Spelling reform in General

If you have anything to say about spelling reform post it in this thread and only in this thread.

I hate spelling reform.

No spelling reform is necessary.

Anyone advocating spelling reform should be executed (or banned from Antimoon for life at least).

I think the biggest issue with spelling reform is about the number of phonemes that exist in English. How many phonemes exist in English? How many phonemes exist in your accent?

Another thing about spelling reform would be, Should we continue to use diagraphs like ''ch'', ''sh'', ''ng'' and ''th'' or should we add some more letters to the English alphabet?

>> Anyone advocating spelling reform should be executed (or banned from Antimoon for life at least).

But not before we put them on the rack or flog them with a hot iron.

<<But not before we put them on the rack or flog them with a hot iron.>>

And hang them from a noose made of their own entrails.

Better still: they should be condemned eternally to work on a spelling reform that will be unanimously refused each time. :-)

When estuary english takes over all english language, then you'll have to make a spelling reform.
Or the best solution: pronounce it as it's written. For ex, pronounce [woold] and not [wood] for the word "would".

And i'd like to know the arguments of those who are against a spelling reform. I want to see if they are the same as those used against a spelling reform for french language.

As a non-native speaker, I would be happy with a spelling reform both in English and in French, but there seems to be no inner need for any spelling reform within the native communities themselves. The only instance I know of a spelling reform "en masse" ever is the beginning of the 19th century, when national revivals in Eastern Europe resulted in a reform in the orthography of the languages concerned, along with establishing a standard language variety. This was triggered largely by the national intellectual elite and the corresponding institutions (academies of science), but where is a single institution to initiate a spelling reform in English (the French at any rate have L'Académie Francaise)?

I guess one reason is that the English and the French have never been in a need to "fight" for their language, it being always on the dominating side (except for the Norman period in the case of English), so the issue of a reform was never really crucial. In the case of French, I think the chief point of academic concern is to preserve the uniformity of the language all over the world, not the concern to fit the spelling to modern pronunciation. However, if adequate models are to be found as to how English and French orthography should look like, English speakers could adapt their own old Middle English spelling to fit modern pronunciation, while French spelling should look much like that of Portuguese, the two languages sharing many common sounds (though French is unique for the amount of nasal sounds). While it is a little more complicated for the former, I could do with "D'Artanha~", "Ja~", "fe~m", "garso~", instead of "D'Artagnan", "Jean", "femme" and "garcon" for the latter.

>>Another thing about spelling reform would be, Should we continue to use diagraphs like ''ch'', ''sh'', ''ng'' and ''th'' or should we add some more letters to the English alphabet?<<

I think English has traditionally relied on digraphs, so any possible reform should take that into account. However, the problematic part is not the consonants, but the vowels. There seem to be simply too few letters in the Latin alphabet to account for all vowels in English. One solution would be to borrow characters from the IPA, which was originally made up principally with English in mind. Or a different value could be assigned to them than the conventional one, but that would be too much of a hassle.

When I finish work at the supermarket tomorrow I shall be standing outside with a collection box and wearing a tabard which will have the letters SPEL emblazoned in big red letters on it, back and front. All proceeds will go the the S(ociety for the) P(rotection of the) E(nglish) L(anguage).

The aims of SPEL are to resist any attempt to reform English language spelling. We as natives had to learn the intricacies of spelling inconsistencies, so just why should reforms take place to makelife easier for the nice people learning it as a second (or third or whatever) language? ;-)

I'm only joking about the flag day collection! Just my way of saying no reform is necessary, to echo Mxsmanic. I believe in SPEL though.

A sideline: I read a small article today about companies and business organisations with funny or punny names. A firm of estate agents (who deal with property sales and purchases) in the Midlands called Messrs Doolittle and Dally. A firm of solicitors (lawyers/advocates) in Northamptonshire called Wright Hassell. And a ladies'hairdressing salon in Norfolk called Curl up and Dye. I love puns.

Damian said: >>The aims of SPEL are to resist any attempt to reform English language spelling. We as natives had to learn the intricacies of spelling inconsistencies, so just why should reforms take place to makelife easier for the nice people learning it as a second (or third or whatever) language? ;-) <<

See? This is what I meant by "no inner need". :-) Anyway, hands up those non-natives who find any problems with English spelling as it is at present. I personally feel English spelling would need a comb or even a curling up sometimes, but messy hair seems to be again in the vogue nowadays... By the way, it is not really typical of non-natives to complain about English spelling, at least judging from my experience at this forum. On the other hand, whenever there was an attempt to reform English spelling, it has always made matters complicated (I'm thinking of Dr. Johnson and Webster - the latter's efforts were reasonable, but their results are reflected in American spelling only).

Anyway: "Tidying up is a habit for ordinary people; a genius should rule over chaos" (graffitti). Think of yourself like this when confronting difficulties with English spelling. :-)

Sorry, too much "English spelling" in the above. Substitute an "it" for every second occurrence to create a balance.

George Bernard Shaw said that the word 'fish' should be actually written 'ghoti'.
Because GH in the word 'laugh' is pronounced like F,
O in the word 'women' is pronounced like I,
and TI in the word 'nation' is pronounced like SH.

;-)

Then how would you spell "ghoti"? ;-)