Questions about U.S. spelling

[Celyn]

Idle question about U.S. spelling. I think this does allow a factual answer, but I trust the mods will move it elsewhere if necessary, as I agree that it could also be said to be a bit mundane and pointless. It's a real question, though.

Right, I do get the idea that it's intended to be a bit more "sensible" than the British version, (which would not be difficult ) but some things about it cause me puzzlement. (Come on, people, I'm lazing on a Sunday afternoon here, so I'm allowed to indulge in some idle wondering).

What set me off on this was thinking about the "cheque/check" difference, but Og alone knows why, given that it's hard to remember when I last wrote a cheque. I suddenly wondered why reformers would stop at "check", rather than "chek" or "chec".

For example, why is what I know as a "plough" spelled as "plow", when one might reasonably argue that the spelling can lead to confusion when compared with other words such as "snow", "crow" etc? And it seems that no-one felt sufficiently moved to change spellings of "slough" and "cough" and so on. Yeah, I realise the the whole "ough" spelling and pronunciation is a whole can of worms all by itself. Or even wurmz, I suppose. However, since the "ough" thing must surely be the most egregious example of confusing spelling, why was that one not addressed, given the ghoti=fish idea? One might think that would be the place to start, before bothering about theatres and theaters and colours and colors.

Similarly, it seems that (British) "trawl" (as in fishing) is "troll", just like the mythical Scandinavian creature and like the annoying internet creature, despite the fact that they are pronounced differently. (Or perhaps they are not pronounced differently in the U.S.A., so feel free to correct me on this).

Also, there are some words that even people who ought to know better often spell wrongly. (Please read "wrongly" as "other than the generally accepted way", if "wrongly" sounds too prescriptive for your liking). For example "weird"* often appears as "wierd", even on the S.D.M.B. If reasonably literate people often get that one wrong, surely that ought to have been a candidate for simplification.

And it seems that no-one felt moved to worry about "sew" and "sow". And what about "bow" and "bow"? "Style" and "stile"? What about "word" and "worn", having the same spelling form but different pronunciation? And it now occurs to me to wonder why, if Noah Webster was so keen on spelling reform, did he not become "Noa"?

So (or sow or sew) I suppose my question is: why stop halfway? Did the spelling reformers get so far and then get bored? (Or board, even). Note that I am NOT suggesting the either the U.K. style or the U.S. style is better or worse in any way, but merely wondering why the spelling reformers started then stopped.

I would bet real money that I have managed a few strange spellings/typing mistakes of my very own in this post, but that's just Gaudere's law for you.


* on preview, yes I realise that the meaning of that word as used at present is somewhat different from its earlier meaning but let's leave that aside for now.

[ElvisL1ves]

Short version: You can attribute most of the differences to a man named Noah Webster, a crank who wrote An American Dictionary of the English Language in 1828. Early in the US's history of independence, there was a felt need to differentiate it and its history and culture from Britain's, and using an actual American dictionary in schools and elsewhere was one way to do it. Celebrating an Italian's voyages to the Caribbean as "the discovery of America" was another.

Anyway, Webster had his own idiosyncratic and inconsistent ideas about simplifying spelling, and put those into his dictionary. You've given a number of examples. Since that was the only "American" dictionary available, those spellings became standard here.

[RealityChuck]

Actually, many of the ones mentioned was due to Teddy Roosevelt, not Webster.

In any case, language isn't consistent, and the English language is more inconsistent than others. It boils down to what changes people were willing to accept, logic or not.

[foolsguinea]

Trawling & trolling are different methods of fishing. A trawler drags a net, a troller hangs a long line. Not really the same word, surprisingly.

[Chronos]

And the Internet type of troll derives from the method of fishing, not the Scandinavian monster.

[kunilou]

There has been a long tradition of efforts to "reform" spelling in the U.S. My favorite has always been Robert McCormick, publisher of the Chicago Tribune. He gave the world such contibutions as donut, thru and ameba, and changed his own name to M'Cormik.

Despite being one of the most powerful newspaper publishers of the 1930s and 40s, his efforts were met with indifference.

[dtilque]

Originally Posted by kunilou

There has been a long tradition of efforts to "reform" spelling in the U.S.

Not just in the US. The (Simplified) Spelling Society is a British organization that's been around for about a century. And despite all of its efforts, they'd be hard-pressed to point to a single simplification that they've advocated that's been adopted by the general public.

[friedo]

QFT:

Originally Posted by Mark Twain

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.

[xash]

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

Trawling & trolling are different methods of fishing. A trawler drags a net, a troller hangs a long line. Not really the same word, surprisingly.

I guess I just learnt the alternative pronunciation for troll.

[xash]

Originally Posted by friedo

Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.

I guess my head just asploded.

[Dr. Drake]

Friedo, why do you attribute that to Mark Twain?

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drake

Friedo, why do you attribute that to Mark Twain?

Probably because that's the common version. It is wrong, as you note.

the "Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling" that you attribute to Mark Twain is actually (IIRC) a few paragraphs out of a letter to *The Economist*, written by one M.J. Shields (or M.J. Yilz, by the end of the letter). The letter is quoted in full in one of Willard Espy's *Words at Play* books, as well as in other places (I believe it's in Giles Brandreth's *The Joy of Lex*).

[friedo]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

Probably because that's the common version. It is wrong, as you note.

Weird! I had always seen that attributed to Mark Twain on the intertubes. Oh well. He can't have everything.

[Chefguy]

Originally Posted by friedo

QFT: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.

He misspelled "dubble"and "delt".

[PoorYorick]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drake

Friedo, why do you attribute that to Mark Twain?

Because everything written on the Internet is eventually attributed to Mark Twain.

