Do homophones serve a practical purpose in the English language?

Asked by: Muhly
  • They serve no purpose

    There is the ever constant bickering about people misusing there, their and they're. Also two, to and too. But why the entire concept of a homophone is point less being that the are pronounced the same but spelt differently makes it clear that there is no need top spell them differently as we have no trouble differentiating between them when in speaking. This is because there is no way to miss understand them within the context of a sentence and only one word from both examples could be used as a single word reply. Where is it? There. How many trees are there? Two. The only logical reason I can think of for it is the origins of the words themselves. That being said I don't think people should be irritated by this mistake. If it is such a big deal we should have changed the pronunciation by now. I find homonyms to be a far bigger problem. The word less is very problematic since one pronunciation is a noun and the other can be a verb or adjective so a service like (a lead wire) does this refer to a leading wire or a wire made of led.

  • Homophones actually tend to have subtle differences, which add a tint of beauty to the English language.

    Beer and bear- pronounced the same (especially is you are nearby either) unless you have a degree in English, or a mum that has a degree in English. And these add beauty to the English language. English often seems bulky, compared to languages like French, that sound like music to our ears. Having these subtle differences is a nice touch.

  • No responses have been submitted.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.