Libertarian and conservative views over the usage of English.

So many languages developed from almost a similar alphabetic script.
The Dispersion of population led to the emergence of different languages.
Different languages developed differently with somewhat similar alphabetic script in their own separate identities.
Application differences were observed in terms of sound allocation with different arrangement of letters to spell words.
The idea is that we have already been enough liberals to the point that we cannot understand most of us. Being liberal is not going to help us any good way. If people had ever followed rules, then we wouldn’t have those many languages as we have today. The question is, if we could do any better or just float in somewhat same currents we saw primordial libertarians floating.
This is actually a crucial time for English language, and other languages as well.
If we do not want our native words go astray in maze (self-creation), and if we want to save them from being anglicized because we are not the only race that avow to be libertarian.******Then we’ve got to clear-up our acts in time, before we see too much complicated kedgeree to work on.
Original word sounds had been transmuted to something, which is not even close to the actual sounds.
The inconspicuous damage would be to every language (developed on the same script or else wise) resulting in to a concoction, and if you had to pick something from that concocted crucible you would not be able to, if you wanted to pick something that belonged to you.
People with Conservative and libertarian views are pitted against each other with no good enough reasons.
Libertarians say, language should be let free—–Good. —-Fine! This is the way languages grow.
Conservatives say, put a check, speak right.
The fact is, the so-called conservatives had been so liberal that the poor libertarians can ever possibly be.
If it flow like the way it had been flowing, there is a danger of other languages blowing away with the wind.
Libertarian would strongly support the bending or breaking of the rules of grammar and syntax. They would strongly support the idea that we can communicate effectively without being grammatically correct.
Is actually good for a language.
But conservatives wouldn’t reconsider their stance.
And liberals would backlash by saying something as pointed very nicely by ‘Jug Suraiya’(Time for Englishes nov’06 TOI) , “it would be going against the grain of English language, as is the most eclectic and self-renewing in the world”, and to sum it up, “communication takes precedence”. “Language is a free trade agreement” and what not.
No one would deny.
But! A big but. (If this is the beauty of being liberal, playing with the connotations, I enjoy it, double entendre) if the communication takes the center stage, we have to see if we have any obverse to the ostensible theory.
Different languages which developed from almost the same source, are also not that far off, then why we could not twig a German speech (or literature), French, Spanish, et al., I am talking about the normal people who are not that quick on the uptake to understand foreign languages from the same origin.
We cannot understand.
We cannot communicate effectively.
Hindrance in the free flow of feelings.
No successful trade of ideas and feelings, as we are blinkered enough to read the terms & conditions of the agreement of ideas and feelings.
It seems that it would’ve been better if used the sign language to communicate feelings and ideas. But is also not safe.
It was observed that we introduced too many letters in the alphabets that we could handle initially, as there were very few words, and also the stand of many letters was not solid as people started allocating letters differently for different sounds, at their own behest, as if they were keeping their own counsel. Also there were not much things to talk about, as the word bank was small. The alphabets were introduced but there were not much enough words in primordial languages. The full potential of the alphabet was not utilized.
Different regional usage and application of the language were observed, as the system was not that organized.
What I personally feel is that all those wars in the history took place because of the difference in the languages.
Just an example:
“Wæth yo sah en no understanth”. Who would not get agitated if had to hear this 50 times. Every such like sentence would be double Dutch for any body, who is not that good at the up take, for someone who does not speak that language.
And now just imagine that you are the person who is trying to say something for such a long time, but of no help.
And at last you give up and say something like: “ go en f*** yoerselva”.
And to your surprise, that those were the only words from your language he could understand.
And the next thing we heard of history, one was dead.
So the idea is, these things only create differences. Dwelling on the primordial to support your believes is of no use if we could not learn anything from it.
It would be better in the interest of both liberals and conservatives to come to a unanimous decision, get the language in the third way.
We cannot afford to be an ignorant and indifferent libertarian any more if we somehow want to a true liberal.
And being a hard-core conservative won’t help us either, is equally bad as being a liberal.
And both ilk’s doing their bit separately, is a disaster.
How?
To quote an example:
Say, in modern societies somebody who knows few words but no grammar and syntax.
Till the time you do not make the right gestures you won’t be able to express yourself, no matter how badly you try with your face expressions. And the fact is if we had been real good at the sign language, as not everybody is quite good at the grasp, if they ever had been, the need for language wouldn’t have arisen in the first place. It was needed when there were very few things but food, and now without language, expression of your thought is quite is task. Just remember situations when you spoke at length and people did not understand you, similar to something like that is what we have here.
Just imagine a situation where someone who did not know of the grammar and the syntax, and is not that good at art of expressions, is trying to ask if he can eat food in a formal situation.
Let say, I EAT FOOD. The possible response could be: “Good! Everybody eat food. You eat food, does not make you any good. I also eat food. Not only eat food, I drink, and I sleep, I bathe, and do lot many things.”
EAT FOOD. No thanks!
FOOD WANT EAT.
What food want eat! Your food is dead (if you chose to point at the food) it can’t eat anymore. Did u mean food want heat? Oh! You want to cook something.
