Language Revolution

  • 6 Replies
  • 591 Views
?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Language Revolution
« on: June 16, 2010, 08:09:06 AM »
There has been a lot of coverage recently of Climate Change. We are releasing to much Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere. My solution is thus: speak less, use less energy, drive to the shops for food less.

I propose:
  • A shortening of all words where the removal of a syllable creates a unique word, eg. Phenomenon could be shortened to phenom, and still be a uniquie word.
  • The abolition of the verb 'to be', except to distinguish nouns that sound the same as the plural, ie sheep etc.
  • The abolition of the word 'the', apart from to distinguish between general plurals and a specific group, eg 'the birds dead' instead of 'birds dead', which sounds like all birds dead.


Gree?


*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16714
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Language Revolution
« Reply #1 on: June 16, 2010, 08:56:24 AM »
There has been a lot of coverage recently of Climate Change. We are releasing to much Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere. My solution is thus: speak less, use less energy, drive to the shops for food less.

I propose:
  • A shortening of all words where the removal of a syllable creates a unique word, eg. Phenomenon could be shortened to phenom, and still be a uniquie word.
  • The abolition of the verb 'to be', except to distinguish nouns that sound the same as the plural, ie sheep etc.
  • The abolition of the word 'the', apart from to distinguish between general plurals and a specific group, eg 'the birds dead' instead of 'birds dead', which sounds like all birds dead.


Gree?


What is the actual difference in CO2 output between speaking and breathing?  And then, the gain from the words that would be change?

I doubt the effort would be worthwhile.  For something of this magnitude the effort would likely outweigh the benefit.  There are simpler solutions that are easier and would make an actual impact.

That said, interesting and cool idea.
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: Language Revolution
« Reply #2 on: June 16, 2010, 08:57:06 AM »
Speaking uses energy for sound. Trust me, this will solve everything.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16714
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Language Revolution
« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2010, 09:00:12 AM »
Speaking uses energy for sound. Trust me, this will solve everything.
It doesn't seem the issue is energy, but CO2 release.  The two aren't necessarily tied all the time.
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: Language Revolution
« Reply #4 on: June 16, 2010, 09:04:54 AM »
Speaking uses energy for sound. Trust me, this will solve everything.
It doesn't seem the issue is energy, but CO2 release.  The two aren't necessarily tied all the time.

Yes but you'll have to eat less, so you don't have to drive to the shops as much.

*

Weegee Board

  • 10323
  • Pokemon Master
Re: Language Revolution
« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2010, 09:30:14 AM »
troll

*

theonlydann

  • Official Member
  • 24172
Re: Language Revolution
« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2010, 09:37:53 AM »
There has been a lot of coverage recently of Climate Change. We are releasing to much Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere. My solution is thus: speak less, use less energy, drive to the shops for food less.

I propose:
  • A shortening of all words where the removal of a syllable creates a unique word, eg. Phenomenon could be shortened to phenom, and still be a uniquie word.
  • The abolition of the verb 'to be', except to distinguish nouns that sound the same as the plural, ie sheep etc.
  • The abolition of the word 'the', apart from to distinguish between general plurals and a specific group, eg 'the birds dead' instead of 'birds dead', which sounds like all birds dead.


Gree?


What is the actual difference in CO2 output between speaking and breathing?  And then, the gain from the words that would be change?

I doubt the effort would be worthwhile.  For something of this magnitude the effort would likely outweigh the benefit.  There are simpler solutions that are easier and would make an actual impact.

That said, interesting and cool idea.
Actually, Teddy Roosevelt instituted similar policies, and apparently it saved time and money and, most notably, INK. I cannot find a sauce.