Spelling Reform(xibalba.demon.co.uk)
xibalba.demon.co.uk
Spelling Reform
http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ortho.html
5 comments
= A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling =
For example, in Year 1 that useless letter c would be dropped to be replased either by k or s, and likewise x would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which c would be retained would be the ch formation, which will be dealt with later.
Year 2 might reform w spelling, so that which and one would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish y replasing it with i and Iear 4 might fiks the g/j anomali wonse and for all.
Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants.
Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez c, y and x -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais ch, sh, and th rispektivli.
Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.
Mark Twain
Copied from http://www.mantex.co.uk/samples/spell.htm
For example, in Year 1 that useless letter c would be dropped to be replased either by k or s, and likewise x would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which c would be retained would be the ch formation, which will be dealt with later.
Year 2 might reform w spelling, so that which and one would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish y replasing it with i and Iear 4 might fiks the g/j anomali wonse and for all.
Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants.
Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez c, y and x -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais ch, sh, and th rispektivli.
Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.
Mark Twain
Copied from http://www.mantex.co.uk/samples/spell.htm
Foreign-language placenames can ignore the reform, but many places have English names independent of the forms used by their inhabitants. <Spain, Munich, Peking> are English words, and so get reformed («Speyn, Myunik, Piykinh») no matter what the locals call them.
I wouldn't be caught dead calling Beijing "Peking".
I wouldn't be caught dead calling Beijing "Peking".
What do you call London or Washington when you speak Chinese? That is the quoted author's point.
For a somewhat contrary view, see the webpage with poems showing the absurdities of English spelling.
http://www.spellingsociety.org/news/media/poems.php
http://www.spellingsociety.org/news/media/poems.php
This would be the largest legacy system overhaul ever attempted. God help us all.
In 1789, he wrote "An Essay on the Necessity, Advantages, and Practicality of Reforming the Mode of Spelling and of Rendering the Orthography of Words Correspondent to Pronunciation" (reprinted at http://edweb.sdsu.edu/people/DKitchen/new_655/webster_langua...).
The problem with all such attempts at spelling reform is that language is not "top down" but rather "bottom up."
From ancient Saxon/Germanic words that defined much of the Old English to Latin words that flooded in via the various Romance languages such as French to Greek words that often came in via academic roots to scientific words that were coined as new developments occurred, English has absorbed all manner of word forms over many centuries - word forms that are ingrained in real-world usages that define how people speak, think, and write, not just in learned circles but in the street. Such words have taken on spelling characteristics connected with their origins (e.g., words of French origin that have many silent letters) and hence may vary significantly from one type to another.
It is a desirable goal to make English spelling more consistent but, if the very guy who came up with the leading American dictionary used for over 200 years could not even made a dent in the system, what chance does anyone else have?