Dennis Baron, in his Web of Language blog, talks about one academic's plan to decriminalize spelling mistakes at his university in the UK, Buckinghamshire New University, (link).

quote:

If Smith gets his way, instructors at Bucks will stop punishing students who use “variants” like arguement, Febuary, truely and occured. After all, Smith claims, thier meaning is absolutely clear (perhaps he means, ‘there meaning is clere’?).

Smith teaches a large introductory course in criminology, and year after year he’s had to cope with the worst in human orthographic behavior. Now, instead of waterboarding students who misspell, he wants to spend his time helping them deal with real crimes, like murder, identity theft, insider trading, and the split infinitive.

He mentions the Ormulum which was a medieval poem written using a unique orthography devised by its author.

Here's his article, where you can see his rational for variant spellings, for instance

quote:

- Ignor for ignore. The word "ignore" comes from the Latin ignorare meaning "to know" and ignarus meaning "ignorant". Neither of these words has an "e" after the "r", so why do we?

When you want advice on how lexicography should be done... ask a criminologist!

On the other hand, the Times article has this quote from OED editor John Simpson:

quote:

There are enormous advantages in having a coherent system of spelling. It makes it easier to communicate.

I wonder how true this really is. Did English speakers have difficulty communicating from the 10th to the 18th century?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

There are enormous advantages in having a coherent system of spelling. It makes it easier to communicate.

Depends what he means by coherent. What we have now is an incoherent standard of sorts. Arbitrary mappings of glyphs to sounds, rules with exceptions, archaism piled on top of outright historical mistakes, etc. What we have now is a ridiculous and nearly useless system, the only purpose of which that I can determine is to make it more difficult to learn how to read and write English. There is a reason for that I suppose if you wish to keep the literate classes small.

What would you recommend to make it more "coherent?"

quote:

I wonder how true this really is. Did English speakers have difficulty communicating from the 10th to the 18th century?

I don't suppose that the majority had any difficulty - but then the majority during that period couldn't read or write.

Spelling is completely unimportant if you're illiterate.

What would you recommend to make it more "coherent?"

A total redesign. Develop a mapping between the individual phonemes of English and some set of glyphs in an alphabet. One prerequisite would be to adopt a standard variety of English for international use and base the mapping on that. Other languages have done it and survived. Let me say, I just don't see it happening. Ever.

quote:

Originally posted by zmježd:
What would you recommend to make it more "coherent?"

A total redesign. Develop a mapping between the individual phonemes of English and some set of glyphs in an alphabet. One prerequisite would be to adopt a standard variety of English for international use and base the mapping on that. Other languages have done it and survived. Let me say, I just don't see it happening. Ever.

And even if it did, all those nasty, messy, idiosynctaric people would just start straight away on the process of messing it all up again.

all those nasty, messy, idiosynctaric people would just start straight away on the process of messing it all up again.

True. That's why they should take it to degree zero every couple of hundred years or so. It does boggle the mind how irrational people get over matters linguistic. When somebody suggests to me that we need declare English the official language, I usually suggest that the variety spoken around Virginia be used as the standard, unless, of course, my interlocutor is from the South and then I suggest the variety of English used in Toronto.

quote:

Originally posted by zmježd:
There are enormous advantages in having a coherent system of spelling. It makes it easier to communicate.

Depends what he means by coherent. What we have now is an incoherent standard of sorts

Right. So I guess by "coherent" Simpson means "relatively invariant". English spelling might not follow a pattern, but it is relatively invariant. So I wonder if back in the day, before Johnson, Murray et al, when English spelling was extremely variable, if literate people really did have trouble communicating, and if so, how Simpson knows this.

quote:

There is a reason for that I suppose if you wish to keep the literate classes small.

I don't see that people aren't communicating these days because of our "incoherent system of spelling." I am not surprised at John Simpson's stance, though I disagree with it. I have to say, though, with all the discussions we've had here about descriptivists vs. prescriptivists, I am a bit surprised to see that people here agree that we have an incoherent system of spelling, and thus difficulty with communication.

