quote:

A fyoo duhzen ambishuhss intelectchooals, a handful ov British skool teechers and wuhn rokit siuhntist ar triing to chang the way we spel. They are the leaders of the spelling-reform movement, a passionate but sporadic 800-year-old campaign to simplify English orthography. … Reformers, including Mark Twain, Charles Darwin and Theodore Roosevelt, argued [for] phonetic spellings … . For centuries, few listened, and the movement … sputtered out.

It's back.

These links may not be good for long, so read about it now!

1. Today's Wall Street Journal
   
2. TONGUE? TONGE? TOUNG? TUNG? Read arguments for and against simplified spelling as far back as the 15th century. [Not available to non-subscribers. Reproduced in next post.]
   
3. ROZEVULT'S LIST: Review the 300 simplified spellings President Roosevelt designated for use in government documents in August 1906. (Four months later, Congress voted 142-24 to overturn the order.)

Tongue? Tonge? Toung? Tung? For and Against Simplified Spelling. Over the past eight centuries, spelling reformers and their opponents, from Mark Twain to Theodore Roosevelt, have explained their goals in both poems and prose. Below, review some of the most famous.

"And for ther is so gret dyversite
In Englissh and in writyng of our tonge,
So prey I god, that non myswrite the.
Ne the mysmetere for defaute of tonge."
– Geoffrey Chaucer, from Troilus and Criseyde, 14th century

His goal was to create "some order in writing" and improve "the unreasonable writing of our English toung."
– John Hart, An Orthographie, Conteyning the Due Order and Reason, Howe to Write or Paint Th'imagine of Mannes Voice, Most Like to the Life or Nature, 1554

Thus have I laboured, by settling the orthography…to perform all the parts of a faithful lexicographer. In this part of the work, where caprice has long wantoned, I have endeavored to proceed with a scholar's reverence for antiquity, and a grammarian's regard to the genius of our tongue.
– Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language, 1799. Mr. Johnson is the spelling reformers' great villain because he set the standard of etymologically based orthography.

We may remind [the reformers] that they are meddling with an established system, not, indeed, of immemorial age, but well-established now and for the last hundred years.
– London Times editorial, in response to the London Spelling Reform Convention of 1877

Since Andrew fell
Beneath the spell
Reform's lookt well."
– Poem from a pamphlet handed out at a 1906 gala at the Waldorf-Astoria honoring Andrew Carnegie's initial $10,000 donation to the cause of spelling reform

It is not an attack on the language of Shakespeare and Milton, because it is in some instance a going-back to the forms they used, and in others merely the extension of changes which, as regards other words, have taken place since their time. It is not an attempt to do anything far-reaching or sudden or violent or indeed anything very great at all. It is merely an attempt to cast what slight weight can properly be cast on the side of the popular forces which are endeavoring to make our spelling a little less foolish and fantastic.
– Theodore Roosevelt, in the Aug. 20, 1906, letter to Arthur Stillings at the Government Printing Office, in which he officially simplified the spelling of 300 English words.

WHILE THE RAIN DRIPT HIS EYES WERE FIXT; Carnegie Spelling Reform is Likely to Be Prest Thru. WORDS CROPT, CROST AND CRUSHT; If President's Order Goes, the Horse May Be Lasht, the Paragraf Be Skipt, the Mile Be Stept, the Leash Be Slipt, the Car Be Stopt, the Wine Be Sipt, and the Girl Be Kist While She Blusht.
– Headline in the Washington Post on Aug. 25, 1906, five days after Roosevelt's order

But look at the 'pneumatics' and the 'pneumonias' and the rest of them. A real reform would settle them once and for all, and wind up by giving us an alphabet that we wouldn't have to spell with at all, instead of this present silly alphabet, which I fancy was invented by a drunken thief. Why, there isn't a man who doesn't have to throw out about fifteen hundred words a day when he writes his letters because he can't spell them! It's like trying to do a St. Vitus's dance with wooden legs.
– Mark Twain, The Alphabet and Simplified Spelling, Dec. 9, 1907

