Al,

 

 

 

Im not sure I understand the basis for your questions on first reading (they seem somewhat obsfucated :)), but suspect that may be due to limitations of email as medium and enjoy the response nonetheless.

 

I am currently of the opinion that English would not be--and may not always be--the global lingua franca if world history of at least past several hundred years was different, given the hodge-podge English is of many languages with numerous exceptions to every rule.  So on its face, I think it may not be even the most economically "efficient"  language.  Ive also heard that English uses less than half of all possible phonemes (sounds).

 

On the other hand, perhaps the flexibility and ability of English to constantly evolve may be precisely why it has been--and may remain--the first language of choice (other than mathematics, for which we can primarily thank the Arabs I think) for international communication.  And perhaps the use of less than half of all possible phonemes is precisely what makes English more efficient, while still offering users more nuance (or ambiguity?)--at least compared to Latin--as you suggested I think.

 

But even within English, differences in meaning given to certain phonemes can be humorous.  For example, the difference in the UK and US usage of the words "bum" and "fanny" come to mind.:)   

 

Note: my spell checker would not acknowledge "humourous" as a "correct" spelling of that word.  This is surprising to me since I've also recently heard that a movement is afoot again to streamline and eliminate multiple spellings of various words (e.g. altho for although), and that this is not new.  I think I heard a similar effort was made about a century ago and again about 50 yrs ago.  But, so far, not much change--maybe for same or similar reasons Esperanto did not catch on.  Would be curious to know your and OED opinions on this, as well as opinions of anyone else on futures of English and possible OED bias.

 

Aloha,

 

TB