Does anyone like the English Language?

<<I think you mean the adult native speaker. For the children, they could even know what is a sin75 or log87, how can they know the number? Another question is what is your opinion of without the plural ‘s’? Does it cause mistake?>>

Why would children need to know what sin75 or log87 are, let alone whether they require a plural or singular form in writing? To your second point, dropping the plural form of words would cause confusion, and there is no need to get rid of them in the first place.

"I have 10 apple" is not the same as "I have 10 apples," whether you think it is or not is irrelevant.

<<Above, some one has said that in the world any language is changing. That is true. Of course the native speaker doesn’t familiar with the compound words’ system but you could not say that after fifty year’s time, the English is still insisting the unit or synthetic words’ system.>>

But for what purpose? Would decreasing the English vocabulary advance it in any way? There is already "Simplified English" to make international communication easier, but I can't see how making this version standard would help native speakers in any way. We already know how to speak and understand English as it is, we don't need to make "1984" 'newspeak' real.

Languages can't be artificially manipulated. They aren't something that can be radically changed by intent, but must evolve slowly on its own. Another thing besides this that would prevent your change from occurring is that people hold an aversion to speaking in a way they think sounds "stupid," and what you're proposing would indeed sound stupid to any native speaker.

<<"I have 10 apple" is not the same as "I have 10 apples," whether you think it is or not is irrelevant.>>

What exactly does "I have 10 apple" mean?

(assuming it's not short for "I have 10 apple [pies]", snipped out of an informal conversation, where "pies" is understood by both parties.)

<<What exactly does "I have 10 apple" mean?>>

Without the plural form of 'apple' this sentence could mean the writer has a disease called "10 apple," that he has an apple with the number 10 written on it, or any number of other things.

The sentence just isn't the same without that little 's'.

You're deluded. "I have 10 apple" is wrong! A name for something doesn't count, because you could substitute the name for any name.

I have 10 apple.
I have ijdiomasiodas.
I have kpodf39r3.
I have donkey girth moribund dinamics.
I have twig harsh.
I have igigigig.
I have wallet igneous.
I have gwobwob.

Are all the same and senseless.

<<You're deluded. "I have 10 apple" is wrong! A name for something doesn't count, because you could substitute the name for any name. >>

"I have sun burn" or "I have Parkinson's disease" both make sense, right? I never said "I have 10 apple" made sense, merely that without the plural form of 'apple' the sentence no longer conveyed that the subject had ten apples, but instead meant that he had some weird (nonsensical) object or condition.

Also, assuming "10 Apple" was a beverage flavor, "No, but I have 10 Apple." would be an appropriate response to "Do you have Mango Fusion?"

If someone said to me they had 10 apple I would assume they just made a grammatical mistake and not that they had some new kind of hypothetical beverage.

"If someone said to me they had 10 apple I would assume they just made a grammatical mistake and not that they had some new kind of hypothetical beverage."

That's interesting, because unless that line was delivered with a heavy foreign accent I would be left confused.

What is the point of this discussion of 10 apple anyway, what bearing does it have on anything? There are thousands of examples where changing one letter changes the meaning of the sentence and not just in English but in every language on earth.

What the point of this discussions of 10 apples any way, what bearning do it haves on anythings? There is thousand examples when changings one letter change the meanings of sentences and not just with English but also in ever language on Earths.

<<What is the point of this discussion of 10 apple anyway, what bearing does it have on anything? There are thousands of examples where changing one letter changes the meaning of the sentence and not just in English but in every language on earth. >>

One of Cheng-Zhong Su's suggested revisions to English was that we eliminate all plural forms as the meaning, in his mind, doesn't change when we use the singular form of words. This is wrong, and I was pointing it out.

But even the smallest changes will entail some losses, so it comes down to weighing pluses against minuses. Surely the possibility that you might not know whether he is referring 10 apples or the "10 apple" Mango Fusion is a pretty minor flaw in the theory, but there are a lot of benefits that would be much more significant.

How about:

Customer: "Ya still got any o' those great pies left?"

Baker: "Sure -- still got 8 peach, 2 pear, and 10 apple. Y'oughtta try the pear -- they're scrumptious -- only 2 left."

Matthew said: “Why would children need to know what sin75 or log87 are, let alone whether they require a plural or singular form in writing? To your second point, dropping the plural form of words would cause confusion, and there is no need to get rid of them in the first place.

"I have 10 apple" is not the same as "I have 10 apples," whether you think it is or not is irrelevant.”

I think, if it is knowledge, then the children would be better to know it. Just think about at the same age, a Chinese child know it very well and a English child know it only half way, do you think it is fair?
I regard the English plural‘s’ is something like double expression. “I have 10 apples,”
Every body heard the number 10 will aware it is plural, why would you add the extra ‘s’? According some linguists that it is but a tradition of ancient time, when a hunter went back home his wife just want to know if he got one prey or more than one. Then the ‘s’ was useful. But in the modern time, what we want to know is something more precisely. For instance, we want to know the train arrive in 10 seconds or 11 seconds. Here, you may see the different that in ancient time the noun plural had ‘s’ but noun single had no ‘s’, yet in current case both 10 and 11 second has ‘s’ it turned to become a mere formality. If English really want the symbol of plural does something, then we have to change it as 10 seconds, 11 secondr, 12 secondt, 13secondo and 14 secondn etc.

Matthew said: “But for what purpose? Would decreasing the English vocabulary advance it in any way? There is already "Simplified English" to make international communication easier, but I can't see how making this version standard would help native speakers in any way. We already know how to speak and understand English as it is, we don't need to make "1984" 'newspeak' real.”

It depends on Linguistic Law. The law says: Vocabulary of any language is created by a portion of synthetic words and a portion of compound words or derivations. Synthetic words represent easy to express (just think about how easy to pronounce a word like ‘prill’ than a compound word as high-grade-copper-ore), while the compound words represent easy to learn to remember. Both portions will keep a dynamic balance. Only if the number of sounds (or short syllables) changed, then the balance should be changed according the will of its speakers. (Just think that if h=high, g=grade, c=copper and o=ore permanently, then the word of high-grade-copper-ore would be hgco a word not harder than prill.)
For this reason, what I want is not just ‘Simplified English’. What I am looking for is a simplified English plus bigger vocabulary. The slogan is ‘learning less knowing more’.

The meaning here is given by the context, not by the mere absence of an 's'.

Gilmore said: “What is the point of this discussion of 10 apple anyway, what bearing does it have on anything? There are thousands of examples where changing one letter changes the meaning of the sentence and not just in English but in every language on earth.”

I think he means to say that it is not economy to add a ‘s’ at the end of a noun. For English lack adequate letters to represent so many meanings. I agree with this point of view. That is the English has to use every letters more carefully. We can’t in one hand trying to simplify the vocabulary while one the other hand uses the letters lavishly. I know that the Chinese language call a sentences as sick sentence when you express one meaning twice. The expression of ‘10 apples’ is in fact expressing the meaning of plural twice. That is to say the same phenomenon, in one language could be called as grammar while in other language called disease. If both of them can tell the listener exactly the same thing, then I prefer the economy one.