| The English language is broken by design and historical practice with respect to spelling (borrowing when it needed to steal) and grammar; though it may possibly not be as broken as other historical languages. Also, before you propose something like Esperanto; that language appears to be the antithesis of what I'd prefer as a replacement. The general design goals being more: * a 'RISC' (rather than CISC) style use of verbal pallet (pick the most common international phonetics, not a regional 'good enough' set) * purely phonetic spelling and pronunciation (one exact way to spell or say anything and vice versa) * never mutate words for any reason (no tenses, conjugation, etc) * no pronouns (only use proper nouns or descriptive selections) * eliminate filler where possible (the, a, similar non-informational words); this would be more of an accepted grammar shift. If there is a reason for that use then more distinct and/or obvious reasons for using a replacement mechanism should be apparent and taught in standard education. |
The spelling is pretty bad, though. I'm guessing that even if you managed to clean up the spelling, it would be a temporary fix. Pronunciations change over time, and vary between dialects.