Unless of course this is all tongue in cheek, which it could be.

I've just read the linked article and the quote from John Simpson. As I read it he was saying nothing about how words should be spelled (or even spellt) but simply commenting that it's helpful if everyone spells them the same way. That's the meaning I take from the quote in context.

What probably happened was that somebody phoned him up and said "This guy Ken Smith wants us to spell things any old how. Any comment?" and he replied, off the cuff, with his remark suggesting that there are advantages if we all use the same spelling, though phrasing it as he did.

Insidennly ai hoppe thut thez noe nyde tu eggsplain wie ids uzeful nod tu led evruhbuddy spel thangs uz hi laiks.
Id stobs yu neading tu tayke taim tu werk oud whut thu teggst meens.

wie ids uzeful nod tu led evruhbuddy spel thangs uz hi laiks

This is exactly what happened in England from about 1200 to 1600. It didn't stop Chaucer or Shakspear from reading, writing, communicating, or just plain being great writers. Part of the problem of spelling is that if your "system" is pretty much ad hoc, irrational, and unsystematic, then you have to spend inordinate amounts of time and effort memorizing arbitrary associations between the written word and the spoken one. For a speaker to learn a new word, he must consult an authority, either somebody who knows the word or a dictionary, to determine how it is pronounced. In many languages, just seeing the word informs you how to pronounce it. Mind you, there are worse systems than ours: e.g., Chinese, Japanese.

Youer argewmend iz perfickly tru, ahn thee uthah harnd yu cannut deeneye thart thiziz harduh tew reed than these last few words are.

The point is that ANY agreed system, however bizarre and obscure can be learned but if there is no agreed system then you have to work out everything from scratch every time you read something.

ANY system is better than no system.

And I disagree about having to spend inordinate amounts of time and effort memorising things. I never spent specific time trying to memorise English spellings and I'll bet most native speakers of most languages could say the same thing. In a second language, yes - no disagreement there, but in your first language? Some effort? Maybe. Inordinate amounts. I disagree.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
I have to say, though, with all the discussions we've had here about descriptivists vs. prescriptivists, I am a bit surprised to see that people here agree that we have an incoherent system of spelling, and thus difficulty with communication.

I don't think anyone here has said that. For my part I'm just wondering if communication now is any more or less difficult now than it was 600 years ago when spelling was more variable.

quote:

Youer argewmend iz perfickly tru, ahn thee uthah harnd yu cannut deeneye thart thiziz harduh tew reed than these last few words are.

Only because we're used to reading words written a certain way. If we were taught a system with more variation, we might not find it so difficult. Or maybe we might, I don't know for sure.

Anyway I don't think that English spelling was completely without rules from 1200 to 1600. There were rules; for instance none was written "non", "none", "nain", "nane", "noan", etc. but it wasn't written "myghte".

Hmmpf! Everybody knows that "chaos" is spelt, "xaoc." At least, everyone who speaks Russian.

I assume, Zmj, that written Russian is one of those "ground zero" languages.

quote:

There were rules; for instance none was written "non", "none", "nain", "nane", "noan", etc.

How do we know those weren't just bad spellings of one word and the writers weren't held in contempt by correct spellers?

Dictionary.com Translator
English
chaos

Russian
беспорядок

[pron. /besporyadohk/ more or less]

quote:

For a speaker to learn a new word, he must consult an authority, either somebody who knows the word or a dictionary, to determine how it is pronounced. In many languages, just seeing the word informs you how to pronounce it.

Okay, I can see that.

Still, we've discussed here several times (I don't have time to find all those discussions) that communication still occurs, even when there are errors either in spelling or pronunciation. I understood perfectly, for example, what Bob had written above. Similarly, if one ends a sentence with a preposition, or breaks another "rule" of the English language, usually (not always, I agree) communication is understood.

