For numerous centuries, the English language has been relying on a system of standards and modifications that can be classified as anyone's guess. In other modern languages such as Italian, French, Spanish and Portuguese, also known as Romance Languages, in contrast, an organization known as the Academy has been the official voice in setting standards and making modifications with the purpose of making each language learner and user friendly. According to many critics, English has relied on the so-called good writers in order to maintain certain standards in structure and in usage. Many implications now found in the language, as a result of not having an official voice, are evident in the lack of essential characteristics in phonology, morphology and syntax.

Judging from the implications most language learners and users have been experiencing in the last several centuries, trying to determine who are the good writers many experts describe is somewhat of a difficult task. Shakespeare was a great writer, but his fancy style, his free coinage of words and his lack of regard for standard in usage cannot serve as a model for the present or the future as far as language learning and usage is concerned. In fact, Samuel Johnson made the following observation about his writing: "Shakespeare never had six lines together without a fault. Perhaps you may find seven, but this does not refute my general assertion." If the models of many English writers have not shown signs of improving the language, looking for other factors that can lead to the development of standards with continuity rather than individuality, or some type of direction instead of more implications, is a task that must not be neglected.

With the official voice as the guiding principle, other languages have managed to create a system of phonetics for the process of writing, a system of morphology with distinguishing characteristics, and a syntax system that reflects the function of the parts of the speech in sentence structure and in usage. English writing is based on spelling, which in most cases can be classified as the way words are put together, according to whomever, and without any correlation between the sound of the letters of the alphabet and their representation in words, phrases and sentences. The system of morphology sometimes has characteristics of Latin, Greek, French, Italian and other languages as well. In the English syntax, it is rather difficult to determine the difference between the form and the function of many parts of the speech because, in too many instances, they lack distinguishing characteristics while performing numerous syntactical functions. A brief analysis of the languages with an official voice, in contrast to English, will reveal some important factors that must be addressed without delay.

The system of writing in the romantic languages is based on phonetics, with over ninety per cent of the words that fall into specific categories. The basis is the alphabet, with a direct correlation between the vowels, the consonants, the combinations, and their application within words, phrases and sentences. After mastering the basic sounds of the letters and the combinations, which do not go much beyond the process of learning the alphabet, language users can focus on expressing clear thoughts rather than dealing with spelling. In fact, as far as English writing is concerned, phonetic applies with less then ten percent of the words. While standards with exceptions exist in the romantic languages, exceptions as the norm are often found in English, not only in writing but also in other aspects of the language.

As it was the case with Latin, the vowels and the consonants have one basic sound, and silent letters are nearly nonexistent in the romance languages. The letter a, pronounced ah, has the alphabet sound throughout the entire system, and consistency is the predominant factor whether in the spoken or the written aspects of the language. The alphabet sound of the letter a, pronounced like a, as in fate, can have numerous others within words and sentences, and standard in usage is far from what should be some type of norm in English. What phonological explanation can there possibly exist, for instance, with ea in ocean, ea in break, steak, stake, and ei in freight? What about o in words such as rope, love and cove; oa in coat, ou in about, ow in low, now and laundry? Not even by being spellbound can one find a solution to the present writing system, better known as spelling. In fact, most learners and users of English will experience dizzy spells while in school and throughout their careers, and without the possibility of finding a solution.

As far as morphology is concerned, a system with distinguishing characteristics exists in each of the romantic languages. Beginning with etymology, mainly from Latin and Greek, words underwent changes and modifications to the point of becoming standard as the predominant factor, with the exceptions in the true sense of the word. In English, on the other hand, language users still have to deal with word inflection from Latin, French, Italian and a few other languages. How perplexing is it for language users to have to wonder in hopeless confusion about the inflections of Latin or Italian words such as medium and media, datum and data, cactus and cacti, graffito, graffiti, concerto, concerti, and their agreement with the plural or the singular form of the verb? It is possible to explain the system of morphology of Spanish, French, Portuguese and Italian in a couple of pages with accuracy. In English, in contrast, it will take numerous, and the different points of view are so widespread that anyone's guess can be the answer in most cases. For example, it is possible to explain the application of the hyphen in the four languages above in one page; but in English, it takes between twelve and fourteen pages.

The problem does not end there because, at the end of many lengthy and confusing explanations, grammarians usually inform the learners and users to consult a dictionary in cases of doubt. Further suggestion, according to most language experts, is that "not all dictionaries agree" on a set of rules - not even close to some standards as the norm and the exceptions in the true sense of the word. In other words, instead of learning some basic guidelines about grammatical structure, learners and users find themselves without a solution, and wondering in hopeless confusion.

The same is a factor about the form and the function of the parts of the speech in the syntax. In too many instances the English syntax can be quite complex and contradictory. Instead of a standard grammar with a few variations, we find too many grammars with innumerous points of view that can result in many implications. In fact, because language standards are lacking, and so is an official language organization, words in English can have the function of various parts of the speech without distinguishing characteristics. The word work, for example, can be a noun, a verb and an adjective. The use of prepositions in other modern languages, besides their position according to etymology, is to make the language analytical rather than syntactical. Being a mixture of both, no one can be sure when an adjective in English is performing its function or that of a genitive - a case of possession instead of noun modification.

In the romantic languages, as a result of having an official organization in charge of creating standards as the norm and keeping the exceptions in the denotative sense, learners and users have benefited in the process of learning and in the application of the language. The three major components of the grammar, phonetic, morphology and syntax, are applicable in the process of learning and usage as well. The same is a factor about having one official grammar with a few variations, of course. English, in contrast, has many grammars and no official language organization. As a result, writing is based on spelling, which in most cases can cause dizzy spells. Morphology, the formation and the inflection of words, is still based on the system of Latin, Greek, French, Italian and other languages. And, as far as the form and the function of the parts of the speech in a sentence, in too many instances, it is rather difficult to tell the difference between one and the other. In brief, because other languages have strived to create an official voice, the academy, and a system of standards with exceptions, they became learner and user friendly. To reach the same level of success, English must take the same important steps, "atque inter silvas Academi quaerere verum" (and seek the truth in the groves of Academe), as Horace once said.