amh (08/03/82)
New York Times had an editorial today on spelling reform mentioning an organization pushing for spelling reform. They are starting from a corporate level as opposed to approaching literary types as has been the traditional approach. The Times argues however, and I agree which is why I am posting this, that attempts at spelling reform are doomed to fail due to some nature of language. They also argue however that language is ever evolving, and that it is a force like that of Adam Smith's invisible hand guiding the market place that guides our language reform. Any responces? Aldon Hynes BTL Pisc. ...!pyuxjj!pyuxcc!amh
rvpalliende (08/04/82)
Spelling has to do with culture, not with language. In languages whose spelling is clearly related to the pronunciation spelling must be changed every 100 years or so, and foreign words must be respelled, and everyone feels that that is the correct thing to do. In English, on the other hand, spelling has for so long being different from pronunciation, that any reform that renders the spelling phonetic would change almost all existing words. There are at least two solution for the problem: a) Laissez-faire, ie, don't worry if people "misspell" a word. Suppress the word "misspell" from the vocabulary, and let evriwun spel the weigh they feel, eeven if thai ar inconsistont. b) Introduce small changes in spelling (cut the dog's tail in small amounts, as some opposers to this idea say) Examples: change "our" for "or", in colour, behaviour. (I live in Canada) change "re" for "er", in theatre, centre, etc. change "ise" for "ize", in civilise, organise, (surprise?) Suppress useless endings, as "me" in programme, or "ue" in dialogue. Suppress mute letters, as the "o" in "oecology". Suppress mute "e" when it serves no purpose as in judgement. If all those changes (and others) were implemented (every 10 years or so), but letting people to use the older spellings if they wish, I think that English would be able to have a reasonable spelling in 100 or 200 more years. By the way, it has been said that the extra money spent in teaching children how to spell English (as compared with a phonetic alphabet) is around 10^9 dollars per year. As a special deference to people who don't want a spelling reform I refrained from using the spelling "ov" in all this article so that their eyes aren't offended. Anyway, I will continue to spell "ov", in the belief that it's better to cut the dog's tail in many steps, and that spelling reform is both desirable and attainable. Pablo Alliende, University of Waterloo
mmp (08/05/82)
#R:pyuxcc:-33400:harpo:17900003:000:242 harpo!mmp Aug 5 11:56:00 1982 It's also interesting to note that the spelling "of" was never used in rvpalliende's article either. Personally, I think it's impolite for a foreigner to ridicule the (correct) spelling of the natives. Michelle Peetz BTL Whippany
swatt (08/05/82)
It's interesting to note the current interest in "spelling
reform". About 70 years ago, it was also the rage. Progressive
educators strove mightily to introduce it. Reed College first
opened it's doors in 1911 under President William Trufaunt Foster
(I may be spelling his middle name wrong, but to honor his
memory, you can think of it as "Wilyam Trufont Fostur" and have
the pronunciation right).
Anyway, among his collection of zeals was a passion for what was
then known as "efficiency spelling", which was an attempt not
only to introduce phonetic regularity to English (as used by
Americans, of course), but also to reduce the number of letters
in words by eliminating all the unsounded ones. This was going
on before WWI, so it wasn't just motivated by a paper shortage,
but I suppose printing costs were used as one of the arguments to
support the idea. He had all the courses emphasise it, had the
official college publications use it, and even induced the
nominally student-run newspaper to adopt it.
Reading through (thru) early volumes of the Reed College Quest
("Kwest", I suppose) is really quite an experience. One wonders
what the printers must have thought. Some of the highlights
(hilites) are:
through thru (even the Chicago Tribune uses this)
are ar
were wer
thought thot ("I thot I thow a putty tat?")
believe beleave
William did not just dream all this up of course -- it was a
general movement of his day. All of this has disappeared without
a ripple (ripul?), even around Reed College, unless you go up to
the College archives or talk to Dorthy Jo.
I conclude (konklud?) from all this that spelling reform, no
matter how many "rational" reasons for it, will fail before the
inertia of long practice by a whole society. Variant spellings,
like variant meanings, are codified when some "misusage" is
adopted by enough people to qualify it as acceptable. There are,
for example, typewriter keyboard designs with letter placement
such that the "average" typist can type typical english 50%
faster; they haven't been generally accepted.
Presdent Foster? well if he'd been a better manager of college
finances, perhaps it would be "Reed Kolege, wer al the wimen ar
strong, and al the men ar good looking, and al the dogs ar out
scaring the hell the kolege loyer". reed (08/13/82)
Really now! I'll wait for Webster's to tell me that "ov" has replaced "of" when I write. I'll even take "The Editorial Eye's" word for it. Pablo Alliende ( ...!watmath!rvpalliende), and others, will just have to wait. David Reed, Former Editor, UTCS COMPUTERNEWS