[CalMeacham]

Because everything written on the Internet is eventually attributed to Mark Twain.

Not true -- sometimes they're attributed to Plato.

Or Philo

[Bytegeist]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

... Webster had his own idiosyncratic and inconsistent ideas about simplifying spelling, and put those into his dictionary. ... Since that was the only "American" dictionary available, those spellings became standard here.

Webster didn't get everything he wanted though. Only some of his reforms took off. Found a couple pages on the subject here.

Originally Posted by Celyn

So (or sow or sew) I suppose my question is: why stop halfway? Did the spelling reformers get so far and then get bored? (Or board, even). Note that I am NOT suggesting the either the U.K. style or the U.S. style is better or worse in any way, but merely wondering why the spelling reformers started then stopped.

Spelling reformers have been at it a long time now, but as others here have said, it almost always goes nowhere. The reforms that did succeed in the US happened because the country was new at the time, when Webster published his dictionary, and Americans were eager for ways to distinguish themselves from the English.

[Celyn]

I suppose spelling reformers eventually gave up and thought that something like world peace might be easier to achieve.

I hadn't known that trolling and trawling were different. Ignorance fought!

[Chefguy]

Originally Posted by CalMeacham

Not true -- sometimes they're attributed to Plato.

Or Philo

Flakey pastry?

[Lust4Life]

Originally Posted by PoorYorick

Because everything written on the Internet is eventually attributed to Mark Twain.

Just as every witty comeback is attributed to Churchill.

[CalMeacham]

Flakey pastry?

No -- Philo Dough is not what philosophers get paid.

[PoorYorick]

Originally Posted by Lust4Life

Just as every witty comeback is attributed to Churchill.

And just as every patriotic diatribe is attributed to Paul Harvey.

I predict that 5000 years from now, archaeologists will determine that the Internet was written by three people.

[Floater]

Originally Posted by PoorYorick

Because everything written on the Internet is eventually attributed to Mark Twain.

Even the one about the different kinds of lies that Twain himself attributed to Disraeli.

[Martini Enfield]

Originally Posted by Floater

Even the one about the different kinds of lies that Twain himself attributed to Disraeli.

You don't even know who he is!

[Krokodil]

Originally Posted by kunilou

There has been a long tradition of efforts to "reform" spelling in the U.S. My favorite has always been Robert McCormick, publisher of the Chicago Tribune. He gave the world such contibutions as donut, thru and ameba, and changed his own name to M'Cormik.

Despite being one of the most powerful newspaper publishers of the 1930s and 40s, his efforts were met with indifference.

You're being hard on him. Every major newspaper has a style manual, and they differ from one another over minor minutiae (Kidnapper or kidnaper? Mr. or Mr? Etc). Every small newspaper picks the style manual of one of the Big Boys. As a result, there are multiple correct spellings and punctuations for quite a few words out in the wild, and M'Cormik's influence is still being felt.

[Apocalypso]

Also, over here, bad grammar/spelling becomes good grammar/spelling over time, according to principle of common usage. There aren't any "language police" except for some self appointed holdouts like Miss Manners, and about all they can do is shake their heads at the crumbling of our society. Here's an example, the word forte (as in area of expertise) is pronounced "fort". But so many people pronounce it "four-tay" that its becoming widely accepted, and now using the original pronounciation will likely get you corrected.

Another factor is that the U.S. is a huge place, and there are tons of regional linguistic oddities, usually brought over by immigrants. In some cases, they Americanize <tm> some of the language, in some cases they don't. Over time things morph and shift until almost unrecognizable from the original.

I think the inconsistency of it all is confounding to Brits because they have a much smaller land and a much longer history. You have a sense of vast history, hundreds of years of tradition to give you a background of what's "proper" to measure against. You have a recognized and accepted standard. We don't have that in the U.S., and it really is such a huge melting pot of different people, cultures, and languages that we don't have that standard from long history to draw from. It's all driven by thousands of different cultural elements, rather than a unified whole, which is why it's so inconsistent.

[DanBlather]

It's not as though American English veered off and British spelling remained than same, they both continued to change over time.

[Bytegeist]

Originally Posted by Apocalypso

I think the inconsistency of it all is confounding to Brits because they have a much smaller land and a much longer history. You have a sense of vast history, hundreds of years of tradition to give you a background of what's "proper" to measure against. You have a recognized and accepted standard.

Those Brits do have buckets and buckets of history, certainly, but British spelling was all over the place for most of that history. The first standard (that I'm aware of) that had some serious influence was Samuel Johnson's dictionary, which wasn't published until the mid 1700s.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Apocalypso

Americanize <tm>

Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you meant by using the trademark bug. "Americanize" is a perfectly ordinary word.

[hogarth]

Originally Posted by acsenray

Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering what you meant by using the trademark bug. "Americanize" is a perfectly ordinary word.

The British would spell it "Americanise".

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ise

[Thudlow Boink]

I've noticed that in many cases where the standard American and British spellings differ, the American variants are "less French" (eg. check vs. cheque, center vs. centre, colour vs. color) or "less Latin" (the British are more likely to keep the "ae"s and "oe"s that look weird to an American). Was this part of Noah Webster's intention in his spelling reform? Or simply an effect of the fact that the classic British education was more likely to involve French and Latin? From the Wikipedia link upthread,

He complained that the English language had been corrupted by the British aristocracy, which set its own standard for proper spelling and pronunciation. Webster rejected the notion that the study of Greek and Latin must precede the study of English grammar.

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

Originally Posted by Celyn

And it now occurs to me to wonder why, if Noah Webster was so keen on spelling reform, did he not become "Noa"?

I don't know, but Melville Dewey wanted to become Melvil Dui. He stopped at Melvil Dewey.

Here's Dex's article about him.