WANT EAT FOOD.
No thank! Not now, I’ll eat later.
WANT FOOD EAT.
Put it on the simmer.
EAT FOOD WANT: Go.To.H**l.
And to save yourself from more efforts: eat food, no food, yes food, and possible embarrassment, you recollect your thoughts and say:
“WANT FOOD”: the possible response could be, who want food? Me, no! And if you want to eat, eat. But don’t ask me to. I’m not hungry. I’ll eat later. And if I’ll ever eat, I’ll not eat with you.
It makes it quite difficult for people to understand you. Till the time you do not use right signs you would confuse people. But signs can also confuse. And also, everybody is not as nice as you are, they have some inhibition that make them act the way they do, that’s why they take that long to understand. And sometimes, they make you feel as if they do not want to understand. Yes, most of the time they really do not want to understand.
And what if they could not understand “want food”, and you could not hold on to your dispositions and the nicety of the situation, because you were famished. And you cry with all your might and the right tone and expression. And say it again: “WANTTTTTTTT FOODDDDDDDDDDDD”.
And if still they can’t understand you, you do not belong in that place. That place might be full of hard-core conservatives.
In gumption, the knowledge of grammar and syntax is helpful.
To move to the next phase of learning, “The right pronunciation takes precedence”.
How?
To quote an example, almost everybody knows the purpose, the seriousness, and the application of the phrase “I LOVE YOU”.
No that much grammar.
Just imagine, you were beaten up with the excessive concentration on grammar, vocabulary, and syntax but you do not know the pronunciation.
Why would you know grammar, vocabulary, and syntax?
Almost everybody know, to get the true meaning come easy and to communicate with ease.
And if I say, the excessive concentration on grammar, vocabulary and syntax is of no use, if we did not know the right pronunciation in the very first place.
If u say these three golden words as:” i: loυvei: jaυ” or anything of that sort. Do anything you wish to, apply intonation rule, any grammar, or choose any other word from your vast vocabulary, which you will somehow distort the same way as you distorted these three words, won’t solve the purpose. Try to change, tone, style, or whatever.
But if the right pronunciation of the word ‘love’ and the tone required is used, you will somehow get the message across, and the desired results.
People also say ‘love has no language’. By the same token, what if your love does not speak the language you know, does not know the meaning of the word ‘love’ (script), then you are in a big trouble. Try to learn the language she knows ( and the right pronunciation) or try the sign language (risks involved).
The best approach would be to take the matter in the third way, and try to save the different languages from possible threats (hard core conservatives and libertarians)

Transmutation of sounds and English spelling structures.

English is considered quite difficult in terms of pronunciation, due to the intricacies like, multiple sounds from a single vowel, consonants, with endless exceptions to device a rule.
“Ignorantia sonar es non excusat”: ignorance of sound is no excuse.
By the same token, “Ignorantia estructura es non excusat”: ignorance of structure is no excuse.
We actually modify our definitions according to our ease and try to support them with self-assurance. How?
The way people spell new words using a newly learned alphabetic script shows what sound they see when they see a letter cluster, and what letter cluster they see when they listen to a new sound(word).******************
Misspelling and mispronunciation, mishear, misread are all inter-related. We apply a structural arrangement for a sound (a new sound or word), which a particular arrangement does not suggest, and keep on misconstruing a sound from a structure which that structure does not suggest, and we put all faith in our own creation. During all this while we are ignoramus and others of the same ilk follow suit.
The whole process is a continuum of egregious follies backed by self-assurance. As we start to learn a new language (this happens with every body), the movement we learn the alphabetic script, we precariously start applying it without much consideration, with a believe that now we know enough to do a test run of the knowledge gained to the detriment of two languages, the language we already know, and the language we are beginning to learn (of which we only know the Alphabetic script). As we all have a tendency to feel good about the new knowledge gained, and to share it anticipating possible appreciation in any form (definition varies from person to person), to help us feel good as a wishful thinker we never stop. This is human psychology.
This human propensity of applying the newly learned alphabetic script for the sounds (from the words belonging to any other language) precariously to spell those sounds in an attempt to give a new physical form, is ubiquitous and has the power to modify any language.
A new sub language is formed: which has the elements from both the languages, a mish-mash.
How should we write a word if we have only heard the sound or how should we pronounce a word when we are seeing it for the very first time, is an art.
How well we recognize and apply sounds to the physical representation of sound (written group of letters)? What a spoken word suggest its written representation to be?
One word might seem irregular in isolation, but if we compare it with similar pattern it could appear quite regular. With close consideration of such patterns and restrictions we can actually device a flexible organized code with generalities offering stupendous possibilities for the growth of a language as a universal language.
If a lot many people do something a particular way, it becomes a code (generally acceptable code). This is applicable to grammar, word meaning, and conspicuously to pronunciation as well, which is not quite good. Grammar, word meaning and pronunciation changed a lot with the course of time. The same way English spelling structure has also changed a great deal if we look at the structural arrangements of letters from primordial script and the present scripting style. But the spelling structure is considered quite static and impervious to change in modern world in comparison to the other aspects of the language. But we easily change the sounds with our ease and shy away from a logical adjustment in the structure of the words. A word of caution: THIS IS NOT TO ENCOURAGE INDIVIDUAL ATTEMPTS WITHOUT SERIOUS CONSIDERATION, DO NOT TRY TO BE GEORGE BERNARD SHAW.
