One of the key requirements of Wirth in terms of language construction was chasing languages that were not just simple but that 1. could be implemented simply (e.g. if a feature would significantly complicate the compiler, chances are he'd reject it), 2. where the implementation of a language construct was relatively unambiguously a near-optimal way of implementing that construct (e.g. he'd strip out things that might well be good if he did not feel he knew of a clearly superior way of implementing a feature at the language level), and 3. could be read in a very straight-forward way.
You can make lots of changes that makes for smaller and simpler languages, but Wirth was chasing a very specific set of goals that did not seek to minimise the syntax for the sake of minimising the syntax alone, but to seek a balance between language simplicity, compiler simplicity and a rigidity that forces (his idea of) readability.
His languages makes a lot more sense when evaluated in terms of those goals. Personally I admire his vision and execution a whole lot even though I prefer to use a language (Ruby) that is an utter mess evaluated by Wirth's criteria.
You can make lots of changes that makes for smaller and simpler languages, but Wirth was chasing a very specific set of goals that did not seek to minimise the syntax for the sake of minimising the syntax alone, but to seek a balance between language simplicity, compiler simplicity and a rigidity that forces (his idea of) readability.
His languages makes a lot more sense when evaluated in terms of those goals. Personally I admire his vision and execution a whole lot even though I prefer to use a language (Ruby) that is an utter mess evaluated by Wirth's criteria.