Spelling is ruining the English language

[The Teapot]

Wouldn't it just be simpler to keep the current spellings as the offical and accept any spelling which is logical?
Aside from place names, would that really be a problem?

[Kingswood]

Originally Posted by The Teapot

Wouldn't it just be simpler to keep the current spellings as the offical and accept any spelling which is logical?
Aside from place names, would that really be a problem?

Welcome to the Cellar. I especially recommend the Image of the Day.

As for the point you raise, for spelling reforms in English it is an approach that can work quite well.

It would make the most sense for those words where a particular misspelling of a word is already in widespread usage, with some of these particular misspellings being almost as common as the standard spelling itself. Minuscule is the standard spelling, but miniscule is seen so commonly that it is often found in edited text and a few dictionaries even include it as a variant. If a reform was introduced that gave the miniscule spelling the status of an acceptable variant spelling, it would find ready acceptance because many people already use this spelling.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Kingswood

It would make the most sense for those words where a particular misspelling of a word is already in widespread usage, with some of these particular misspellings being almost as common as the standard spelling itself. Minuscule is the standard spelling, but miniscule is seen so commonly that it is often found in edited text and a few dictionaries even include it as a variant. If a reform was introduced that gave the miniscule spelling the status of an acceptable variant spelling, it would find ready acceptance because many people already use this spelling.

I kind of agree with this. Except, I don't see it as a matter of spelling reform per se...more that certain spellings shift across time and eventually the mispell becomes the standard. This does happen anyway. It happens all the time. Words fall in and out of use, spellings become outdated. The use of hyphens for example in many words have fallen out of favour and are no longer included in the dictionary listings of those words. I'm quietly confident in the people who compose and monitor the dictionaries. I think they do a fairly good job of maintaining relevance to the living language.

[eta] this process seems to be speeding up in the age of the internet with its online dictionaries.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by DanaC

. . . I don't see it as a matter of spelling reform per se...more that certain spellings shift across time and eventually the mispell becomes the standard.

Let us hope this one doesn't, even if it is one of the ones that can sneak up and snap you on the ass with a rubber band. Mis + Spell...

This does happen anyway. It happens all the time. Words fall in and out of use, spellings become outdated. The use of hyphens for example in many words have fallen out of favour and are no longer included in the dictionary listings of those words. I'm quietly confident in the people who compose and monitor the dictionaries. I think they do a fairly good job of maintaining relevance to the living language.

Brings up the question of whether hyphens should be considered part of spelling. I've always thought of them as purely punctuation, even in assembling words at the right edge of a page, back in '63 when dinosaurs ruled before word-wrap evolved. And may be evolving into wordwrap as we speak.

Something you can particularly tell us, Dana: is not "favour" is said rather like "fave-oor" in some parts of the UK? The American is distinctly short-o "fave-or," or indistinctly a schwa -- "fav'r."

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Hee hee hoo hoo ho -- this is entertaining. Seems James D. Nicoll is quite the raconteur.

I can hardly wait for the story of James D. And The Giant Peach. Should be lots of .

Originally Posted by Kingswood

Welcome to the Cellar. I especially recommend the Image of the Day.

As for the point you raise, for spelling reforms in English it is an approach that can work quite well.

It would make the most sense for those words where a particular misspelling of a word is already in widespread usage, with some of these particular misspellings being almost as common as the standard spelling itself. Minuscule is the standard spelling, but miniscule is seen so commonly that it is often found in edited text and a few dictionaries even include it as a variant. If a reform was introduced that gave the miniscule spelling the status of an acceptable variant spelling, it would find ready acceptance because many people already use this spelling.

I don't know how you pronounce "Minuscule", but the way I pronounce it would make "Miniscule" phonetically incorrect, compounding the problem you're complaining about.

How do you propose to phoneticize the spellings of words that are pronounced differently in different parts of the country? Will you go by majority rule, and add an "R" to "Wash"? How will you spell "Warm"; "Warm", "Werm", or "Wuorm"?

