How do we fix the French language so that written form corresponds to spoken form?

How do we fix the French language so that written form corresponds to spoken form?

Attached: 53c1f3ce-6778-43eb-b898-b4d4c03cdfe3.jpg (320x320, 12.7K)

Replace it with Bulgaria old Church Slavonic and create a German dialect of it :/

Hello my fellow coffee drinkers

It's actually pretty phonetically consistent, what do you mean exactly?

See Creole Haitian.

Then decide whether you'd rather claw your eyes out.

It maps grapheme (text) to phoneme with nearly 100% consistency, but phoneme to text with something like 60% consistency depending on you measure it.

how is it a problem though? the dictionary has a finite number of words, if you learn all the words you'll know how to write them down once you hear them, and even if two words are spelled differently but sound the same, then you can make out which word it is by context

It's very simple, get rid of oïl speaking niggers and bring back langue d'oc

giwtwm

You've just described every language regardless of writing system and internal consistency.

And I never said it was a problem. I was the one who implied that I'd rather claw my eyes out that see French written out like Creole. But not using a writing system that maps 100% grapheme-phoneme objectively (as in there are studies) makes it more difficult for native speakers to learn how to read and write.

reminder that the first ethnolinguistic genocide recorded in history took place against the english/anglo-saxon race when the french invaded and subjugated them and destroyed their culture and language

>fix
you can't fix what isn't broken, french is actually phonetically consistent
unlike SOME other language which actually DOES need some fixing

french never successfully and english culture only damage not destroy

your brain destroy yes very good come again thank

go look in the mirror and see if you have some facial droop going on lad

Thank you for posting in English, SLAVEoid.

>destroyed their culture
how? when?
>and language
how? when?

The conquest was in 1066, yet it took at least another century for Norman French to thoroughly entrench itself into common English, and then only among the literate urban classes. The transformation from Old to Middle English is entirely consistent with what would be expected from a natural trickle-down effect of language prestige given that the language of prestige suddenly (more or less) changed in 1066. There is zero evidence for linguistic subjugation of the common classes. Why the fuck would they give a shit about the commoners anyway?

created a script based on the morphenes

>created
create* fixed.

this is how, and compare modern english culture to other germanic cultures, it's clearly distinct, because the norman subjugation changed the character of england.

Attached: 1200px-Origins_of_English_PieChart.svg[1].png (1200x1196, 125.03K)

>zero evidence for linguistic subjugation of the common classes
Idk about that plenty of people were forced to learn French terms and words as it spread further. It depends on how you define common people

tried to find a comparison to another language but have only found turkish so far

Attached: 6ibucwplzli01.jpg (1024x768, 140.92K)

>unlike SOME other language which actually DOES need some fixing
Creating an efficient morpho-phonemic text mapping of Modern English is actually a tricky problem. Consider the words "academy", "academic", "academia" -- if you were to transcribe English with a 1:1 phonology you would have 3 words that have very irregular spellings, even though they share a common root with simple suffixes. To fix this you could do some sort of semantic-sensitive compromise, or you could have a phonology but with rules for long and short vowels and for prosody. Either way it gets more complicated very quickly.

>plenty of people were forced to learn French terms and words as it spread further.
People who worked for the Court and dealt with Court documents and matters had to learn Norman French to some degree, sure, and that's a wide swath of people, hence why the "trickle-down" effect takes only a century. But can you give evidence that anyone was actually "forced" to learn the language? If I apply for a job to work at a coffee shop am I "forced" to learn how to make coffee?

that graph is 1) shitty and technically problematic, and 2) how the fuck does it prove anything? Languages fucking evolve fast, and with a modicum of education on the subject you would know that something as simple as an imbalance of prestige in local languages is enough to quickly make one dominate the rest, no "subjugation" needed.

Spoken form is a lot more fucked up than written form
Written form might look like a clusterfuck to americans, but tjey haven't heard how we qhorten words and sentences

It;''s not really an issue. The whole "It doesn't look right aspect is hinged totally on the persons background with latin script.

english is rare in how muttified its become, during the middle ages it was mutually intelligible with the norse languages, but due to heavy norman influence bringing in a massive influx of french/latin words, it changed in a way that other similar languages did not; try to understand norwegian or danish now if you only speak english and you'd have no luck, because of how heavily the language was altered. hence my description of the change as a linguistic genocide.

congratulations you have the equivalent of about 2 weeks' worth of education in the history of the English language. I bow to your great learnedness.

You having issue with the linguistic genocide part?

there is something wrong with literally every phrase in that comment