I am beginning to think that I'll never understand that prescriptivism/descriptivism argument.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
I understood perfectly, for example, what Bob had written above. .

I don't doubt it but I'll bet it took longer to work it out than if I'd used normal spelling. The further away from normal spelling I get the harder it is to read.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:

quote:

There were rules; for instance none was written "non", "none", "nain", "nane", "noan", etc.

How do we know those weren't just bad spellings of one word and the writers weren't held in contempt by correct spellers?

AFAIK there was no such thing as correct spelling between 1200 and 1600. Some people did complain about it, and wondered if spelling should be standardized, but spelling was not actually standardized until the advent of the printing press.

quote:

I don't doubt it but I'll bet it took longer to work it out than if I'd used normal spelling.

Yes, it did take me longer...a lot longer. I realized that after I posted the response, and, indeed, that would slow communication.

I was just a little thrown with this conversation after so many others here that have taken the opposite stance (i.e. communication is effective without relying on Strunk and White type rules). BTW, has anyone seen that Strunk, White and Kalman book? How is it different?

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
I don't doubt it but I'll bet it took longer to work it out than if I'd used normal spelling. The further away from normal spelling I get the harder it is to read.

Yes but how much of that difficulty is because we're trained in "normal spelling".

quote:

I was just a little thrown with this conversation after so many others here that have taken the opposite stance (i.e. communication is effective without relying on Strunk and White type rules).

But orthography is not Strunk and White type rules. Unlike grammar, orthography is an artifical system. With artificial systems, sometimes you need to enforce rules to maintain the system. Grammar won't degrade and go to hell without the enforcement of grammatical prescriptions. But without the enforcement of orthographical rules, it's possible that different groups' spelling might diverge enough to be unintelligible.

They seem similar to me. I'm skeptical, but I'll listen to the authorities on this.

quote:

for instance none was written "non", "none", "nain", "nane", "noan",

By sounding out these words, I'd bet the spellings corresponded to the various accents of divergent groups within the area. As has been pointed out, the printing press standardized spelling later and he who controlled the press decided the spelling.

Something similar can perhaps be found in the disappearance of many accents within the US with the arrival of radio and TV. You still hear older people speaking with pronounced accents, especially in Appalachia, but the younger crowd usually speaks 'more better' thanks to the Boobtube. Even "Swamp Yankee" is almost gone from New England, a-yah.

quote:

But without the enforcement of orthographical rules, it's possible that different groups' spelling might diverge enough to be unintelligible.

No "might" about it, I reckon. Many modern European languages had a common ancestry in Latin, but in 2000 years they have diverged sufficiently to be mutually unintelligible.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
They seem similar to me. I'm skeptical, but I'll listen to the authorities on this.

Then don't listen to me, listen to Mark Liberman, who writes in response to an article about how grammar rules are justified, but spelling rules are not:

quote:

Most linguists think that this is backwards: syntax and word usage can take care of themselves, pretty well, but spelling does need standardization. The basic argument is that writing is artificial in a way that speaking is not, and orthography is the most artificial part of writing, so that the normal human process for creating and maintaining cultural norms is good enough for grammar, but not for spelling, which therefore needs to be established as "made order" rather than a "grown order".

But he doesn't completely buy this argument:

quote:

The form and content of this argument are certainly valid, but it does have a bit of the smell of a rationalization. At least, it's certainly true that the Elizabethans got on fine with what Jenkins calls "plain spelling" (i.e. chaotic spelling) -- though this would have made search engines harder to implement, if they'd had them.

In fact thinking about it some more, I'm not sure that I buy it either.