The other day, on my board, I mentioned that I was building a pullet brooder, and my friend from Michigan asked me what a pullet is, and whether it rhymes with "Mullet" or "Bullet".

As far as I know, pullet, mullet, and bullet all rhyme. But in her region, apparently they don't.

How do you spell to solve for regional variations, if you're spelling phonetically?

[Kingswood]

Originally Posted by Tiki

I don't know how you pronounce "Minuscule", but the way I pronounce it would make "Miniscule" phonetically incorrect, compounding the problem you're complaining about.

How do you propose to phoneticize the spellings of words that are pronounced differently in different parts of the country? Will you go by majority rule, and add an "R" to "Wash"? How will you spell "Warm"; "Warm", "Werm", or "Wuorm"?

The other day, on my board, I mentioned that I was building a pullet brooder, and my friend from Michigan asked me what a pullet is, and whether it rhymes with "Mullet" or "Bullet".

As far as I know, pullet, mullet, and bullet all rhyme. But in her region, apparently they don't.

How do you spell to solve for regional variations, if you're spelling phonetically?

Phonetic spelling runs into trouble with regional variations, as you correctly point out. It is easy to find spellings that would be one word for a particular regional accent and a different word for another.

Some examples:
* The British English pronunciation of "heart" is very close to the American English pronunciation of "hot".
* The Scottish English pronunciation of "stir" sounds like the American English pronunciation of "steer" (if it wasn't for the rolled Scottish R, the pronunciations would be very similar).

There are many regional variations, and England has even more regional variation than the USA. In some parts of England, words like toe and tow are pronounced differently, and in other parts of England bail and bale are pronounced differently.

A reasonable approach is not to worry about how individual groups pronounce a word, but instead look to the body of speakers as a whole and identify where the consensus among the different accents shows a spelling to be flawed. Everyone would agree that from an orthographical point of view the i in friend is redundant. (Whether they would choose to do something about it is another matter.) On the other hand, hoarse must remain distinctly spelt from horse because some people pronounce these differently.

I personally find one of the most pleasing aspect of English the way it evolves so rapidly, both as spoken and as written. It is an exceedingly flexible language.

[Perry Winkle]

Originally Posted by Tiki

I personally find one of the most pleasing aspect of English the way it evolves so rapidly, both as spoken and as written. It is an exceedingly flexible language.

All natural language evolves similarly. It's quite beautiful.

Spelling and grammar prescriptivism are efforts to propagate what is most widely understood. It's a good idea to master the rules for those that want their ideas to be understood by the largest possible number of people.

If you want your children to have the most possible power over their destiny they should be taught these things to a high level of mastery.

The most beautiful thing about language is that efforts to codify the mainstream do not much hamper the natural evolution of the language. I'd say those efforts might even encourage it. Constraints fuel artfulness.

[Kingswood]

Originally Posted by Tiki

I don't know how you pronounce "Minuscule", but the way I pronounce it would make "Miniscule" phonetically incorrect, compounding the problem you're complaining about.

I would like to revisit this point because Tiki has made a good point that I would like to expand upon.

Some people do pronounce "minuscule" as if it was spelt "miniscule". For such people, a "miniscule" spelling makes more sense which is why that spelling is seen so often. We have a similar situation already with the two spellings aluminium and aluminum: the two spellings correspond to different pronunciations. What generally happens with this word is that one would assign one's own pronunciation to both spellings. The extra or missing i doesn't cause trouble.

Tiki's point about "compounding the problem" may be reasonable or in error, depending on the exact approach to spelling reform that would be chosen. Tiki appears to have made an implicit assumption that words with really bizarre spellings would not be remedied, such as colonel (the l is pronounced like "r") and lieutenant (with the British pronunciation of "leftenant" where the "u" is pronounced "f"). If such words were not remedied, the problem is indeed increased. However, it is possible that such words would be scrutinized and new alternative spellings proposed. This would be more likely to lead to a net reduction of words with spellings that do not correspond to a plausible pronunciation of the word.

The two words colonel and lieutenant have an interesting history which explains their unusual pronunciation in relation to their spellings.