I was at the 'Cheshire Cheese' off Fleet Street the other day and sat in 'Dr. Johnson's seat.' I wonder of the great lexicographer turned in his grave when an American, and a reformer, thus usurpt his throne.
– Charles P.G. Scott, Columbia University professor and spelling reformer, in a letter to fellow spelling reformer T. R. Lounsbury of Yale, Sept. 12, 1908

On Roosevelt's order to change the spelling of 300 words: "...this unwise effort to hasten matters, combined with the buffoonery characteristically thrown about the matter by Roosevelt, served only to raise up enemies, and then, though it has prudently gone back to more discreet endeavors...the board has not made a great deal of progress."
– From H.L. Mencken, The American Language, 1921

In the year 1906, it looked to be a safe bet that long before 1936 rolled around every schoolboy in the United States would be exulting…in the fact that…the right way to spell tongue had at last become 't-u-n-g.'"
– From H.L. Mencken, The Dizzying Rise (and Ensuing Bust) of Simplified Spelling, The New Yorker, March 7, 1936

This is an exampl of lojical 'sound speling' -- eezy to reed, qikly lernd, simpl enuf to be acsepted and bring and end to our shoking illiterasy.
– Edward Rondthaler, in an undated pamphlet from the American Literacy Council

While I wouldn't suggest that a phonetic (link) orthography should replace the current non-system of English spelling, I think a phonemic (link one would be better in the long run. The problem of a purely phonetic system would be that people in different regions (with different pronunciations) would spell words differently. (I'm thinking of things like the collapse of the two vowels in pin and pen in some varieties of Southern US English. Another problem I see with most spelling reforms is a wish to adhere to some idiosyncrasies of English orthography rather than going with an international standards (i.e., IPA) way, e.g., the eezee speleng of the topic title. The letter e has three different values depending on whether it's doubled or not and for now apparent reason in the second word. Most people do no pronounce spelling with the same vowels in the first and second syllables. I pronounce it /'ʔizi 'spɛlɪŋ/ in careful speech.

Some other English spelling reforms (link). Sometimes I think we should go for a more difficult, arbitrary, and impractical orthography. For example, we could write in Old English, but pronounce words in Modern English.

the biggest problem is implementation: how to force all writers to adopt a different system. I think any change is likely to come slowly from the users themselves.

Not all language communities demand 100% accuracy in their writing. Sometimes I wonder if we could lighten up a bit and not demand that all spelling everywhere, all the time, conform to a no-exceptions-allowed standard.

quote:

Sometimes I wonder if we could lighten up a bit and not demand that all spelling everywhere, all the time, conform to a no-exceptions-allowed standard.

Worx 4 me.

quote:

Worx 4 me.

As you've cleverly pointed out, the x is equivalent to the ks sound. (typically; sometimes z, as in xylophone.)

But why burden keyboardists with an unneeded letter-symbol, whose sound could always be ekspressed by the other remamning 25 symbols? Why force spellers to learn which to use where? Why not eliminate that symbol?

But how? As goofy notes, "I think any change is likely to come slowly from the users themselves."

"If not now, when? If not me, who?" OK, I'll start. Who will be nekts with me to eliminate the x? to ekspunge it from our work?

X

The Latin alphabet is derived (with some intermediaries) from the Greek which, in turn, was adapted from the Phoenician. Not all languages have the same set of phonemes (sounds) and so each time there are letters left over for sounds that don't occur and oftentimes these are adapted to different sounds. X / x is a case in point. In the Latin alphabet it stood for /ks/, which cannot occur at the beginning of a word. The same sound occurs in Greek, where it was represented by Ξ / ξ. The Latin X / x probably came from Greek Χ / χ which was pronounced /x/ like the ch in German Bach or Scots loch. (Actually, it's more complicated than this. There were other alphabets in between Latin and Greek, and some of the earlier Greek alphabets used Ξ / ξ for /ks/ while others used Χ / χ for the same sound.) Anyway, the Phoenician letter X came from was probably samekh (link).

