Comments on: Why “spelling reform” is cultural vandalism

By: Joe Otten

Joe Otten — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 21:18:45 +0000

Katherine, right, and all I’m saying is that it should continue to change, not become cast in stone according to a few of Dr Johnson’s whims, faux latinisation (colonel), and so on.

The printing press has ossified what was a dynamic part of our culture.

By: Katherine

Katherine — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 11:09:35 +0000

For goodness sake Joe, over time spelling of English has changed a multitude of times and you know it. The fact that an individual who spells something incorrectly in an exam will be penalised for that doesn’t change that fact.

And according to you, a publisher using a reformed spelling can effect change – so there is the freedom you were asking about. But it is evolutionary, not revolutionary. And that is the entire point of what I was trying to say – people calling for “spelling reform” have forgetten that English spelling has never been directed or constrained by any official body. It would be impossible to bring about a full scale systematic change without there being such a body and I personally would oppose such a thing. One of the main reasons that English is the flexible, expressive language that it is today is because it has never had such “direction”.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 18:23:45 +0000

Languages evolve, if you try to stop them you end up like French which went from being the Lingua Franca to being an obscure European language.
Spellings meaning and pronunciations have changed and will change and there is little you can do to stop them. Spell Checkers are the most obvious current brake on the advancement of language but these too will reflect usage and not the desire of linguistic Luddites.
The purpose of language is to transmit ideas, anyone who gets hung up worrying about the format of the medium when it is the ideas that matters is a pedant.

By: Joe Otten

Joe Otten — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 18:23:45 +0000

Katherine, what freedom? Use reformed spelling and you will fail your exams, suffer at work, and be thought an idiot.

It doesn’t need an authority, it just needs a few publishers to show some leadership. Which I think they would do with the right sort of encouragement.

By: Katherine

Katherine — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:12:06 +0000

The example of “8” for “ate” or “ait” is an interesting one, since it suggests the possibility of a new letter entering the language. Also “@” for “at”. I rather like that. But that is about text spelling rather than spelling reform. As many others have said, the two are entirely different issues.

And on the issue of spelling reform, British English is one of the few to have never really had any official spelling body and I think it is richer for it. Just who would be the correcting body? We have no commission or authority like the French. English’s greatest strength has always been its flexibility and freedom. That comes with downsides, but I for one am prepared to accept those.

By: Sandy

Sandy — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 10:07:38 +0000

Changing our spelling system is one thing – accepting text-spelling another. We should not confuse the two.

But if we get to the stage of ‘modern’ written languages such as Arabic and Hebrew, which prefer to drop vowels when spelling the word, it could be interesting. The above might read something like this…

Chngng or splng systm is on thng – accptng txt-spling anthr. We shld nt cnfse the two.

Bt if we gt to the stg of ‘mdrn’ wrtn lnggs sch as Arbc and Hbrw, whch prefer to drp vwls whn splng the wrd, it cld be intrstng. The abv mght rd smthng lk ths…

By: Backword Dave

Backword Dave — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 21:15:26 +0000

And another ‘English’ author: George Bernard Shaw. Like Dearieme, I think the chemical formulae above are correct, but the spellings of their names wrong.

By: Bobb Dobbs

Bobb Dobbs — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 18:49:22 +0000

Of course one of the classic ‘English’ authors, who’s words are taught as part of the English and Scottish curriculum, has already had his spelling standardized more than may be acceptable to one. Shakespeare.

Perhaps the Scottish are trying to find a way to make Burns’ work more understandable to their population, a chance to rewrite it as has been done to old Shakey…

By: Joe Otten

Joe Otten — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 11:36:02 +0000

Yes, divergent pronunciations are an obstacle to complete standardisation. They are not an obstacle to correcting the grossest errors of English spelling.

By: dearieme

dearieme — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 00:06:32 +0000

Oh, and ethene wasn’t formerly ethane, it was formerly ethylene. Also, the two key objections remain (1) We’d never agree on which pronunciation we’d use for standardisation. (I recommend mine: mellifluous and readily understood by furriners – unlike Cockney, Glaswegian, Oxford,….) (2) But even if we did, the agreement would be undone as the spoken language changed further.