This morning's newspaper had a fairly lengthy article about Richard L. Wade, an Englishman who is on his personal crusade to reform English spelling. It's nothing new to those who are familiar with all the reform efforts which have been going on since Noah Webster and even earlier, but there is a new wrinkle, in the form of his website http://www.frespeling.com (note the modernized form of "spelling"), which is much more hip than earlier campaigns. I suggest taking a look and let's have some discussion when you have seen it and maybe compared with the sites following:

By way of contrast, the article mentions two other websites devoted to the same cause, http://www.les.aston.ac.uk/sss , which is scholarly, and http://www.americanliteracy.com which is also scholarly. For those who are interested in traditional spelling and spelling bees, there is http://www.spellingbee.com.

Thanks for the link, Bob. It seems that there may have been a bit of "freespeling" in the URL as provided. I had to insert an extra "e" into the address to get it to work, thus http://www.freespeling.com

Damn. My bad, as was said in a thread some months ago. It is as you gave it, with double-e, of course. Not to offer excuses, but have had considerable difficulty typing with the left hand since I sliced off a goodly chunk of meat from the tip of my left middle finger last week (stupidly not paying attention whilst slicing vegetables). Gives one a new appreciation for the Chinese execution method they called "the 1000 slices". So if you see more typos involving the keys around 'd', you know where they come from, and I don't catch and correct all of them. The bandage is off, but I mucked up the nerve endings, at least temporarily.

Yowch! Sorry to hear about your DIY manicure. I thought the little typo highlighted the inconsistency of his campaign. Why didn't he spell "free" with only one "e"? Although I know that standardised spelling is a relatively recent development, I am, after reading his page, more convinced than ever that it aids, rather than hinders, clear communication.

Oh, now I understand why he wants to free up spelling. Note on his opening page he gives six words which he says only 17% of the English-speaking population can spell. Clearly he's not in that 17%, because he spelled "accommodation" as "acommodation".

[edit]Oh, he was using it as an example. A deliberate misspelling.

One of the reasons it was so difficult to learn to read prior to the later 19thC was that spellings were inconsistent, and in fact the same person would often spell the same word several different ways in the same document. Okay for the writer, not so hot for the reader.

The guy is nuts. I have no patience with people who want to make things more difficult while pursuing the stated goal of making things "easier".

It's a wonder the editors of the OED haven't sent out a posse to lynch him! They wouldn't have to go far, would they?

Oh, and Bob, sorry to hear about your attempt at suicide failing so dismally. Better luck next time!

<<cut finger, misspellings, aso>>

Sorry to hear about your finger, bob, wondered what had become you.

For what it's worth, a friend who doubles as an American history maven says has told me a couple of times that the non-standard spellings of those times are a linguist's treasure trove. From them, according to him, it is possible to reconstruct the sound of English during that period. I have my doubts, especially the vowel sounds may have drifted. As must I. I wanted to get that out, but I haven't slept in days and I need to hi ho off to the pallett. A blessed respite from inselpeter--for you all, if not for me. 'Til next year. IP

Doesn't get my vote. Why?

1. I'm naturally reactionary.

2. The language has more sounds than characters, so any system of orthography is going to be far from perfect. I do not see introducing new formations for phonemes as helping in any way, because it would mean that people had to learn that many more.

3. We would lose our etymological connections to the words we read. For instance, as I animadverted long ago, in the infancy of this board, if someone writes chaise longue, I need never have seen one before to get a picture of what it is she might be referring to. Chaise lounge, on the other hand, tells me nothing.

4. Similarly, as IP pointed, our eccentric spelling is a treasure trove of information about pronunciation in the past. Lose it and we lose even more of our ability to comprehend Shakespeare.

5. In any case, if there is a spelling revolution it will come from areas like text messaging, where rebus principles rather than consistency of phonetic content, are much more important. Again, these influences, whilstperhaps 'simplifying' the language in some ways, will not make spelling any easier.

Them's my thoughts, and just because it's you, I'm giving them away for free.

cheer

the sunshine warrior

Not to offer excuses, but have had considerable difficulty typing with the left hand since I sliced off a goodly chunk of meat from the tip of my left middle finger last week (stupidly not paying attention whilst slicing vegetables).

Ouch! I sympathize, being prone to slicing and dicing my hands one way or another. Ironically, more by paper than the knives (and scalpels) I use for paper cutting here....

But anyway. About www.freespelling.com, I have to agree some words are quite annoying, when it appears english (and other languages) have rules that are repeatedly being broken. "i before e, except after c, except...." As a couple mentioned, what's proposed looks like it will make things more complicated rather than easier. I would find it easier to spell if certain word rules actually applied without so many exceptions. Just changing a few words that annoy us is arbitrary and as annoying as the mistakes that have become accepted words.

