more.

And in the last orthographic reform, the academy decided to change oignon to onion. If I ever have a child and I see it write this way, I will slap him and its teacher.

C, K, and Q were used differently in archaic Latin. C gradually displaced K in classical Latin.

youtube.com/watch?v=Gf5ehDZtEIY

These two get it:

I think macrons would be easier and less visually jarring to most English speakers.

English spelling is in no way "fine" you autist. There's no reason why the different anglophone countries couldn't each have their own slightly different spellings.

>But I hate simplified spelling even more

>Let's make language as convoluted as possible, dude. Simplied spelling is 2 ez 4 me.

I't embarrassing to have "literate" people in your country not be able to spell hiccough after hearing it because it's miles away from its phonetic spelling.

this is true, the only people that complain are dumb foreigners and misguided nerds

Why does lingual history matter more than the language? It should convey the sounds more efficiently before all else. I also would argue that there had been no centralized effort to reform English that gained wide support.

English is in a less severe position than what German used to be.

google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://lanchart.hum.ku.dk/research/slice/publications_and_news_letters/publications/standard_languages/Stoeckle_and_Svenstrup_-_Language_variation_and__de-_standardisation_process_in_Germany_-_p_83-90.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiCxeer6ZfTAhUUTGMKHdMgCmwQFgglMAE&usg=AFQjCNE5MwMN4b24gOFtDizVLGBSMrJZUA&sig2=u3jzrRgGdKjL39B6eEMgBA

Just because there are accents doesn't mean that you should't make phonetic spelling for at least. What the Germans did should serve as a linguistic model for English.
I think most would agree we shouldn't respell color to cullu to suit the British, but if we make it phonetic for the mean dialect closest to each then exceptions will be trimmed off. Of course we can't eliminate all non-phonetic spelling when phonetics are different, but we can take a srep closer to a coherent language.