Sounds like you need to delve into the etymology of English words, not write up a new programme. You'll find for example that "hell" is a pre-Christian word and that the word "god" has nothing to do with "good" (you can even check this on wikipedia).

I agree that language history is an extremely interesting subject, but scanning current pronunciations of words will tell you precious little about it. I also honestly don't see how phonemes and spelling patterns of one language will enhance your understanding of human nature in general.

... oh. I see Thanks for sharing, Tursas It does seem there's not much to be done here.

What Scott H is saying might make some sense IF languages were designed ... which they're not, they are products of cultural evolution. Plus, there are thousands of languages in the world, but somehow Scott is convinced that English on its own will give him clues into "human nature". Riight. This is akin to looking for a coded message by aliens in the genome of, say, Lactuca sativa, which just happens to grow in my garden.

Scott, if you sincerely wish to know about language, I can point you to some basic sources for linguistics. Have a look at Saussure's Course in General Linguistics, read some sociolinguistics (for example Louis-Jean Calvet's writings on the ecology of languages), acquaint yourself with historical linguistics and read a work or two on the history of the English language. Or simply begin by buying an etymological dictionary, they make for fascinating reading. They're a result of about two centuries of painstaking cumulative research by many scholars who have been working on the history of languages (especially the Indo-European family, to which English belongs) by studying preserved written sources, and have used the observed regularities to build ingenious models for language evolution that have even allowed them to tentatively reconstruct ancestral languages such as the Proto-Indo-European. One thing you'll learn from historical linguistics is that languages change radically and fairly quickly, and what is especially quick to change is the pronunciation you set such great store by. You do know, don't you, that Old English was a very different language from what you speak? The historical phonetics of English alone is a long and complicated story, and much more instructive than speculating on the phoneme [h] in "hell" while gazing into the ceiling.

As it is, Scott H's project has nothing to do with linguistics and I'm honestly surprised that this thread has not yet been moved to debunking, where it properly belongs. Moderators?

tactik wrote:Your assumption on the validity of Scott's proposal has been noted already, Katja. Now be quiet.

Huh ... thanks for your advice?

Or is it only my sarcasm sensor playing up? *taps on side of box*

natselrox wrote:Just a casual question, katja. Are you a linguist by any chance? I desperately need to know one.

Let's say I'm half of one I studied Comparative Literature and two languages at the Uni, and in each course I kept stumbling over various areas of linguistics, so I'd say I have the basics pretty much covered. Plus, I'm a translator with some theoretical involvement in translatology too (which, unsurprisingly, has a lot to do with linguistics). Depending on which topics you are interested in, I may be able to help, just don't expect me to know everything about everything!
PM me or start a new thread, and I'll see if I can be of any use!

Do you even know what an "ad hominem" is? And "senseless attacks"? Don't play the poor victim, Scott. Just where have I punched you (as opposed to your arguments, who we know are fair game)?

If you think I'm wrong, please present some counterarguments which will demonstrate your grasp of some of the knowledge on how language functions amassed by linguistics. Failing that, your stance is not so different from that of an ID'er who insists: "but it's obvious we couldn't have evolved from monkeys, I don't know how it is possible for anyone to fail to realize that."

Re spelling. Words were not "given" spelling "to aid cognition". Given by whom, by the way? Who is this mysterious authority who is supposed to help our cognition? English spelling reflects the history of language in various ways, for example how a word used to be pronounced in the past (written language is more conservative than spoken, so with time a gap tends to form between the two), or sometimes real or imagined etymology, etc. In fact, English orthography is a real mess - complicated and inconsistent. Some other languages (for example Portuguese) have a much closer fit between pronunciation and writing. This has to do partly with incidents of history, and partly with deliberate language policies (standardization).

Scott H wrote:I have a lot to study, so I don't have time for this.

Evading the debate? As you wish. I too have a lot to do.

Rest assured that you know nothing about my suffering

If you suffer, I'm sorry for you (and I don't say this ironically). But this doesn't make your ideas any jot better. Sorry.

or my status as a victim.

This referred to your reaction to my criticism of your ideas:

Do you just get cocky whenever you see a post that expresses a new idea? Or is it something about my name, or avatar, or style of writing that leads you into these senseless attacks?
(...)
Just some advice: you can't win an argument by punching the arguer.

Here, you were playing the victim of the evil, violent katja z in order to avoid the actual issues. I repeat the question, just where have I senselessly attacked you, or even "punched" you?

natselrox wrote:
I have a few questions. Let me sort them out properly and I'll start a thread. Mostly on syntax of different languages.

Do drop me a pm when you've set it up.

Thank you, dignified lady.

You're welcome, teasing sir.