To top it off, the abbreviated language shown on the side (in the cell phone use) "I luv u" "c u later" just drives me around the bend. I know it's useful to have shorthand in some situations, but it just looks terrible to me.

To conclude, I think he's got a couple good points, but no solution yet that's any better than the previous failed attempts at language reform.

Ali

> I think he's got a couple good points, but no solution yet that's any better than the previous failed attempts at language reform.

I agree. How does he hope to tackle the 9* 'sh' sounds with his phonetic spelling? Besides many words are so rarely spoken, their spelling is how they are most readily recognized.
As for your exceptions to rules, you have got to try French sometime. First you learn a rule, then you learn that the 150 or so most useful verbs don't follow it!

as 4 cell fones, i kinda c wot u mean. Im all 4 somethink other than SMS, r u 2 4 that 2?

See? you can't change good to gud ... it doesn't scan or speak!
I sent the dear man a Feedback after reading his site and wished him luck and cheekily noted he would need it.
Also gave him a link to our location ... so watch out! He could be lurking!
And, now that I think of it, how about write and right?
If you try to "write right aboute a rite" how do you NewSpell that and have the meaning clear?
No No No Nope!
wow

I too decided to right him a mail and asked what he proposed on the homophone front. He hasn't answered yet [little surprise icon].
Wanting change is fair, but his reasons are not that great. Languages have truly become entrenched in a lot of administrative technicalities in the last century or so. People today certainly don't see language as the malleable tool that ye ol' writers did (e.g. Shakespeare).
The French and Germans still hope they have enough of a handle on their language to stifle change with legislation. I think most would agree, the task of written English reforms has grown over the heads of any given national or international governing bodies.

INTERMINABLE RANT WARNING !!

Now that opportunity has been given, and taken by some, to have a whack at this subject, I'll weigh in with my 2 cents worth.

It's interesting that no one, so far, has expressed more than luke-warm approval for any of Mr. Wade's proposals, and some comments have been unequivocally negative. This from people who are passionately interested in languages in general, particularly English. What does that tell Mr. Wade and his sympathizers, I ask? I answer, we know a hell of a lot more about the English language than they do.

Here are some of my observations:

1. According to the reformers, English orthography has so many and such great problems that reform is urgently needed, at whatever cost. (More on the cost to follow.)
But, I ask myself, is it so urgent? Are the problems really that great? Fact: for centuries, at least, children have been taught to read English by some form of the phonics method, which involves sounding out words from the way they are spelled. If English spelling were so illogical and impossible, would children learn to read in this manner? Yet they do. Fact #2: With the possible exception of Chinese, and if all dialects are counted in the total of Chinese, English is the most widely spoken language in the world. Without question, it is the most widely used second, or acquired, language. Why is Chinese used by relatively few non-native speakers? Because, in addition to its intrinsic difficulty, its method of writing is a truly formidable challenge which few people will even attempt. If the method of writing English were so arcane and difficult as is suggested, few people would try to learn it; yet millions not only try, but they succeed. My conclusion: the supposed problem is grossly overstated. English orthography may indeed have a lot of silly, illogical kinks, and it may cause a certain amount of headscratching and frustration, we all know that. But none of these are real impediments to anyone's learning and using the language if they are willing to make some effort to attain a reasonable degree of mastery of it. Yes, there are people who claim they can't write because they can't learn to spell, but these are likely to be the people who can't speak the standard language either, and aren't interested in learning how to speak differently.

2. Just what is the nature of written English? We see that there certainly are a lot of words which are spelled pretty much in phonetic fashion according to recognizable standards. And there are a lot of words that are not. Those that are not, although consisting of the usual letters of the alphabet, partake of the nature of arbitrary symbols much like Chinese ideographs, since they can not be deciphered or written by phonetic rules. It is these words which constitute the problem which the reformers propose to address; he object of spelling reform is to eliminate these arbitrary words and make all English words phonetic. Simply to make up new spellings for the sake of brevity, or economy of space, or some other object other than phonetics, would be to substitute a Chinese writing method for what we have, using arbitrary strings of alphabetic characters instead of pictographs. Hence, reform has to consist of phonetics.

