But that is happening. Naturally and slowly we are starting to go towards parity in spelling rules. Right now that adds to the confusion, as in most schools (in the UK) both English and American spelling is accepted in students' work; though the English spelling is taught first.

Quite naturally this happening. Look at the word 'gaol'. When I was growing up that was how it was spelt, at school, in newspaper reports, in novels. Gradually, across my childhood that word vanished, to be replaced by 'jail'. There wasn't a big spelling reform , it just happened. For a while both were in usage, then one ceased to be useful and therefore was dropped in all but the most rare cases.

linguistics is, as I studied it, NOT the history of the language but the nature and structure of human speech. "Structure." "Engineering."

Darling, I am not interested in what my tongue is doing unless it involves
someone else's mouth or cock.

Etymology is the study of word origins and evolution, while linguistics covers language evolution. There's a lot of crossover.

English has historically been one of the most flexible and rapidly-evolving languages. It absorbs, adapts, and shifts rapidly to meet the needs of the population which speaks it, and it does so in a remarkably elastic, chameleon manner. It's one of the reasons I love it.

This last paragraph is a non-sequitur. What does that have to do with spelling reform?

I don't know about the Queen, but Prince Charles is a supporter of spelling reform.

You completely missed the point. Dyslexia is a disability only if the orthography is irregular.

When you have similar-looking words like tough, though, through and thorough, with up to four ways of pronouncing the ending depending on one's accent, even though it is not the ending that is changing in these words, is it any wonder that English-speaking dyslexics struggle?

Isn't it a good enough reason to make some changes if by doing so we help people with disabilities? Since you are opposed to any revision to spelling, would you care to tell a dyslexic or the parents of a dyslexic child: "I would love to help you manage your disability, but I oppose the measures that would be needed."

In that case Kingswood, maybe we should publish all books with a selection of multicoloured film screens to place over the print.

There are other ways to diagnose dyslexia beyond reading problems. Dyslexia is a much more complex condition than 'word blindness' as it's often referred to. Dyslexia doesn't just cause problems for the reader because of fixing spelling rules in memory. In fact, that's not really one of the biggest problems to a dyslexic reader at all. It isn't just about the way the brain processes information, at the level of word building. It's also about how the brain processes and organises visual stimuli. Creating a greater degree of uniformity will not in any way help that. Spelling pattenrs cause problems in and of themselves, regardless of complexity, because patterns cause problems.

The dyslexic brain functions slightly differently in some regards to the non-dyslexic brain. What you are suggesting is that, in order to make it easier for people with dyslexia to learn to read, we should change the way we spell. The entire system. Revamped, and made simpler in order that we 'help people with disabilities?'

Maybe we should also outlaw staircases. In fact...perhaps we should cease printing books in their current form altogether and move to a universal braille system. Noone left behind right?

I'm dyslexic. I fail to see how having more regular spelling rules would help stop my brain from insisting on rearranging letter, number, and word orders.

Again, my point was that we're talking about english not any other language.



I think Dana and Tiki covered the reply I would have made to these comments.

In a nutshell, yes it's not fair that some people have reading disabilities for whatever reason, but that's not a reason to change the system for everyone else (who happen to be the vast majority). I was going to suggest that by your reasoning we should modify the way we make cars because then people with dwarfism could drive.

I rely rely dislik pepol hu multe-kwot bak at ya. Pisy pupers.

Maybe that's why he's a prince instead of king.

This too is occuring in Australia - words like gaol, socialise ect. are becoming incorrect (at least, questioned).

I had a conversation with some people recently in regard to textual analysis, and a few of the above issues were discussed. We even hypothesised on the possibility of one day a number system will replace all words of colours. Will the colour dark red be called 19191 internationally one day - and differentiate for all hues. Just how far can we go to simplify language and make it accessable to all people, of all cultures.

I refuse to ever be called "Mom" though. Urgh. Its "Mum's" the word over here!

There are things about English that bother me but spelling isn't one of them.

Stupid spelling rules bother me. Like "i before e except after c." I think I have found more exceptions to this rule than applications of it.

It bothers me that there is no second-person plural pronoun. It bothers me that there is no gender-neutral third-person singular pronoun. These are words we need but do not have.

It also bothers me that in English, unlike French for example, the modifier precedes the word instead of following it. We have gotten used to saying things this way but going from general to specific makes infinitely more sense. For example: "While touring the museum, I saw an old, heavy, dusty, broken, German, watch." In order to understand that sentence, I have to hold five adjectives in my head until I get to the end of the sentence to find out that the object is a watch then, one by one, apply the adjectives to form an image of the watch. If the word watch comes first followed by the modifiers, I apply them as they are presented and do not have to move backward through the sentence at the same time I'm moving forward. There are many instances in English where the language structure forces one to present information out of logical order. Why do I need to wait until the end of the sentence to know whether its declarative or inquisitive or exclamatory? Not all questions start with why or how. I run across this a lot reading to my kids. I'm halfway through a sentence before picking up the end punctuation only to realize I read it with the wrong inflection and have to start over.

English has a lot of limitations and using English properly involves, for me at least, making some sacrifices in the efficiency and the accuracy of the thoughts I am trying to convey. However, these are structural deficiencies.

Spelling idiosyncracies, however annoying, do not compromise the effectiveness of the language at all. Hence, I have to disagree with the initial premise of the thread.

And the idea of spelling reform will just make it worse. First of all, what rules do you propose to use to decide how to respell a word? I suspect you are taking for granted the idea that there will not be any controversy in deciding on a uniform and all-encompassing set of rules to apply and that the application of these rules will not create a new set of inefficiencies for the descendants of English to struggle with. And what do you propose we do with the body of written work that exists in what will become "the olde spelling?" A respelling effort will just create more separation between today's English and yesterday's English.

Ironic since it is exactly that separation which is at the root of the problem you are proposing to solve.

Thanks for the book recommendation. I will try to find a copy. How much coverage does the book give to the late Middle English period, especially the Great Vowel Shift and the Chancery Standard?

Well, this tears it.

I crown you :king: of the Geeks. Wear it loud, wear it proud, you nerd.

Yes, this is a silly rule that is a waste of time. The number of words where the sequence -cei- occurs with these letters sounding like "see" aren't that many.

Here's an interesting puzzle - how many words of this kind can we find? My list has 23 such words, derived from these five root words: ceiling, conceit (including conceive etc), deceit (including deceive etc), perceive, receipt (including receive etc). (Hmm. Looking over this list, it seems odd that "perceit" isn't a word.)

So don't waste your time with i before e except after c. You're better off just remembering these five words and their derivatives, then moving on to other spellings.

Best post of the thread. (Not gonna quote the whole thing.)