Anyway, Liberman also wrote this :

quote:

Standard English spelling really is prescribed. It's a set of artificial social conventions that change only very slowly. The resulting system has many problems, especially for learners; there are a few regional differences (e.g. -our vs. -or); there are some corners of the culture such as hip-hop lyrics and instant messaging that manage to develop their own conventions; but basically we're stuck with it. This is not a necessary condition -- Elizabethan spelling was not standardized, and writers and their readers got along fine. However, things are different now. English spelling is frozen, and it would take the social equivalent of a hydrogen bomb to make any big changes.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

quote:

Then don't listen to me, listen to Mark Liberman, who writes in response to an article about how grammar rules are justified, but spelling rules are not:

Well, I did say I'd listen to you. I respect your and z's and Bob's views on this (as the experts here), but I am having a hard time seeing the difference between Bob's creative spelling and use of grammar that can make sentences unclear. Now, there are grammar mistakes that Truss and Strunk and White would moan about that don't affect the clarity of sentences, such as the use of "ain't." But then there are alternate spellings that don't affect communication, such as "honor" versus "honour."

I can see though that really creative spelling slows things down, while with most grammar errors one usually knows the meaning of the sentence. But sometimes not, such as the title of Truss's book.

While I am thinking on this, I have a question about grammar. I know that ending sentences with prepositions and misplaced dependent clauses and use of punctuation are all grammar related. Is the use of a word considered grammar? For example, if I were to use "moot" in the non-arnie way, would that be considered a grammar error? Or is it some other kind of an error?

First of all, Kalleh, this week's reading in Saussure touches on some of these things.

There is a distinction between language (and grammar and phonology), on one hand, and orthography (spelling and punctuation) on the other. They're not really the same thing. And you really have to distinguish between grammar mistakes in the linguistic sense and what are called "grammar mistakes" by Strunk et al. Using ain't (as in it just ain't worth it) may be a grammar mistake in one register of English (say I'm writing a user manual or a law in Standard American English), but not in many other (non-standard) varieties. Spelling and punctuation are just representations of language. They are not language or grammar in themselves.

Earlier in this thread I was not advocating replacing our terribly inadequate spelling system with a much worse one (à la Bob's ad hoc one), but with a better, more coherent, easier to learn one, and I pointed out that it would be a prerequisite to settle on a formal standard. (I am not even considering the one proposed in the article to which I linked originally in that I think it's a bunch of hooey and misses the point).

Most of what goes under the rubric of grammar in books by Truss and her ilk is really style. And the thing with style is, gather your choices together and be consistent in your writing in using them. But don't tell me I have to or oughtn't to use the Oxford (aka serial) comma, because one is preferable or more right than the other. Once you've been exposed to different writing system, I believe this becomes clearer. For example. in ancient Greek, spaces where seldom used and the direction in which one wrote changed on alternate lines from left to right and then right to left. And the letters actually flipped when the writing was going in a different direction. If you look at medieval MSS or even early printed books, you'll see whole bunch of different ways to reduce language to writing.

The same goes with lexical choice. I can shudder when somebody says mute point, to air is human, or uses moot in a non-standard way, and I can correct somebody's document if I'm proof-reading it for them, but that's a far cry from acknowledging that people use moot to mean not open to debate. And understanding them when they do. After all, how can I correct somebody if I haven't understood them?

Ending sentences with prepositions and split infinitives are not grammar mistakes. They are normal and grammatical. The same goes for misplaced commas or apostrophes. To me there is a difference between a grammatical mistake like John books the grabbed done a and a purely stylistic consideration like Strawberries I like orTo boldly go where no man has gone before.

I thought of another argument as I was falling asleep last night.

One of the things that's been said is that historically spelling didn't matter and that this didn't affect the communication of Shakespeare, Chaucer et al.

And one of my arguents has been that a standardised spelling, however irrational must make things easier.

Let's come at it from a slightly different angle. I have had numerous conversations with English speakers from other parts of the world, including people on this board, where our different accent have made communication very difficult. I'm not talking about lexical variation here, just about phonetic variation.

A conversation with an American in Jackson went something like this. (I'm not using any phonetic systm here, just standard English.)

