Tuesday, September 02, 2003, 03:42 GMT
Clark writes that he "would be a little afraid that if one country devised one system, then another country would devise a different system, and then the English language would start to split up ..." Sounds only too familiar.
More division is hardly what anyone would want but creating division was exactly what drove Webster to make his reforms. "As an independent nation our honor requires us to have a system of our own, in language as well as government," he said.
What you'd want is for a reform to build bridges rather than walls. You'd want to elliminate the differences between US spelling and Commonwealth spelling. One such system goes by the name of "cut spelling" http://www.spellingsociety.org/pubs/leaflets/cutspelng.html
Hmm writes "Different dialects have different homonyms ..." yep, this is a problem but I don't know that "keeping different sounds spelt differently in one" would necessarily "not go down well in another country where they sound the same,". It is already the usual case that these distinctions are made. They could still be retained whilst making things simpler rather than more confusing.
Much worse, I think, would be to go the other way and ignor the distinctions that different dialects make. For example, there are those who make a distinction between "w" and "wh" therefore I'm in favour of keeping the "wh" wherever it's found rather than changing it to "w" even though I'm not one of those who make the distinction.
For me "caught" and "court" sound the same as each other but sound nothing like "cot". For some Americans "caught" and "cot" sound the same as each other but sound nothing like "court". We could still simplify things by dropping the "gh" in "caught" and dropping the "u" in "court". Who'd complain about spelling these words "caut", "cort" and "cot"?
Of course, there still exists a trade off between building bridges between dialects and spelling phonetically when it comes to words like "vase", "lieutenant", "schedule", etc. Perhaps we could allow different spellings depending on dialect, devise some fancy rule to allow for different readings or just steer clear of these words altogether.
Ben writes "Spelling reform could never work" but does he then go on to contradict himself with "linguistic mutation is as natural as evolution,"? I think so: it all hinges on what you mean by "spelling reform". Webster tried it and only got part of the way: many of his ideas were just rejected by the public and so you've got American spelling which is really no better than Commonwealth spelling.
I don't believe that any one person in any one country will ever have the influence to push through an across-the-board reform but I believe that spelling will slowly evolve and therefore, by the very process of linguistic mutation, spelling reform will take place.
I believe that this is the only practical way ahead for those who want spelling reform: go via the mechanism of evolution. Anything too drastic would never be accepted. The question is how to get this mechanism opperating faster. The best way, I think, would be to encourage people to be more accepting of spelling variation and feel more free to spell as they will.
P.S., Clark, if you haven't already found this page, have a look here http://www.spellingsociety.org/
Simplified Spelling Society
More division is hardly what anyone would want but creating division was exactly what drove Webster to make his reforms. "As an independent nation our honor requires us to have a system of our own, in language as well as government," he said.
What you'd want is for a reform to build bridges rather than walls. You'd want to elliminate the differences between US spelling and Commonwealth spelling. One such system goes by the name of "cut spelling" http://www.spellingsociety.org/pubs/leaflets/cutspelng.html
Hmm writes "Different dialects have different homonyms ..." yep, this is a problem but I don't know that "keeping different sounds spelt differently in one" would necessarily "not go down well in another country where they sound the same,". It is already the usual case that these distinctions are made. They could still be retained whilst making things simpler rather than more confusing.
Much worse, I think, would be to go the other way and ignor the distinctions that different dialects make. For example, there are those who make a distinction between "w" and "wh" therefore I'm in favour of keeping the "wh" wherever it's found rather than changing it to "w" even though I'm not one of those who make the distinction.
For me "caught" and "court" sound the same as each other but sound nothing like "cot". For some Americans "caught" and "cot" sound the same as each other but sound nothing like "court". We could still simplify things by dropping the "gh" in "caught" and dropping the "u" in "court". Who'd complain about spelling these words "caut", "cort" and "cot"?
Of course, there still exists a trade off between building bridges between dialects and spelling phonetically when it comes to words like "vase", "lieutenant", "schedule", etc. Perhaps we could allow different spellings depending on dialect, devise some fancy rule to allow for different readings or just steer clear of these words altogether.
Ben writes "Spelling reform could never work" but does he then go on to contradict himself with "linguistic mutation is as natural as evolution,"? I think so: it all hinges on what you mean by "spelling reform". Webster tried it and only got part of the way: many of his ideas were just rejected by the public and so you've got American spelling which is really no better than Commonwealth spelling.
I don't believe that any one person in any one country will ever have the influence to push through an across-the-board reform but I believe that spelling will slowly evolve and therefore, by the very process of linguistic mutation, spelling reform will take place.
I believe that this is the only practical way ahead for those who want spelling reform: go via the mechanism of evolution. Anything too drastic would never be accepted. The question is how to get this mechanism opperating faster. The best way, I think, would be to encourage people to be more accepting of spelling variation and feel more free to spell as they will.
P.S., Clark, if you haven't already found this page, have a look here http://www.spellingsociety.org/
Simplified Spelling Society