Englandish-Ideal English

[Bo1Bo1Sha3]

I dug up a incomplete semi-conlang I made as a teenager. I used to be obsessed with improving the English language. I edited it to make more readable.
Tell me what y'all think.

Edit:
Still a bit messy but more readable. If the file isn't working correctly, please leave a message or pm me.

[Caillagh de Bodemloze]

I'd be interested to see this, once you've edited it so you're happy with it!

[Bo1Bo1Sha3]

Okay, I put up the link again, y'all can read now.

[Alwyn]

An impressive project! I wonder if you were (or are) developing a culture that uses this conlang for a novel or game setting.

[Cope]

I was out of my depth within the first sentence. Impressive.

[Septentrionalis]

I have taken a look and find the project impressive. And particularly impressive in terms of your linguistic proficiency if you really did much of the work as a teenager.

I had some similar interests in my youth as I found languages such as English and my native Finnish lacking, but it never developed into anything this comprehensive. I get the feeling that you still seriously think that English should be different and, among many things, you seem averse to grammatical function or lexical items serving more than one purpose at a time. You would like everything to display finesse and clearly distinguished purposes. That seems a bit misguided to me as such fuzziness is a natural property of human languages. In other words, with proper knowledge of a language, you could do a similar proposition of almost any language.

Of course just being able to identify those fine semantic differences in usage (that a non-linguistically oriented person of even high intellect would be completely oblivious to) is nothing short of remarkable. In a way I hope that your talent is serving serious study of topics such as language typology or other applicable fields.

I am likely to get back to you and discuss some of the details at a later time.

[Bo1Bo1Sha3]

I get the feeling that you still seriously think that English should be different and, among many things, you seem averse to grammatical function or lexical items serving more than one purpose at a time. You would like everything to display finesse and clearly distinguished purposes. That seems a bit misguided to me as such fuzziness is a natural property of human languages. In other words, with proper knowledge of a language, you could do a similar proposition of almost any language.

Of course just being able to identify those fine semantic differences in usage (that a non-linguistically oriented person of even high intellect would be completely oblivious to) is nothing short of remarkable. In a way I hope that your talent is serving serious study of topics such as language typology or other applicable fields.

First of all, thank you for looking.

To respond to your points, I went and reread what I wrote.

Indeed that's all true, but it's more I wanted to bring English up to the same level as the German language during that phase. (However, I also wanted to reduce irregularity.) Now I don't care so much, I wish it were different but I know I can't change anything, but I wonder if some things were common knowledge native speakers would speak differently.

You sound very knowledgeable. I'd enjoy hearing from you later at another time.

[Twilight Esker]

If nothing else, English is a terribly flawed language and there are infinite ways to improve it. As Septentrionalis touched on, beautiful form and acknowledgement of that form can be different things. English will likely never be truly ideal in understanding. It is among the fuzziest of all while being incredibly flexible and importantly, it is recognized because of it. Useful jargon, making it ubiquitous for the same reason it is badly flawed. Beautiful, yet difficult languages end up marginalized and even degraded from these crossovers.

Likewise to above, I find your grasp of language to be uniquely competent and the project to be well done. It beats my own understanding by far. My understanding is mostly fuzz, little mechanic.