Colonel is a 16th-century borrowing of an obsolete French word coronel (note the spelling). This in turn was borrowed from an Italian word colonnello (note the spelling) meaning a column of soldiers. If the word was spelt as it was borrowed from the French, it would be spelt coronel: it would still be a little tricky to spell the vowels but at least the consonants would all be correct. The word appears to have been hypercorrected to have an l rather than an r to correspond to the Italian origins. While this is where the word does come from, it is not from the Italian that the word was borrowed but from the French, where the pronunciation of the word appears to have changed between the borrowing from Italian and the reborrowing into English. I feel that if the spelling of a word is to reflect its origins, it should reflect the spelling in the language from where the word was borrowed, and not attempt to trace the word all the way back as far as we can because such efforts to trace a word are sometimes speculative and subject to error.

So far as I can tell, lieutenant intentionally had its pronunciation changed by the English so as to put some distance between the word and its French origins. While the word has been in the English language, the English have fought a few wars with the French and my understanding is that it is during one of these wars (possibly the Napoleonic wars) that the pronunciation was changed. Before the 17th century, u did double duty as vowel and consonant, so the word was pronounced as if spelt "levtenant" (with the i being silent). The following voiceless consonant t appears to have devoiced the v, giving the "leftenant" pronunciation that the British use today. I do not know the origins of the more logical American pronunciation, but it appears that the Americans have retained the older pronunciation (if the word did change during the Napoleonic war). The pronunciation of this word in Australian English is altogether more bizarre: the pronunciation follows British English or American English depending on which branch of the armed forces that the officer is serving in.

[Bad Luck McGhee]

I agree that spelling was visited upon the world by some evil entity. I have 3 Bachelor's degrees. I just recently realized that the word THEIR isn't spelled THIER. I was floored. Spellcheck had been righting my wrongs for so long that I didn't realize it until a friend pointed my mistake out to me when I had written a note by hand a work. I still haven't recovered from the shock and shame.

[Juniper]

I am also one of those lucky folks who learned to read before starting school. My mom always said that I was taught by Sesame Street.

When I did start school, I didn't pay much attention during reading lessons. Usually the teachers just let me huddle in the corner with a book while everyone else worked. I remember something about this phonics thing, but I figured I didn't need it so who cares?

I learned the whole-language method and I guess I read so much that all the spelling rules became intuitive. Seemed like I just had to see the word once and I had it in my data bank. Oddly enough this didn't help me in spelling bees, I think because I didn't study for them. I remember that in a 4th grade spelling bee I was done in by the word "tassel." I spelled it with an "le." Boy did I feel stupid.

Teaching phonics/whole language methods should be chosen on an individual basis. Some kids learn one better, some the other. My kids are also whole-language and learned to read pretty easily, but the school insisted on teaching phonics and I think that really screwed them up as far as spelling.

Another gripe I have with the school is this--when kids are very young and just starting to write, we are prohibited from correcting their spelling. They write phonetically, and we're just supposed to be so happy that they're writing anything that we fear correcting might stifle their little authorial voices. Therefore it takes at least 4 years of actual spelling grades to break them of this habit of just writing anything and never bothering to check its spelling or even think for a few seconds first. I remember when my daughter was absolutely astonished in 4th grade when the teacher took off points on a paper she'd written for spelling errors. It had never happened before.

It is my personal opinion that schools today place way too much emphasis on developing kids' self esteem and way too little on doing things properly from the very beginning. Whatever happened to penmanship, for example? I remember getting graded on how closely my writing resembled the "ideal." Now all they care about is if it's readable. Which is OK, I guess, but "readable" is rather subjective, isn't it?

[DanaC]

Well hello Teapot. That's an interesting monika

Welcome to the Cellar.

[DanaC]

It was probably some English professor whose name is unfortunately lost to history who woke up a freshman-English class with, "English doesn't borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them on the head, and goes through their pockets for loose grammar."

I love that. That's brilliant.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

And dreadfully characteristic of a language that doesn't much esteem some abstract ideal of linguistic order.