Spelling reform

[Jonathon]

Yesterday I read an article on MSNBC.com about a group pushing for spelling reform in America. The article doesn't go into much depth, and it tries to get cute by employing a reformed spelling system in several paragraphs (though it's pretty inconsistent), but it (along with Porter's comments in the emPHAsis thread) got me thinking a little about spelling reform.

First off, I can definitely see the advantages. I haven't seen any studies on this, but I imagine that it would increase literacy and decrease the amount of time and effort it takes to learn how to read. Teachers could stop worrying so much about teaching kids how to spell and focus on more important topics.

However, it seems that the list of disadvantages is quite a bit longer. The first problem is, of course, deciding which dialect to base the spelling system on. It's easy to say that words should be spelled the way they sound, but it's much harder to standardize pronunciation than to standardize spelling. For instance, I pronounce cot and caught the same way, but the slight majority of Americans don't. Should we spell them the same way, or differently? And what about other English-speaking countries? Does it make sense for Canada and America to have greatly different spelling systems, even though our dialects are very closely related?

But let's assume that we decide to go ahead and revise our spelling. How do we phonetically represent the English language (with forty-something sounds) with the Latin alphabet (with twenty-six characters)? We already use combinations to represent many consonant sounds (th, sh, ch), and we could presumably keep doing that, but vowels are trickier—we have five vowel characters and about twelve or thirteen vowel sounds. And personally, I think one of the main goals of spelling reform should be a return to Continental (pre-Great Vowel shift) vowel values, but I've never seen anyone advocate this.

And then, of course, there's the staggering cost. Over a quarter of a billion people would have to learn to read and write all over again. Countless publications would have to be rewritten. I couldn't even guess at the economic impact of such a reform. I just don't think it's ever going to happen.

[Porter]

Over a quarter of a billion people would have to learn to read and write all over again.

Popycock.

The new spelling could easily, I imagine, be designed to make the transition from English to Common spelling pretty easy.  The amount of new learning required to read, at least, the new spelling system would be minimal.

One more big negative that comes to my mind: being able to read "old" books.  Are we going to have to "translate" Ender's Game, the U.S. Constitution, etc. so that the new generation which grows up with the new spelling schema can read them?  That would be an incredible undertaking.

Or are we going to assume that people will learn to read the old English as well, in which case, most of the utility of the new spelling system is moot?

[Jonathon]

Over a quarter of a billion people would have to learn to read and write all over again.

Popycock.

The new spelling could easily, I imagine, be designed to make the transition from English to Common spelling pretty easy.  The amount of new learning required to read, at least, the new spelling system would be minimal.

[/quote]
 You will have to learn how to spell almost every English word all over again. Even if it's relatively simple and straightforward, it's still an enormous task.

One more big negative that comes to my mind: being able to read "old" books.  Are we going to have to "translate" Ender's Game, the U.S. Constitution, etc. so that the new generation which grows up with the new spelling schema can read them?  That would be an incredible undertaking.

That's what I meant by "Countless publications would have to be rewritten," though I didn't really communicate that clearly.

Or are we going to assume that people will learn to read the old English as well, in which case, most of the utility of the new spelling system is moot?

At least for a while, people would have to be able to read both systems, so the transition could take decades. However, I wonder if it would take the same road the metric system has taken: they put metric alongside standard measurements on packaging, but people have no incentive to use the metric system because everything's still in standard.

[Porter]

You will have to learn how to spell almost every English word all over again. Even if it's relatively simple and straightforward, it's still an enormous task.

Almost every single one?  There are a lot of words which are already spelled phonetically.

And if the new rules make sense, you wouldn't have to learn how to spell words -- you'd just learn the new spelling words, and they you'd already know how to spell everything, except for dialect issues.  

So, you'd need to know the rules, and you'd need to know the "standard" dialect used.  You wouldn't need to know how to spell a single word in order to know how to spell them all.

Also, I want my metric system.

[Teshi]

I like wacky spelling.

But I understand that it can be confusing and will probably eventually be changed.  

[Porter]

I wouldn't mind wacky spellings if alternate, non-wacky spellings were also considered proper and correct.

[pooka]

I think one of the main goals of spelling reform should be a return to Continental (pre-Great Vowel shift) vowel values

 You're so awesome, Jon Boy.  As in literally causing awe.  

I think a few of the particularly obnoxious words could be dispensed with.  People have a particular dislike of anything involving "ough".  I don't have a problem with it.  The only words I have a consistent problem spelling are "suprise" and "contraversy".  I also used to pronounce the w in "sword."  A lot of my mental spelling file consists of such phonetic pronunciations.

I think we could learn a lot from the Chinese attempt to simplify their writing system so it would be easier to learn.  For the time being, people studying Chinese are just encouraged to learn both.

What about that Japanese alternate writing system?  How is that working out for them?

Arabs and Israelis get by with mostly unvowelled texts.  That is, most texts are not vowelled.

[Porter]

The simplified Korean system of writing is especially fascinating.

[Mr. Anderson]

Learning how to spell everything differently is one thing.  Actually spelling that way is another story.  You're not just teaching a quarter billion people to spell a different way, but also trying to get them to break life-long habits.  Businesses, government, etc. would all have to deal with what would most likely be a very lengthy transition.  I imagine there would be a lot of confusion mistaking one word for another because you're not used to it being spelled that way.  I found it surprisingly difficult to read through those phonetic paragraphs.

