For those who might be interested, I have just posted a proposal for reform on the web at www.reform-english-spelling.com. It's not a whole new scheme for spelling English but a package of suggestions for improving the existing system, some general, some specific, some major, some minor. Because the document goes through the spelling issue by issue it's not all that short (27 pages) but if you don't wish to trawl through all that skip to near the end where there is a selection of sample texts in the revised spelling. In case you do skip to the end one point I should mention is that although I have used accents, they're not essential. If you want to read an explanation of their use it's in the first section after the introduction.
spelling reform
To be honest, I am amazed by the sheer complexity of the proposed scheme mentjind abbuv; I thought my own proposed (albeit provisional) English orthography scheme.
Tu bi onnist, ai aem ammeesd bai dha sjier kumpleksitti av dha pruppoosd skiem mentjind abbuv; ai thoat mai oon (oalbiit pruvizjinnyl) ingglisj oorthograffi skiem.
Tu bi onnist, ai aem ammeesd bai dha sjier kumpleksitti av dha pruppoosd skiem mentjind abbuv; ai thoat mai oon (oalbiit pruvizjinnyl) ingglisj oorthograffi skiem.
Whoops, that should be "the proposed scheme mentioned above" above.
Hwuops, dhaet sjuod bi "the proposed scheme mentioned above" abbuv.
Hwuops, dhaet sjuod bi "the proposed scheme mentioned above" abbuv.
I hadn't thought of it as complex; maybe I've managed to explain it in a way that's too complicated, picking out all of our peculiar spelling habits one-by-one.
Ie theenk it wood bee best for yue tue kree'aet a diejest verzhun staeting thu maen feecherz.
OK, Travis, Truespel and everyone. I have put in a summary at the beginning of the document which I hope makes it more accessible and understandable to the reader. I would loove more feedback.
Mxsmanic: as to the futility of spelling reform projects, I have said in the introduction to the document: "Probably the chief reasons spelling reform for English has never gained widespread support are that 1) people have not been told about the literacy problems the current spelling creates;" (the introduction opens with paragraph about the literacy problems) "if one is told about this one can immediately see that it's wrong to maintain the spelling situation the way it is, it's not enough that some people learn to cope with it, and 2) the proposals for reform have been too radical and have depended overwhelmingly on the single criterion of pronunciation for how we "should" spell."
Perhaps you would be willing, futile though it may be, to at least read my introduction? I may make a convert of you yet.
Perhaps you would be willing, futile though it may be, to at least read my introduction? I may make a convert of you yet.
Why retain "shoe"? Why not use "shue"?
The spelling "shoe" is misleading when we learn "doe", "foe", "joe", "toe", "woe", and so on.
Why not "poar" for "pour"?
The spelling "shoe" is misleading when we learn "doe", "foe", "joe", "toe", "woe", and so on.
Why not "poar" for "pour"?
Current spellings : bough, plough (US plow), sough
Suggested spellings: baugh, plaugh, saugh
Why?!
Suggested spellings: baugh, plaugh, saugh
Why?!
Elizabeth,
I appreciate your idea of a reformed spelling, and some of your suggestions make it perhaps look better than it is now. On the other hand, your suggestions do not seem to do away with all of the present inconsistencies. For example: What about the superfluous "k" in "know"? And if we do away with it, how will we distinguish it from "now", the two being pronounced in the same way by most English speakers? What I personally have to say about your arguments is as follows:
I don't think literacy problems alone justify a spelling reform, because they are mostly due to a low amount of time spent reading (or in some cases, writing) - in other words, to functional illiteracy. This is not only a problem for speakers of English, I believe it is a problem for a speaker of any language who has mostly grown up watching TV. On the other hand, why do so many non-native speakers of English learn to spell English perfectly?
What would really justify a spelling reform is an attempt to even out the inconsistencies of English spelling, but I doubt this is worth the effort. I myself also used to be "tempted" by the idea to create my own variety of English spelling, but got hopelessly stuck with how to represent the vowels, and with the idea of representing homophones in the same way (I mean, you can write "cease", "seize" and "seas" as "siiz", but imagine what a public reaction this would cause). Now I can live with the idea that English does not represent exact phonetic values, but the whole written words "stand for" the spoken words (in contrast to the letters standing for individual sounds) in the same way as various signs do: Chinese does much the sime with its ideographs. It can actually be quite a "thrill" to look at spelling like this. :)
I appreciate your idea of a reformed spelling, and some of your suggestions make it perhaps look better than it is now. On the other hand, your suggestions do not seem to do away with all of the present inconsistencies. For example: What about the superfluous "k" in "know"? And if we do away with it, how will we distinguish it from "now", the two being pronounced in the same way by most English speakers? What I personally have to say about your arguments is as follows:
I don't think literacy problems alone justify a spelling reform, because they are mostly due to a low amount of time spent reading (or in some cases, writing) - in other words, to functional illiteracy. This is not only a problem for speakers of English, I believe it is a problem for a speaker of any language who has mostly grown up watching TV. On the other hand, why do so many non-native speakers of English learn to spell English perfectly?
What would really justify a spelling reform is an attempt to even out the inconsistencies of English spelling, but I doubt this is worth the effort. I myself also used to be "tempted" by the idea to create my own variety of English spelling, but got hopelessly stuck with how to represent the vowels, and with the idea of representing homophones in the same way (I mean, you can write "cease", "seize" and "seas" as "siiz", but imagine what a public reaction this would cause). Now I can live with the idea that English does not represent exact phonetic values, but the whole written words "stand for" the spoken words (in contrast to the letters standing for individual sounds) in the same way as various signs do: Chinese does much the sime with its ideographs. It can actually be quite a "thrill" to look at spelling like this. :)
>>What would really justify a spelling reform is an attempt to even out the inconsistencies of English spelling, but I doubt this is worth the effort. I myself also used to be "tempted" by the idea to create my own variety of English spelling, but got hopelessly stuck with how to represent the vowels, and with the idea of representing homophones in the same way (I mean, you can write "cease", "seize" and "seas" as "siiz", but imagine what a public reaction this would cause).<<
If so, just concentrating on consonants can be an option! And it is clearly better to distinguish homophones. We don't have to throw away good features that are propper to the language. Even silent letters should be retained if they serve for something. But "b" as in "doubt" is needless, I suppose.
If so, just concentrating on consonants can be an option! And it is clearly better to distinguish homophones. We don't have to throw away good features that are propper to the language. Even silent letters should be retained if they serve for something. But "b" as in "doubt" is needless, I suppose.