A: Where did you buy the ice cream?
Me: There's an ice cream stand behind the hat shop. [POINTS]
A: [LOOKS PUZZLED]
Me: There's an ice cream stand behind the hat shop.
A: [TO FRIEND] What did he say?
Friend; [PUZZLED SHRUG]
A: [SLOWLY] Where did you buy the ice cream?
Me: From the ice cream stand. It's behind the hat shop.

They wandered off in search of someone speaking the same language.

-------

We had considerablydifferent accents but we were both, in theory speaking English and should have been able to communicate. But we couldn't.

Now if we both wrote down what we were saying, assuming both of us could read and write, we could have communicated but only by using an agreed orthography.
If he spelled everything the way he spoke and I spelled everything the way I spoke the problem would remain.

I know this is anecdotal rather than quantitive evidence but surely it indicates that an agreed spelling, however irrational facilitates communication.

The worst of it is, I have read this week's assignment, zmj. I think part of the problem is getting rid of all those old definitions that I've always used and continue to hear on a daily basis. Take "grammar" for example. If misplaced commas and apostrophes, ending sentences with prepositions and split infinitives aren't grammar mistakes, I've called them that for years. My editors and bosses call them that. So while I certainly am open to learning and changing that idea, I will have to continue using the terminology at work.

Now, just to be clear, all punctuation mistakes are orthography mistakes and not grammar mistakes, correct? Would the split infinitives, use of the passive voice, ending sentences with prepositions all be considered nonstandard English? Because when I write, my editors, and others who critique my writing, consider all of those grammar errors.

quote:

I thought of another argument as I was falling asleep last night.

Poor Bob. Thinking of Wordcraft even as he falls asleep. I do see your point, Bob. It was a good example.
[edited to correct error that goofy found.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Now, just to be clear, all punctuation mistakes are orthography mistakes and not grammar mistakes, correct? Would the split infinitives, use of the passive voice, ending sentences with infinitives all be considered nonstandard English?

They are all questions of style, not grammar (I assume you mean ending sentences with prepositions). Split infinitives, passive voice, ending sentences with prepositions are all standard grammatical English, having been part of the language for hundreds and hundreds of years. (split infinitives since the 14 century, passives and prepositions at the end of the sentence since Old English)

" grammar" means something different to linguists than to nonlinguists.

1 a: the study of the classes of words, their inflections, and their functions and relations in the sentence b: a study of what is to be preferred and what avoided in inflection and syntax
2 a: the characteristic system of inflections and syntax of a language b: a system of rules that defines the grammatical structure of a language
3 a: a grammar textbook b: speech or writing evaluated according to its conformity to grammatical rules

In linguistics, "grammar" is 2 I think. But for your editors, "grammar" is 1b - but not quite, because your editors would probably also include "what is to be preferred and avoided in orthography."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

Take "grammar" for example. If misplaced commas and apostrophes, ending sentences with prepositions and split infinitives aren't grammar mistakes, I've called them that for years.

Well, people have been using moot to mean open to discussion for decades and decimate to mean to annihilate or destroy completely. So, what's the problem? You're a medical professionl. Folks use your terminology all the time in non-standard ways. What's the problem? Grammar has to do with the rules governing language. not the style choices we make or the spelling system we choose to represent our language in writing. As with moot, decimate, etc., I've learned the various diverse and sometimes contradictory meanings. Just like with mole and drive. If you want to call a split infinitive a grammatical mistake, go for it. Technically you're wrong. There is absolutely nothing ungrammatical about them. Same with ending sentences with a preposition. Zip, bubkis, nada. It's just in the context of our Linguistics 101 readings, you best be aware of the "real" meaning of grammar. That's all.

quote:

What's the problem?

The only problem, z, is that I want to be on the same page here. Most of my job these days seems to be writing, critiquing others' writing, receiving critiques, etc. Therefore, we often talk about grammatical errors, and I just wanted to be clear as to the difference between the definition of "grammar" here and at work. So there's no problem.