[Jonathon]

I think one of the main goals of spelling reform should be a return to Continental (pre-Great Vowel shift) vowel values

 You're so awesome, Jon Boy.  As in literally causing awe.

Uh, thanks, I guess.

(That's a good thing, right?)


So what's so awe-inspiring about thinking that it would be nice if our vowels matched up with those of other languages that use the Latin alphabet? (Not that all languages using the Latin alphabet use precisely the same values.)

[pooka]

I guess the whole point of phonetic spelling is that the phonologic values don't pay much heed to the orthographic.  It's very idealistic to wish for, but the fact that we now need phonetic spelling is why phonetic reform is futile.  IMHO.  But I admire the sentiment, is all the "awesome" meant.

[Teshi]

I changed my mind on this while on the Hatrack thread of a similar (or the same) topic:

I kind of like English the way it is.

[pooka]

That's too bad, since it's in the process of further changed.

[Teshi]

You mean "further changes", right?

By saying "I kind of like English the way it is" I am referring to finding the radical overhaul discussed in this thread unecessary. However, this doesn't mean I am adverse to changes on the natural evolution of language type pace. In fact, some changes or some flexibility is quite charming.

[Mr. Anderson]

I remember when I was in sixth grade, I made up a "code."  I used the pronunciation guide in a dictionary that shows all the different sounds, and I made a new character for them (I also dropped "c" and "x" in my alphabet).  My friend and I started writing to each other with it.

[Porter]

I am referring to finding the radical overhaul discussed in this thread unecessary. However, this doesn't mean I am adverse to changes on the natural evolution of language type pace.

So you're OK with it changing, as long as it doesn't do so in any planned, ordered manner?

[Amilia]

On another forum I frequent, we were discussing the differences between British and American spellings.  One of our English members chimed in with the following:

Us Brits used holler, and color is actually the proper way of spelling the word. We started putting a u into colour and other words to seem educated when we were pally with the French however many years ago (Georgian I think but after the American war of Independance).

I found this very interesting as I had always assumed the opposite: that we Yanks had dropped the U.

So now I am curious as to the whys and wherefores of the spelling differences.

[Porter]

There are lots of instances where English picked up letters in order to seem more "educated" (read more like French or Latin).

One example, that our Head Word Nerd could explain better than I: debt.

[pooka]

The concept of a dictionary and with it standardized spelling is a fairly recent development.  But it was probably inevitable with the increase of literacy that accompanied the American experiment.  It may be that in former times the type of spelling you used was a sign of where you had been educated and what books you read.  

So you're OK with it changing, as long as it doesn't do so in any planned, ordered manner?

Trying to plan and order language is just as foolish as trying to plan and order economics.  In the end, the only authority for determining language acquisition is the people who raise and teach children, and they aren't very invested in the authoritarian structure of academia or government.  
 

[Porter]

Trying to plan and order language is just as foolish as trying to plan and order economics.

They did a pretty good job of it in Korea when they created and implemented a completely new writing system.

[pooka]

When did that happen?  

[pooka]

Looking at wikipedia, it appears that chinese characters are still used in much of South Korea and that Romanized spelling is another method.  It looks as though the institution of Hangul (I assume this is the reformation you are speaking of) was pre WWI.  Hmm. It's really hard to get a handle on, as Korea was annexed by Japan in 1910.  

This made me smile:

In the 4th century BC, the adoption of the Chinese writing system (called hanja in Korean), Buddhism, and other aspects of culture brought from ancient China had a profound effect on its society. Koreans later passed on these, as well as their own advances, to Japan, helping that country make its first steps into civilization.

That is, smile in a "I bet Japanese people love reading that" kind of way.

[Porter]

I was reading a short history of Japan written by some Japanese agency the other day.  They freely admit that they acquired better agriculture (or was it agriculture at all) and writing from overseas back then.  However, they lump Korea in with China and say that they got it from China.

The writing system I'm talking about is neither the Chinese characters nor the Roman characters.  I'll see what I can find about it.

[Porter]

http://www.koreanhistoryproject.org/Jta/Kr/KrLAN1.htm

King Sejong, 4th monarch of the Yi Dynasty (1418 - 1450), decided to devise a method of writing suitable for all Koreans, regardless of their class.
---
In 1440, he commissioned scholars of the Royal Academy to create a unique, simple, easily learnable phonetic alphabet.
---
In October 1446, King Sejong presented the Korean people an alphabet of their very own, an alphabet invented by Koreans for Koreans.
---
Almost overnight, Hunmin-chongum erased any distinction among Koreans in the area of communication and brought the social status of the under class dangerously close to the aristocracy.

[Jonathon]

On another forum I frequent, we were discussing the differences between British and American spellings.  One of our English members chimed in with the following:

Us Brits used holler, and color is actually the proper way of spelling the word. We started putting a u into colour and other words to seem educated when we were pally with the French however many years ago (Georgian I think but after the American war of Independance).

I found this very interesting as I had always assumed the opposite: that we Yanks had dropped the U.

So now I am curious as to the whys and wherefores of the spelling differences.

Color was the original spelling in French, and that's what it was when English first borrowed it. But then it became colour in French, and English spelling changed to match it. The French word then changed to coulour and finally to couleur, but the English word had fossilized by then.

So both color and colour were used in Britain, though the latter was more popular. The OED has colour all the way back to about 1300, so it was definitely before the American Revolution. The Americans picked the less common variant to stand out.