As for the pronunciation of xylophone, Greek ξυλος (ksulos) 'wood' was probably pronounced /ksülos/.

As Shu knows, I am not for it, though I do think phonetic spelling is useful in getting kids to write. Our kids used phonetic spelling at early ages and have always enjoyed writing. [Of course, it was my daughter's use of "anyways" that prompted the thread in Q&A, and that use seems to annoy a great many. ]

quote:

Originally posted by goofy:
I think any change is likely to come slowly from the users themselves.

Yes. Spelling, like grammar and the meaning of words does change with time. But some introduced easy spellings are ambiguous and confusing. Reformers sometimes forget the main purpose of language is to facilitate communication. Yet English survives.

So who said that it is an unimaginative person who can only come up with one way to spell a word? I love Twain's take on the subject, and don't forget Missann's puppy Fido. I like when we cut words down, and then pronouce them like the cut word,not the original. "spec" is short for specification, but people say "lets build this by spek". Another one I like is "queue". What make them stop at 5 letters?

I've never bought the ambiguity rationalization for spelling homonyms differently in our irregular, illogical, and annoying spelling "system". We do just fine in spoken English. It's pretty hard to confuse to, too, and two because of other factors such as context. Of course, if your sentence is something along the lines of "How do you spell /tu/?" out of the blue, then of course it could be ambiguous, but in a language with a sensible system of orthography such a question would never be uttered. Of course, there are worse systems: Mayan hieroglyphs, Egyptian hieroglyphs, Chinese hanzi, Japanese kanji cum hiragana cum katakana, Sumerian and Akkadian cuneiform.

Mark Twain said "I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way."

Conventions, such as spelling and syntactic ones, are a good thing, but languages in general have historical bits and pieces left over that just don't make sense. A purely phonetic spelling would be overkill and besides it would cause all sorts of problems because of regional variations in pronunciation. A phonemic spelling system, such as one sees in Spanish or Italian (though usually imperfect) would be a much better approach for English. I just don't see it happening any time soon.

quote:

A phonemic spelling system, such as one sees in Spanish or Italian (though usually imperfect) would be a much better approach for English.

But what would we have to argue about if that were the case?

But what would we have to argue about if that were the case?

Religion, politics, and beer.

quote:

Religion, politics, and beer.

Omitting sex and drugs from your list is an abomination. A well disciplined polemic being necessary to the security of the state, the people's right to argue about sex and drugs shall not be infringed.

Omitting sex and drugs from your list is an abomination.

Yes, sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll. Oh, and I forgot art and who invented what.

Ah, you beat me to that response, z.

I know that language evolves and all, but every so often I envy the French system where they have this big agency for the purpose of keeping the language intact. It's fun to talk about changing our spelling system, and I suppose it's fine for a few words (such as "tho"). However, it just wouldn't be English without our odd spellings. I never have been one to make changes easily, tho.

quote:

I know that language evolves and all, but every so often I envy the French system where they have this big agency for the purpose of keeping the language intact.

I suspect that this is one reason why French is steadily becoming less important and conversely, why English goes from strength to strength.

Mongrels and hybrids are usually tougher than the pure strains from which they came.

every so often I envy the French system where they have this big agency for the purpose of keeping the language intact

Yes, the French have L'Académie française (the French Academy, see link and link), but unsurprisingly French has changed since Cardinal Richelieu started it in the late 1620 to early 1630s and the language still evolves. Many of the official words for newer concepts have never really caught on, but others have. You can slow the change of language by establishing a standard, but the important thing is to have a writing system and a government behind the language. After all, as Max Weinreich said: "A language is a dialect with an army and a navy." (Though, he was repeating what somebody else had said in one of his lectures and he said it in Yiddish (link).