3. So then, can we replace arbitrarily- or eccentrically-spelled words with a phonetic spelling? Yes, of course, but this brings a problem with it. Phonetics is intended to represent the way a word sounds. But English has dozens of pronunciations, not to say dialects. Northeastern Americans, Middle Americans, Southern Americans, Englishmen, Scotsmen, Irishmen, Kiwis, Aussies, Islanders, Indians, South Africans, and others all have distinctive pronunciations and there are numerous sub-groups within all of the major groupings. So if you are going to use a phonetic spelling, what sound are you going to try to show? And if you show, for example, the NE American pronunciation, will this convey meaning to a reader in Lancashire? Or if you write something to sound like it does in Strine, will Miss Effie in Oshkosh know what you are saying? I had in mind to write the first sentence or so of Lincoln's Gettysburg address in Oxford RP, by way of illustration, but I don't think I need to. You get the point. (Unless some of you would like to try it in your own accents, just as an amusement. Just make a new thread of it.)

4. This brings me to the expectation that if such reforms were actually made, they would have unintended consequences, mainly in abolishing the nearly-universal utility of the language for all its speakers of whatever nationality or background. Once again, Chinese provides an instructive example. I believe that if we were to spell phonetically, we would in time end up with a number of dialects not readily mutually understandable, and we would not even have the Chinese advantage of a written system which is independent of the spoken languages/dialects and therefore used by all speakers of Chinese.

5. Lastly, as promised, there is the issue of cost. Firstly the cost of reprinting everything anybody wants to read in the new spelling. Secondly, (actually first chronologically) the cost in time and aggravation of all the studies and debates over exactly what the reforms would be. Think of all the oxen gored, all the turf to be defended, all the sacred cows in peril, all the other mismatched metaphors to be dealt with!!

As it happens, as a result of these last considerations mentioned, what with the legions of scholars, committees, commissions, faculties etc. having interminable meetings, studies, interim reports, studies on the reports, etc., I am absolutely confident that there will be no spelling reform agreed upon or put in use before the last trumpet rouses from their graves Bill S., Kit M., Jack D., John M., Jane A., Chas D., and all the rest of those who managed to produce works of great and lasting worth with this much derided system.

Well to start with-- I am not a bad speller-- just a creative one-- I can think of lots of different ways to spell many common words!.. and i am not such a hot typist either, and i gave up on enigma-- so half my posts, in haste-- are horrid.

That said-- Its time once again to mention David Foster Wallace's wonderful piece in The Atlantic (April's issue) which is about "Democracy, English and Wars over Usage"-- and the New American Dictionary of Usage.

I finally sat down, with out any distractions, and read it. As he points out-- there are many dialects of English-- one not mentioned is e (electronic) english-- it perfectly okay, on many boards to use R U OK? when asking Bob about his finger-- we tend -- by our nature, to be more formal-- but often fall short of the Standard Written English (SWE)dialect-- (well, lets make that me, i often fall short, and some others do to)

Alternate spelling is fine for many dialects--in e english it might very well acceptable to write R U OK?-- some of us, might even use the dialect on other boards. But SWE is not going to go away--nor should it.

And i for one, continue, when speaking to use ain't and i am not going to stop! but I never, with all my other faults, use ain't in written english. my written english, often falls short of SWE, especially when i am riled up! or just excited in a happy way, or worse, when i am fitting posts in between my real job! I love it when i am good naturedly taken to task for a particularly mangled spelling or sentence--which happens often enough.

in a quick glance back-- i see that i have employeed many e english trends-- i don't capitalize things that SWE says i should, i use way to many dashes-- and exclamation points! and i start sentences with AND and BUT. these simple changes are not acceptable in SWE. I don't often use R for are (or worse for our)-- but i have seen it done.

SWE has its place-- and so does e english, and zild, and ozzie, and all the other wonderful dialects-- and a well educated person will understand several dialects-- "The lorry that dropped off the skip in front of my flat dented the boot of my car" and "The truck that dropped off the dumpster in front of my apartment dented the car trunk"-- their native one, and some of the more common dialects of the world and several other dialects as well. Not just when reading, but when engaged in conversation. Is SWE a better dialect than other english dialects? No, just an agreed upon standard-- and all the other dialects don't have an agreed upon standard. Does SWE ever change?--All the time!-- it pulls in good words from other languages, and other dialects! It also throws out words that are still used by these dialects-- at one point, ain't was part of SWE-- but it no longer is.

Can any one person, or any simple movement replace SWE-- not likely. should it try? sure maybe some of the changes are worthwhile-- but don't hold your breathe-- there are some people out there who insist on spelling color and labor with a U! and they add an extra ME to program-- what is it with these guys? can't they get with the program and simplify their spelling?

Ha! not likely! Does it really matter? No, I understand that colour is meant to be color, and they understand that program is meant to be programme. We can co-exist. SWE is flexible enought to take us both on!

SWE is flexible enought to take us both on!

