Dyslexics untie! Spelling reform movment

Factual Questions
1

Dyslexics untie! Spelling reform movment
What do you think of spelling reform? Should changes be made to the English language to make it easier to write and read. How far should it go? Should redundant letters be removed in words like ‘accommodate’ and ‘tomorrow’ and get rid of the ‘c’ in in circus and spell it ‘sirkus’?

Actually, I’m all for it but don’t like a lot of the reforms proposed, like taking the ‘e’ out of ‘the’ and making it ‘th’ …th alone looks weird and seems like going to far.

There are good arguments for making English spelling more phonetic like: it takes children at least three more years to master reading and writing in English than it takes in other languages like Italian and Finnish, which are more phonetically logical.

Finnish seems to be a good example of a language where in the spelling is very logical and phonetic and linguists say Finnish children learn to read 5 years earlier on average than English children because its so much easier. Maybe English spelling could be changed to use the Finnish alphabet and follow Finnish rules? Archive blogs

Here are some articles written on spelling reform that make a good argument.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/min...glish-spelling

http://www.valerieyule.com.au/ssurplu.htm

Also, there is a society you can join for English spelling reform here, http://www.spellingsociety.org It was founded in 1908 and Unfortunately it has a long history of failing to make any head way in changing the spelling of the English language.

So, what are your thoughts on spelling reform?

2

Who are you going to get to enforce this reform?

3

English spelling definitely needs to be reformed. Thusly, I propose this plan:

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!
[Credit to Mark Twain…maybe.]

4

Don’t be so effing lazy, learn to spell.

5

I don’t think its a lazy thing for me, it’s more a matter of what is logic and efficient. For me it would lazier to just stick with what I already know about spelling, and sick with the current spelling rules which I already know than to switch to a whole new system. So switching to a new system of spelling isn’t the lazy thing to do.

6

Read some of the links I posted before you respond, stop being lazy and close minded :slight_smile:

7

Here is a proposal for making English more like Finnish— Finglish.

8

It would have to take place slowly overtime. I imagine some large Universities would have to embrace it. Changes would have to be added to the dictionary as the definitive spellings every few years.

Or, someone would have to start a cult, and write books like Harry Potter using the new reformed English spelling style to make it trendy. Once it became trendy and swept the internet, facebook, twitter, iPhones could put auto correct settings onto all software that automatically turned any old fashioned English words into new reformed English spellings.

9

Interesting to also note: there have already been spelling reforms that people have embraced, no reason why there could not be more changes systematically introduced over time. http://www.valerieyule.com.au/ssurplu.htm

10

i komplytlee agree dis iz a grayt eydya da inglish speleng shud bee simpul an wit now punk tuwayshun an dows ar miy tots on da kweshtun her

11

That’s not “reform”, that’s how languages evolve naturally over time. What you’re proposing is to artificially change the language and insist that people adhere to it out of some devotion to “logic”, rather than allowing the way people use language to define how it’s “supposed” to be used.

12

Whose accent/dialect are you going to define as the phonetic standard for English?

13

Good question! If it were solely up to me, I would chose Morgan Freeman’s accent to define the phonetic standard, but I am sure there would be a committee of some sort that would have to approve that.

14

Those changes did not take place naturally over time, Noah Webster of Webser’s dictionary made an executive decision to change the words from the British spelling and simplify it. If he didn’t change the spelling we would all be spelling center as centre. The spellings of words did not evolved naturally on their own.

To answer to the second half of your statement.

Why shouldn’t people be devoted to logic if it will be: more efficient, make sense, save time, save paper etc… Also, people who are using language currently are never going to be able to define how language is supposed to be used— We don’t all get to pick how we spell words. Students will get marked down if spell “accommodation” as “acomodation”.

If people wait for it to evolve naturally over time it will never happen.

15

It took me ages to figure out what you said because of the space in “punk tuwayshun”, but finally figured out it was “punktuwayshun”. And I really like that spelling for “punctuation”. But I wouldn’t want to make such extreme changes in other words, for instance I would still spell ‘dis’ as ‘this’.

But thanks for embracing the idea, you’re the only one for it so far. Unless you were being sarcastic?

16

That makes no sense: the phonetics of Finnish are very different from those of English. English has a lot more sounds, so if you want direct phonetic correspondence you’d need a lot more symbols (44 phonemes, my ass, specially with the current tendency to try and keep the original pronunciation of words absorbed from other languages). You’d need to look at something along the lines of teaching everybody to spell in IPA.

17

Creating Finglish may not be the answer, its just an idea.

But, maybe ideas from the way the Finnish alphabet works phonetically could be used to make the English alphabet work better phonetically.

And maybe it really would be better to adopt the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), that might be easier than using the current alphabet which makes no sense.

Maybe adding just three or four new letters to the English alphabet would make all the difference. Diacritic marks could be added to the vowels. What if the long ‘e’ in the word ‘feet’ was spelled with a macron over the ‘e’ to show it was a long ‘e’ so it would be ‘fet’ only with a macron over the ‘e’.
So words that rhyme, like feet, complete, and beat would at least be spelled consistently.

18

Or maybe just spell feet, complete, and beat — fete, complete, and bete
or feet, compleet, beet. Just choose a consistent way of spelling and apply to all words that rhyme.

19

You are too late. The EU, led by Frau Merkel, has awlreddy announced the following:

20

Bob++ that’s hilarious :slight_smile:

I really would love it if photograph where spelt fotograf.