Words that should be respelt
 

The English language has a bizarre spelling system. No doubt you have sat through countless hours of spelling memorisation. You may have found the occasional word that you believed could be spelt better another way.

Here is my list:
friend - the silent i is useless, frend is more logical.
island - this word is a victim of the hypercorrectionists. The s does not belong here because the word is derived from Norse igland, not Latin insula. iland is a better spelling.
debt - another victim of the hypercorrectionists. The word is derived from Norman French dette, not Latin debitum. dett (or perhaps det) are better spellings.
answer - the w fell silent centuries ago. anser fits better.
give - the e is unnecessary, but has been there since the days when English was always written with quill pens and before U and V were separate letters. The word does not rhyme with five or dive. giv works better.
health. Drop the a and the word's spelling fits pronunciation better: helth.

What words do you believe could do with a more logical spelling?

memorization?

nite, tonite

A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling

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 themaindz 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.

though, through, tough, trough, thought, naught,

conceive, their, weight, height, sleigh

I like your post Happy Monkey!

This gets into the whole issue of evolving language, dialect, and "proper" usage, which can be a very, very hot topic. Witness the acrimonious debates over the usage of Jive or Black Vernacular, or text message speak in schools. Or the microdebate with my friends over the use of "gauge" as a verb to stretch piercings ("Gauge is not a verb!" they cry).

I personally take a moderate stance on most things. Language does evolve, English faster and more richly than most, both historically and currently. As the piece from Mark Twain highlights, rapid and extreme changes can make such a complex language difficult to understand. A common sense approach toward evolving forms, without taking it to extremes, is best in my view.

Goodnite.

:)

From here

respelt

I live in a country where -ise- spellings are standard. -ize- spellings, although more phonetically accurate, are not the norm here.

Besides, "memorization" is not a good spelling either: what about that -tion suffix? Why can't this be spelt as -shun? Then it could be spelt "memorizashun".

I like to able to see a word's origins.....even when the origins have been played with (like with debt), they tell a story.

Words are words are words, made up of letters in assorted combinations. "Simplifying" spelling would be another instance of the dumbing down of America.

Words are art...leave them alone! ;)

...but think of how much faster we'll be able to communicate when we make changes like:

"To/too" should become "2"
"Your"..."ur"
"are"..."r"
etc

Just think of what it would be like to read an entire book written this way.

In the word debt, the b was inserted erroneously by the hypercorrectionists. It has no business being there because the word was derived from Norman French dette. If the spelling of this word reflected its origins accurately, it would be spelt dett like it used to be before the hypercorrectionists did their damage.

A similar case can be made for island as discussed above.

The only story that words should tell is pronunciation. I would rather put the origins of a word in the dictionary and correct pronunciation on the page, rather than the illogical current practice of putting the origins of words on the page and correct pronunciation in a dictionary.
If English words were art, they would be classified as belonging to the Rococo period. This is apt because the first dictionaries for English were written during the Rococo period.

This has nothing to do with the alleged "dumbing down" of America. English is spoken in many countries all over the world.

English-speaking students who learn Spanish, Italian, Finnish or several other languages can achieve a greater spelling proficiency in those languages after a year of instruction than they had in English after six years or more. Native speakers of such languages can spell any word reliably after less than two years of instruction. Does that mean their languages have been "dumbed down"? Or is that because such languages have an orthography that is easy to learn?

No, I disagree with that, sorry. Orthography often carries clues to the word's meaning, both overt and the subtle connotations associated with the word. This is useful for the reader and for the writer.

Further, pronunciation changes over time, and a word's spelling shouldn't necessarily have to change every time a language shifts.

Exactly my point. The journey that word has gone on tells a story. It tells us of the sensibilities and aspirations of those people who changed the word to \make it more latinate. By attempting to 'correct' the spellings, you take the place of the 'hypercorrectionists' you seek to displace.