The english language is a funny thing. As if to make it harder for other people to learn we find it necessary to add in silent letters; that is, a letter, with no accompanying sound. Why not just take this to the logical conclusion and introduce sounds, with no accompanying letters?

Take the word 'knife' for example. It should be pronounced 'ke-nife', but it isn't because it has a silent 'k' at the start. This could be taken to a whole new level by adding the logical reverse. If we add a 'k' with no sound, why not add a 'en' sound with no letter to signal it. In speech this would make no difference, and when writing the missing letter could just be shown by a gap or hyphen of some sort.

So what do you think? To be or not To _e?
-- Germanicus, Feb 22 2006

This is a function of many languages around the world, including English if you speak it the way President Bush does ("nuclear," 'frinstance). A great many written languages omit the vowels, and you have to kind of guess how the word comes out (hence Yahweh and Jehovah). And I am sure there are many more examples in regular English.

But why are you trying to represent the sound in question at all? Once you represent it, it's no longer "invisible," and you've oxymoroned your idea out of existence.
-- DrCurry, Feb 22 2006


This is only an accidental function of many languages, there are no purposeful examples put into the languages. As for the second point, that was just as not to confuse people.
-- Germanicus, Feb 22 2006



random, halfbakery