And as long as we're talking about clarity, it's not I who says splitting infinitives or ending sentences with prepositions, etc., are ungrammatical. It's my editors. In fact, I've argued about it, a lot, with them. I've hauled out CMS, and even some Wordcraft and Language Log discussions, to prove my point. Some of their ideas are absolutely weird, though some I can understand for formal writing. Wordcraft has probably made me too flexible, linguistically speaking, for my own good.

It's my editors.

I, too, have to deal with editors more than occasionally. I just don't take anything much they have to say about grammar to mean anything the same which linguists and I do when we use the term. I silently translate style for their grammar. There's just no reasoning with some people.

Yes, that's definitely the tack to take, and I have tried to do that.

Once, however, I let it get to me, and I spoke up more than I should have (it's that damn Irish in me!). I don't know why "grammar" can stimulate such a passionate discussion, but it sure can!

quote:

And as long as we're talking about clarity, it's not I who says splitting infinitives or ending sentences with prepositions, etc., are ungrammatical. It's my editors. In fact, I've argued about it, a lot, with them. I've hauled out CMS, and even some Wordcraft and Language Log discussions, to prove my point.

It's always tempting to argue, especially when you know you are right. But that can often cause the other party to simply dig in their heals and try to refute what you are saying.

Why not use the power of the question?

Simply ask, when you have been picked up for, say, splitting an infinitive, ask, "Where is the reference that says that is incorrect, please?"

Then it's up to them to find the facts - and of course, the facts will not be there to be found.

Of course, if it's a matter of stylistic preference, then you need to ask, "Which style book are we using please?" And if the retort is, "That's OUR style!" then ask that they produce a reference source that gives a full summary of the styles preferred.

quote:

It's always tempting to argue, especially when you know you are right. But that can often cause the other party to simply dig in their heals and try to refute what you are saying.

I will definitely follow your lead on this.

As some of you may know, our Linguistics 101 thread has us reading "Course in General Linguistics," by Ferdinand de Saussure. There is information about the book down in that Linguistics 101 forum. The book is excellent, and I highly recommend it to everyone here. I bought mine off the shelf from our local Barnes and Noble's, though some had to order it.

I hadn't gotten through chapter VI until after this thread was started. After reading chapter VI, however, I am beginning to change my mind about spelling issues. Saussure makes some excellent points about why there is an inconsistency between spelling and pronunciation. Many of them relate to the fact that linguistics addresses the spoken word alone. The only reason for the written word, he says, is to represent the spoken word. Yet, for various reasons that he describes, we tend to give more authority to the written word, so we stick to the spelling rules even though they no longer are meaningful sometimes. He gives examples from various languages, and not just French.

Perhaps we should have a total redesign every couple of hundred years or so, as z says above.

“The Romans had a saying, Verba volant, scripta manent (“What is spoken flies away, what is written endures”), which perhaps serves to illustrate the point of view of the Greeks, as well as of grammarians generally; the written word, remaining as a permanent record, is worthy of greater consideration than the fleeting spoken word.”
P. 121, Mario Pei, The Story of Language, 1965 ed.

Verba volant, scripta manent (“What is spoken flies away, what is written endures”)

It is well to consider how, though Latin, Chinese, and English were all written languages with superb literatures, they have changed over the course of time. All that writing does is to fix one variety of language (a bit of parole in Saussure's words). If the record endures (and much has been lost over the millenia), and we can decipher it, then we have a window onto the state of the particular language of a certain author (or group of authors). Linguists, for the past two centuries, have noticed that and studied how languages change. How nothing can be done to stop this wonderful and natural progression of a language from one synchronic state to another over the passage of time. The grammar mavens of this age and of those past have been cast in the unenviable role of King Knut urging the tide not to come in. But it does, and though the courtiers should be embarrassed, they aren't, because they have not studied the subject under consideration cautiously, carefully, and with same objectiveness of the king.

quote:

Linguists have sometimes been accused of overstating the case that the spoken language is primary and that writing is a secondary representation of the spoken language. There is some justification for this criticism. However, there is no justification at all for believing that we derive the spoken language from the written language or that the written language should guide us in the use of the spoken language, views that clearly put the cart before the horse.

