-An abolition of the article such as a, an and the.
-An abolition of the plural form.
-"be" verbs are unified to "is".(an abolition of "am" and "are")
-An abolition of the third person singular.
>>1
天才
I believe you meant to title thread "Engrish improvement plan".
Articles serve important purpose in English. It's like "wa" and "ga" in Japanese.
Plural form is even more important and I do not know how Japanese gets along without it.
Hell, I cannot find it in me to eliminate plurals from this post.
Third person singular is very useful for indicating gender.
You is correct to say that "be" forms is silly, but they have been around for so many centuries that eliminating them looks really weird.
"He is a doctor."→（Past form）→"He was a doctor."
"I am a doctor."→（Past form）→"I was a doctor."
Why isn't there past form for the third person singular?
Because it is not important!!
> Third person singular is very useful for indicating gender.
I don't get it.
indicating gender? Give me some example sentences.
I guess the poster was thinking of He/She/It...
yeah i was (orz)
>>3 said that plural form is important.
But there isn't plural form of "You".
It is an inconsistency.
If he could judge that "You" is plural or singular from context,
why is plural form important?
Old English had the plural "you" and the singular "thou". This got lost for some stupid reason. So now it takes a verb form to indicate if "you" is a plural or not. Various local dialects fill the gap with expressions like "you-all/y'all" or "you guys".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You
おまいらヒマだなー
たまには外出てみれば？
>11
monar
Is "you" singular and Is "you all" is plural?? OK!!
I feel this form is easy to understand.
It is necessary to abolishe plural form of nouns too.
English plural form of nouns are singular + "s" basically.
BUT!! There are many many unjust exceptions such like fish,
wolf, monkey, tooth, scissors and etc!!!
Monkey?
A monkey, two monkeys. I don't see a problem here.
>>13
wolf -> wolves
monkey -> monkeys
tooth -> teeth
"scissors" is the cutting-device plural, also seen in "shears", "clippers".
Plural is very necessary in english. You can say:
"A goat ate my newspaper." or
"Goats ate my newspaper.", very different meanings with just a simple change.
>15
What's the difference between them?
"A goat ate my newspaper." = One goat ate my newspaper.
"Goats ate my newspaper." = More than one goat ate my newspaper.
Hmm, but it doesn't seem VERY different.
The fact is that your paper was eaten by shaggy creature, and I think not so many people are interested in how many creatures ate your paper.
In other words, there is not so much difference between "a goat ate" and "two goats ate", but there is a critical difference if "uncountable goats ate up" your paper.
The English prural system is imperfect. Worth improvement.
>>14
"two monkeys"?? ＷＨＡＴ！？ ＮＯＮ！！
There is already "two", so it is a self-evident truth that
"monkey" is plural. It's redundant!!
You should say "two monkey"!!
>>15
Wait!! The example is too simple and doesn't reach the problem.
"Goats" can be said in other words "Some Goats" or "Many Goats" etc.
And if "my newspaper was eat" is a most important meaning,
it is not important that "goat" is plural or not.
A problem is practical usage of the plural form.
If you want to say "plural sheep", you don't say "sheeps", do you?
>>19 If you say "two monkey", monkey falls out of being the subject, and the person on front of you starts waiting for more.
A: Two monkey
B: Two monkey... what?
A: Two monkey species.