Should British/Australians adopt American spellings?

"But this isn't going to happen soon, so discussing it is pointless. Maybe one day a group of frustrated English teachers will found a Standard English Organization... "

Ah, Johnny....a regaling of history is in order.

Your notion has already been tried--at least in the United States. The Spelling Reform Association, begat curiously enough by English expatriates, began sometime after the Civil War and did not die in earnest until the Great Depression, when other matters became more important.

While most of the proposed spelling changes didn't "stick", a few did; hence, our spellings of color, honor, ad. nauseum.

(For what it's worth, I have one book written in the then-new spelling, and have read one other.)

<I mean, come on, Would it really hurt to add the u in words like color, honor and a few other miscellaneous spelling differences for the sake of standardising the spelling?>

It's an honour for me to let you know that Honor is a female name.

:)

"It's an honour for me to let you know that Honor is a female name."

They are of the same etymological origin. "Honor" is the Latin spelling of the word, which is where the name comes from. "Honor" is in fact the more correct spelling.

Neither spelling is more correct than the other!
The name Honor can also be spelt Honour.
I was being facetious to a bit of ignorance when I said

<I mean, come on, Would it really hurt to add the u in words like color, honor and a few other miscellaneous spelling differences for the sake of standardising the spelling?>

Look back a bit further and you'll see the same sentence but writtent he other way round.

<They are of the same etymological origin. "Honor" is the Latin spelling of the word, which is where the name comes from. "Honor" is in fact the more correct spelling.>

I’m aware of the words origin, as am I aware of many Latin words having studied Latin (or more “accurately”, been "forced" to), and as I said; Honor is a female name.


:)

Caspian wrote:

<<< No, it wasn't. >>

Yes, it was.

<< No, we didn't. >>

Yes, you did.>

Gee, mere gainsaying. How mature. Do you have cites for your claims that English orthography was fully standardized prior to the colonization of the Americas, and that all orthographic divergence between America and England since there has been due to Americans deviating from previously established norms? Or do you simply assume that your prejudices must reflect reality?

You, personally, were not the first to spell English words. So presumably, by "we", you mean "British people that lived hundreds of years ago". Well, guess what? There are more people of British descent in America than there are in the British Isles. So why do you have a better claim on these people's legacy than we do?

Doesn't basic common sense dictate that America, with a larger, more mixed population, and larger literary base, has more linguistic inertia, and thus is less likely to be the cause of divergence? Or do you think that there is some magical quality to the British Isles which makes its inhabitants immune to the linguistic drift that appears in every other part of the world?

Good points. Americans have just as much right of ownership over the English language as the British do, so to say that one is more correct than the other is pretty arrogant.

As one poster wrote, when American English first appeared, there were no standard spellings for words ending in -or or -our. Both spellings were used on either side of the pond.

I agree that British English as it is today is not the original English. Both BE and AE are equally different in varying ways from the Englishes that existed before they separated. Thus, I think both Americans and Brits have an equal claim (or lack thereof) to the language.

"Na, dhen wy sjûd rait in sumthing laik dhis, hwitj woz hwot ai had dyváizd foar spelling ingglisj in at liest ee sumhwot daielêktniutrelfásjen byfóor ai riëlaizd dhat wy wer probbebli djust better of lieving thingz by."

That looks like Frisian. Was Frisian orthography your model?

Not specifically, even though in many ways it does superficially look like West Frisian orthography, yes. In man ways, it is more an ad hoc orthography designed to encompass many of the shared aspects of English dialects, even the more archaic ones, in writing without using *too* many diacritics. Note that there is definitely a logic behind it, but at the same time it would take a lot of explanation and it only makes sense if one views things in terms of English dialects overall rather than any one English dialect (as it does not fit any present-day English dialect in the first place).

in Canada, many American spellings (canceling, colored, honor) are just as valid as their British equivalents (cancelling, coloured, honour). Even in the US, many British spellings are tolerated (theatre along with theater, cancelled along with canceled, catalogue along with catalog)...

Shoot, I can never remember when to double the final L or leave well enough alone! I always write cancelled and traveller. But I kind of like our iconoclastic streamlined spelling -- it fits our national personality, just as the longer spellings seem to fit the Brits. And just as being caught between two influences perfectly sums up the Canadians. So yes, spelling is something that we all guard jealously as part of our identities, ridiculous as that may seem, and no, no one should be mooching off ours -- get your own!

I think that it's quite interesting that there are such variations in spelling (and meanings of the same words) in the English Language depending on which side of the Atlantic it is spoken and written. Some of the British spellings do look a wee bit "complicated" compared with the more phonetic and "trimmed down" American versions - take the words programme and catalogue - British spellings.

The first one - the American version is now much more widely used over here, probably due to its use in a computer context - program. With the second one, though - people still select their mail order / on-line goods from a catalogue, so a certain amount of inconsistency there, but whoever suggested that British English was ever consistent? Indeed, who has ever suggested that the whole English Language is, or ever was, consistent? One of the joys of our Language is its wholesale inconsistency and irregularity, the reasons for which are now lost in the mists of time.

I mean, why on earth make the learning of our Language for non native speakers an easy ride in the first place? Let them all sweat and fume over it all in the process is my motto! (Sniggers in an evil manner and exits stage left like the bad guy in pantomime ...to the ear splitting sound of the jeers and hoots of derision from the very rowdy British audiences....)

<< Do you have cites for your claims that English orthography was fully standardized prior to the colonization of the Americas, and that all orthographic divergence between America and England since there has been due to Americans deviating from previously established norms? Or do you simply assume that your prejudices must reflect reality? >>

I have no claims for any such cites, as this is not what I was claiming. I was merely claiming that British English was here before American English, therefore it's completely unreasonable even to suggest the idea that we should change to mirror what the Americans changed the language to. >>

<< You, personally, were not the first to spell English words. So presumably, by "we", you mean "British people that lived hundreds of years ago". Well, guess what? There are more people of British descent in America than there are in the British Isles. So why do you have a better claim on these people's legacy than we do? >>

Are you a native speaker? It's commonly known that one can use 'we' to refer to ones country, the people of the country, as well as just oneself. I'd have thought you'd know this. And of course there are more people of British descent of America - you're an ex British colony!! But when you broke off, that stopped you from being able to claim that there are more British people there than in Britain.

<< Doesn't basic common sense dictate that America, with a larger, more mixed population, and larger literary base, has more linguistic inertia, and thus is less likely to be the cause of divergence? Or do you think that there is some magical quality to the British Isles which makes its inhabitants immune to the linguistic drift that appears in every other part of the world? >>

Larger, more mixed population: This proves the opposite - if you have so many immigrants, which is what I presume you're referring to by mixed, then your version of English is bound to be mixed, and full of loanwords. So no, I don't think this justifies the request that the British adopt American spelling rules.

Larger literary base: Don't make me laugh! Quantity isn't quality. Shakespeare was a well-known American, was he? Haha!

Or do you think that there is some magical quality to the British Isles which makes its inhabitants immune to the linguistic drift that appears in every other part of the world?: Well - this is where English evolved. Just because certain colonies - or failed colonies - have changed the language, that doesn't make it correct, no.

<<if you have so many immigrants, which is what I presume you're referring to by mixed, then your version of English is bound to be mixed, and full of loanwords.>>

Might seem like we would, but in reality, I don't think this is really the case. We don't seem to have very many unusual loanwords in the US, Caspian. Look back through all of our posts and tell me that you can tell who's who just based on differences in vocabulary. Have any of us used strange words you don't recognize or understand?