- Ronald Wardhaugh, Proper English

quote:

Linguists, for the past two centuries, have noticed that and studied how languages change. How nothing can be done to stop this wonderful and natural progression of a language from one synchronic state to another over the passage of time. The grammar mavens of this age and of those past have been cast in the unenviable role of King Knut urging the tide not to come in. But it does, and though the courtiers should be embarrassed, they aren't, because they have not studied the subject under consideration cautiously, carefully, and with same objectiveness of the king.

Very nicely put, z.

goofy, I've wondered what the "other side" of Saussure was. I imagined that some would disagree about the importance of the spoken word.

I've been catching up on my blog reading. (I have the day off.) Arnold Zwicky has a great posting (link) on spelling reform which ties in nicely with this thread. Zwicky has been reading Thomas R. Lounsbury's English Spelling and Spelling Reform (1909) which is available online. Here's a sampling of Lounsbury:

quote:

In an orthography where so much is lawless, there is no need of become excited over some particular one of its numerous vagaries. What is offensive in the spelling of honor as honour is not the termination itself, but the reasons paraded for its adoption. A man can cling to the form with u because he has been taught so to spell it, because by constant association he has come to prefer it. To this there may be no objection. But there is a distinct objection to his implying, and sometimes asserting, that in so spelling the word he is upholding the purity of the speech. This is to give to his perhaps excusable ignorance the quality of inexcusable impudence. His fancied linguistic virtue is based upon fallacious assumptions which are themselves based upon facts that are false.

Yeah!

quote:

wie ids uzeful nod tu led evruhbuddy spel thangs uz hi laiks

This is exactly what happened in England from about 1200 to 1600

Do I have this straight? You propose revising English to such a state as the line above within a short period of time (not the 400 years you note) and expect communication not to be compromised.

Not to mention that even if you succeeded, the next generations would need translators to read books published prior to our time because they would become unintelligible due to the spelling change, much like Chaucer is to us today.

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:

quote:

wie ids uzeful nod tu led evruhbuddy spel thangs uz hi laiks

This is exactly what happened in England from about 1200 to 1600

Do I have this straight? You propose revising English to such a state as the line above within a short period of time (not the 400 years you note) and expect communication not to be compromised.

I don't think anyone is proposing that. I think that zmj's point is that it is possible to not have a standard spelling and still have communication. The history of English supports this.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:
Do I have this straight? You propose revising English to such a state as the line above within a short period of time (not the 400 years you note) and expect communication not to be compromised.

Proofreader, I'd bet it would take only a few weeks or months to establish comprehensibility, within a group of people making the effort. The difficulty is not in comprehending; it is in getting folks to make the change.

For example:

Want to try an eksperiment with me? You and I kan start by replasing a few letters with their phonetic ekwivalents. Just replase x with ks, qu with kw, and c with either k or s.

You kan kormprehend this tekst kwite easily, kan't you? Shall we talk like this for the nekst few days?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: shufitz,

I have no doubt the new language changes would soon be comprehensible to everyone. My point is there's a big difference between the situation in effect in 1200 and now. Then there was no mass printing and copies and translations, while time-consuming, were not needed on the scale needed for the mass of printed matter we have produced since.

Forget literature. Think of all the scientific papers and books that would need to be translated and re-printed. The problem is the changes would create a new English language, just as present day English differs from Middle and Old English and soon today's books would not be understood easily, if at all, by future generations.

Still, I like z's idea of starting over every couple of centuries. It could be linked to the OED's revisions.

I see this as the first episode when Twilight Zone is brought back to TV.