Yeah, but it helps if you can spell in accordance with your local agreed-upon SWE

See posting above for note:
I love it when i am good naturedly taken to task for a particularly mangled spelling or sentence--which happens often enough.

Its way to late in the day--especially such a busy day for me to be attempting to spell anything!

To Helen : the Lovely One Who's Passion Has Launched A Thousand Slips
-- to me your posts, "mangled" or not, are a delight. Your tone of voice comes through so clearly.
Your passionate involvement in the discussions may lead to an occasional slip but i for one find nothing to cavil at.
No wonder a war was launched to bring you home to those who love you.
Include me in that group.
wow

See posting above for note:
I love it when i am good naturedly taken to task for a particularly mangled spelling or sentence--which happens often enough.

Indeed, I'd hoped my underlined the good-naturedness of my post. Misspell all you want, I'll deal with it. I'm just happy you're talking about language, which seems to be a rare topic here these days.

As for your exceptions to rules, you have got to try French sometime. First you learn a rule, then you learn that the 150 or so most useful verbs don't follow it!

Yes! I had been thinking of French when I mentioned "other languages", but I couldn't come up with any examples off the top of my head that would be coherent. My french has, sadly, deteriorated since moving south.

Ali

Bob--well-thought, well-written. Kudos.

Here's an example of a dialectical phoneticism that is only a slight exaggeration of an actual pronunciation:
pee-YON-sill.

To BYB- I will join the chorus of affirming responses to your your post. The brethren and the sistern are, quite obviously, with you. Very nicely done, as always. BTW, as to those Eminent Personages awaiting the last trump, I could easily identify Will, Chris, Janey and Chuck, but was not certain about "Jack D". Donne, Dryden, other? Perhaps it should be obvious, but, (assuming that they're listed chronologically, as they seem to be,) I still could not be sure. In any case, it's a strong list.

BYB - I have to point out that Bill S. did NOT go following any standardised system of written English, if anything, he started to create his own. Everyone knows that he too, like Helen, was a creative speller. He didn't follow standardised written form, because conservative conformists hadn't had their way with English at that point. I agree with Mr. Ward in that respect; many great writers did not stick to such rules (at least not as stringent ones) concerning their spelling or grammar. Nowdays writers are all but forced to trudge through the sticky mess created by writers of dictionaries/grammar books/school books etc. who are celebrated as heroes.
Now, would anyone here consider reading a book written in 'freespeling'? Not many I expect. I'm certain Shakepeare wouldn't have raised an eyebrow at the thought. People love following rules, even if they're just rules of hearsay. (see the following for examples http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/nonerrors.html)
English as a tool for expression is stifled; barriers have been set up by those who feel they have a right to corner and harness the language, because they can't stand to see it growing beyond themselves. There are a lot of practical reasons that speak for standardised spelling & grammar, but it nevertheless, it restricts people's acceptance to language when used freely to create art.

There are a lot of practical reasons that speak for standardised spelling & grammar, but it nevertheless, it restricts people's acceptance to language when used freely to create art.

Although I can't claim to be among its stringent adherents, I agree that standard orthography is important. As you suggest, however, it is not all important. "Misspellings" can be useful in poetry and, probably, in literature in general. Of course, misspellings as such require a standard with which to conflict.

The conflict of conservatism, in the literal sense of 'conservation,' and the maverick is universal. The academy can be stiflingly conservative and, yet, leaving aside the question of anarchy (which I am ill equipped to discuss), the presence of conservationist institutions is necessary to culture--to conservative and maverick alike.

He Belly

Methinks the lad doth protest too much?

There are a lot of practical reasons that speak for standardised spelling & grammar, but it nevertheless, it restricts people's acceptance to language when used freely to create art.

The great William Caxton himself pleaded for some form of standardisation. I can't remember where I read it, but he written the equivalent of an essay on the inconsistencies in English, flavoured with an anecdote about the differing use of 'eggs' versus 'eyren'.

Whilst I appreciate that art is often wonderful when not straitjacketed by hidebound conventions, I also believe that this explosion of expressiveness almost always comes from someone who is already a master craftsman, and is then pushing the boundaries. I cannot think of great art being created by anyone without an intimate knowledge of, and deep love of, the structure of the medium - be it painting on canvas or writing plays.

Even famous 'non-representational' artists like Picasso or Matisse, if you look at their early work, were superb draughtsmen first.

Even the ol' Bard of Avon, while creative, was not arbitrary in his use of the language. The inconsistency in his spelling is down to the fact the printing had not yet fully standardised the conventions of spelling. His pronunciation, from what we can tell, was reflected in his spelling - and would probably be a kind of Midlands-modified-to-London speech.

Ah well... let's have a heated debate.

cheer

the sunshine warrior