We start experimenting, as we all have a little Einstein in our heart, without any recourse on the language. During that period we are in a miasma falsely created for our own convenience, and we are not much concerned with the actual sounds because we feel that we have enough knowledge to spell words from any language as we have the word power (falsified belief). It all started with a yearning to explore the language, at first we tried to spell our names (different language) and we did not just stop there. With the course of time, we started using the language (speak and write) without any serious recourse on the sounds in our own little world (a small region). Unknowingly we changed the pronunciation with our ease of application, backed by not so well cultivated (distorted rather) knowledge, which we thought we mastered. But all this while, we had been quite rigid with the spellings, which had been a reliable reference, & was the only theoretical support behind all those experimental navigations. We transmuted the original sounds of the words in to new sounds, which our knowledge of the structural adjustment suggested. By the same token, we started mispronouncing words.
.1mis-pronounce words.
.2.mis-spell new words.
.3.We start considering, transmuted sounds and spellings peppered out because of the ignorance in a particular area as a paradigm to spell any new word. This further adds on to the differences in understanding of the sounds and the arrangement of letters in a word.
Which in turn give rise alternate pronunciations, and alternate spellings.
First we spell a word wrong, then we find reasons to support the distortion, move on to create a new words not suggesting the real sound to the rest of the world, and with time those words (spelling) get entry in the English language banks. As there are perceptual differences over spelling and pronunciations between difference regions (and also with in a particular region) different pronunciations emerge out of that physical arrangement. As the time goes by, we grow and start to realize how badly we transmuted the real the actual sounds in to something which is not even close to the actual sound, and introduce an alternate spelling. By same token alternate spelling came in to existence.
The realization of sound and spelling structural arrangement give language a new form and pronunciation a new direction. Perceptual difference over the structural arrangement give rise to different pronunciations.
The movement someone hear a foreign language word, first he’ll not recognize the sound, because he is hearing it for the first time. We surely have to hear it couple of times to memorize a new sound (selective attention). As our sensory memory is very short, to memorize the sound we’ll ask for repetition to move the sound from the sensory memory to temporary memory with selective attention, which would surely affect the communication flow, because you try to focus on something which is not in the mainstay of the communication, not somewhere near the actual purpose. We all are very smart, we’ll sense beforehand that this could take the conversation astray, and there is every possibility that to avoid the gap that person might ask you to spell it. And that is very crucial for the Language. It could distort the beauty of a word.
“Can you spell it for me please!”, In such kind of a situation is a sugarcoated version of: “Cut it to the chase, don’t waste my time”. To me “Me idioto, help meo”.
So next time if you are sure of the sound you are uttering, the movement you hear “Can you spell it for me”. Respond by saying something like: “I would love to, but first try to memorize the sound”.
And I m sure you will never do that.
Please for God sake! Try to forget the way how somebody spell it. Listen to the sound. You are not that dumb, clear up the wax if you need to, and also stop justifying your weird habits of putting letters together to form words.
I’ll share an instance with you.
Sagar moore, this is how he spell “Sa: gər moυrei”, his name.
Sa:g r mo rei is a good friend, versatile personality, in a class of his own. When I heard of him lately, he was managing a team of customer care specialists (bpo). That’s what he mastered, customer satisfaction.
At one instance, he was on a call we a lady customer, which he is very good at. Everything was fine, she was happy, he was happy, a smooth resolution. But the customer was so pleased that she wanted to send an appreciation letter. Suddenly to his surprise, she said: “what was your name sweetheart”. He said: ‘sa:g r mo rei’. She could not understand. He said it again, sa: sa: sa: g r , sa: g r mo rei. After 30 sec of sa: sa: and say what say what? Say what? She said, could you please spell it for me. S as in Sierra, A as in Alpha, G as in Golf, A as in Alpha again, R as in Romeo, S-A-G-A-R.
Then to have her share of fun & to the death of sound of such a beautiful word, she said: Oh, it’s ‘s ga:r’, like you have cigars.
He said, yes it’s s ga:r.
The name of the customer was Joanna Case( ca:s), if there had been anything else but business (consumer-company relationship), he would have surely asked her to spell her last name, to get his share of fun.
The answer to the spelling and pronunciation confounding is not far away from the core of the problem.
There is remarkable similarity in the different follies, the way a particular area would understand the sub language. “ jaldi chalo”, “ yeh kya kar diya”.
We won’t take much time if we have seen such a script before. The idea is, it is not that difficult to understand a particular style of structural arrangement of letters to write any language with the help of English alphabetic script. And if we can read such a script with remarkable improvement in understanding of the style and with increasing ease in reading, it is not that difficult to understand the paradigm. In fact the paradigm is much simpler than any of these language damaging writing styles.