The good thing about a language academy is that the conventional rules (e.g., spelling, punctuation) can be set down in a usage guide by the academy, and don't have to be argued about. In the anglophone world, which lacks a single body, we have to make due with various style guides (e.g., the Chicago Manual of Style, the Oxford University Press or the Times style guides, etc). We do have a de facto standard dictionary and that is the OED.

I suspect that a language's use as a lingua franca has more to do with its political and economic importance than its dictionary, grammar, and style guide. French suffered a great blow in its use as a diplomatic language as a side effect of the Russian Revolution. The Russian Empire (and its sphere of influence) used French to communicate with those in the West. That stopped, and was slowly replaced by English as the main countries with which the Soviet Union need to communicate were the USA and the UK. Also, most of France's former colonies are rather economically and political weak, while the British Empire has some very powerful and rich former colonies: e.g., the USA, Australia, India, Canada, New Zealand.

I'm guessing that most scientific and engineering journals are published in English, and I'm curious about when that happened. 1945? Earlier?

most scientific and engineering journals are published in English

An intriguing question. English has seemingly taken the place of Latin in scientific publications. I wonder how Russian and Chinese articles break down language-wise? South and Central American?

[Addendum:

quote:

While the teaching of English in continental Europe can be traced back to the 16th century, it remained restricted until the 19th century mainly to places that traded with Great Britain, and was more common outside school in professional circles (van Essen, 1997). True competition with French and German in secondary education started in the 1880s. In certain parts of Germany the teaching of English began to take preference over that of French from the 1920s onwards. Until the second world war, English was still little taught in central and eastern Europe, where German and French were firmly established. After the war differences in trends developed between western Europe and what were then called the East European countries. In western Europe English supplanted German and French from the 1950s onwards as the first foreign language taught in the Scandinavian countries and from the 1960s in the Netherlands. It was also during this period that the teaching of English in France started clearly to outstrip that of German. The swing from French to English occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s in Spain, and a little later in Portugal and Italy. In eastern Europe the teaching of Russian became compulsory after the second world war and remained so until the end of the 1980s. At the end of the Stalinist period English was re-introduced alongside German, which as the language of the German Democratic Republic was still taught, particularly in Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia, and alongside French, which was still taught in Romania and Bulgaria. Its importance grew progressively until the end of the 1980s (Fodor and Peluau, 2001). In eastern Europe the requirement that Russian be taught was abandoned in the 1990s and languages were allowed to compete. This greatly benefited English, which began to be taught much more widely. Nevertheless, in countries like Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic it is in competition with German. In Romania English and French are both widely taught, the strong presence maintained by the latter being due to its recognised social and historical status (Truchot, 2001). Almost everywhere, English has become the first modern language taught and the proportions of pupils learning it are fast approaching those found in the European Union. Claude Truchot. Key Aspects of the Use of English in Europe, p.7, (PDF)

quote:

Scientific research is the field whose linguistic practices have been the most thoroughly studied. It has been the subject of several sociolinguistic studies (particularly Skudlik 1990, Truchot 1990, Ammon 1998 and 2001) and numerous symposia. Ibid., p.10.

• Ammon U., 1998, Ist Deutsch noch internationale Wissenschaftssprache?
  
• Ammon U., 2001, (ed.) The Dominance of English as a Language of Science.
  
• Skudlik S., 1990, Sprachen in den Wissenschaften.
  
• Truchot C., 1990, L’anglais dans le monde contemporain.
  

]

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

I've always found that interesting, too. Medical/nursing/health care journals, at least the most prestigious ones, are almost all from English-speaking countries. Now, authors from other countries, such as Japan or France, are common, but they are published in English-speaking (most often American) journals.

quote:

Now, authors from other countries, such as Japan or France, are common, but they are published in English-speaking (most often American) journals.

Do they, maybe, publish them in the journals of their own countries first?

I don't know, Richard, but I think not.