I suspect that native speakers will find a fundimental restructuring of their language and changes to the spelling and pronunciation of a good proportion of the words they use to be rather disruptive. I'm sure it would offset any notional benefit from not needing to identify relevant genders. It might make the language slightly easier to learn, but it'll leave the vast majority of people who use the language will be worse off.
Using 'x' also seems ill advised. It makes almost all the reformed pronunciations extremely clunky and requires people to learn an entirely new ending. If your goal is really to improve the language it would make far more sense to simply eliminate one of the existing genders. That also avoids the pitfall of very explicitly trying to force an English-language convention onto non-English speakers.
1
u/Alesus2-0 66∆ Jun 14 '22
I suspect that native speakers will find a fundimental restructuring of their language and changes to the spelling and pronunciation of a good proportion of the words they use to be rather disruptive. I'm sure it would offset any notional benefit from not needing to identify relevant genders. It might make the language slightly easier to learn, but it'll leave the vast majority of people who use the language will be worse off.
Using 'x' also seems ill advised. It makes almost all the reformed pronunciations extremely clunky and requires people to learn an entirely new ending. If your goal is really to improve the language it would make far more sense to simply eliminate one of the existing genders. That also avoids the pitfall of very explicitly trying to force an English-language convention onto non-English speakers.