Why Countries didn't make their own language and writing: instead use English(etc) and Roman letters?

Question

We( the americans who separated from the British and created America as a country) could for example , have had a language called American and a totally different writing script but no.. we have to go along with what was given to us.

Mexicans too. Spanish came, took over, but then spanish continued and also Roman letters.

In Australia, same thing. In Brazil, the same thing happened( but wit Portuguese)

Answer 1

All known alphabets are derived from Phoenician, anyway. Why bother inventing something that's already there?

Answer 2

Creating an alphabet or writing system isn't easy. It actually takes a lot of intellectual energy. For example, many historians consider Sequoyah (George Guest) who created the Cherokee Syllabary to have been a genius.

It is much easier to borrow an alphabet that has already been invented and to make minor modifications on that alphabet if you have to.

The Roman Alphabet is basically good just for writing Latin but it hasn't been very good for writing English or French. Czech and Polish use modifications of the Roman alphabet yet, all of the Slavic languages would probably be better off written in the Cyrillic alphabet like Russian.

Some reformers have tried to replace the Roman alphabet used in English for other systems like the Shaw alphabet designed by Kingsley Read and Tempered Notation designed by Stanley Hess but they havn't been popular.

The Roman alphabet is not the only one in the world that is a problem for writing languages. Persian (or Farsi), Burmese, Thai and Japanese also use writing systems that are poorly suited for their sounds and / or structures.

For a sample of "Tempered Notation" please see internet article below:

http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salamandir/calli.html

For information on the "Shaw" (or Shavian) alphabet please see this weblink:

http://foolswisdom.com/users/sbett/shavian-short.html

Sources:

1) Stanley Hess "The Modification of Letter-Forms," Art Direction Book Company, New York 1972 / 1981.

2) http://www.drizzle.com/~slmndr/salamandir/calli.html

3)http://foolswisdom.com/users/sbett/shavian-short.html

Answer 3

That's because the people who made up the government(the people who were conquerors or 'took over') were also the people that made all the written laws and records. To be in a society, you have to know the language or there are communication issues. Having languages and numbers in common also made international trading more feasible. Also, why would a country take the time and effort to make a new language when they already have one existent in their society that is working just fine?

Answer 4

joy M ,
the first settlers of south america were spanish and portuguses , the fist settlers of north america weren't english but french (canada , louisiana purshased).
there were also dutch in atlantic coast(new amsterdam=new york).
english settlers in the atlantic coast , in the 13 colonies (the true first land of the united-states ) ^^lol


they continute to speak the languages of their main-lands
^^ indians languages weren't very know and quickly forget

Answer 5

The first settlers in America came from England. Why would they be expected to completely overhaul their language and alphabet? It's nonsensical and it would serve no purpose to the population.

Answer 6

because its practically the same ppl...why should they change language its stupid....else they did sumthing smart...they modify them a bit...its why dialects , accents exist