Spelling Reform
Language Log: More on Spelling Reform
I’ve been meaning to get around to this for a while, but on reading Bill Poser’s take on spelling reform, I think that the objection that Via de Argilla raises that historical spelling (or at any rate a not-completely-phonetic spelling) alleviates regional variation is more potent than Poser allows.
Take, for instance Language Log’s discussion of NEW-clee-er vs. NEW-cue-ler
While a reformed English spelling might very well get away with eliminating kn, which nobody pronounces with the k anymore except to be funny1, I think that if a completely phonetic spelling system were pushed through there would be genuine problems of the newcleeer/newcueler variety. One variant would be pushed out, and suddenly it’s just another non-phonetic system.
I’m not sure that care in creating the writing system will really solve these problems.
- and that hearkens back to the objection that Bill Poser mentioned before that those who learn after the reform will have difficulty reading older writing unless it’s reprinted for them. Do we really want to create a world where nobody has any idea why the French night taunting Arthur and his companions pronounces the word with both k and g sounds? I say thee nay. ↩
October 29th, 2004 at 6:46 pm
Welcome back. It’s been a while since you posted regularly. Anyhow I wrote about spelling reform back in July and the comments section is pretty interesting as well. one and two
November 1st, 2004 at 4:56 am
Thanks, it’s good to be back.
And I agree with you about the impracticality, plus I really wonder about those who blithely assert that so much time and effort teaching would be saved if English spelling were simpler…does anyone know of any real evidence that this is the case? Do countries that have languages with more regular spelling shave a couple years off the average age when children learn to read?