Spelling is ruining the English language

[dar512]

If you really want to know more about why English has such inconsistent spelling, you should read: The Mother Tongue: English and How it Got That Way by Bill Bryson. Though it sounds dry reading, it's actually quite fun to read.

The short version is that "English is the result of Norman soldiers attempting to pick up Anglo-Saxon barmaids, and is no more legitimate than any of the other results."
— H. Beam Piper

[Phage0070]

Originally Posted by Mark Twain

A plan for the improvement of spelling in the English language:

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.

Generally, 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 rimeiniing 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" rispektivili.

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

Sure English, especially American English, is rife with idiosyncrasies and odd constructions which must be memorized rather than following set rules. This is an unavoidable result of the natural growth of language; words and phrases are added naturally and without design rather than being formally inserted into the lexicon.

If we wanted a language to be internally consistent then we would need to design one from the ground up. Not only would this new language be off to a poor start since nobody would be proficient in it, but if they finally did then it would be corrupted the first time a new idea or concept arose. A new word or phrase would become recognized among the population and it would not necessarily follow the rules of the language, but it would need to first become popular in order to warrant formal and proper entrance into the language. It is a Catch 22, in order to drive home the point with the point itself. The only way to prevent this issue would be to completely block the entrance of unplanned concepts or ideas, something which is both undesirable and wildly impractical.

I hate rote memorization just as much as the next person, but I have to admit that it is a huge part of what goes on in our daily lives. Luckily I had the opportunity to avoid learning grammar and sentence structure by paying attention in class... I simply read lots of books and "learned through experience."

[Kingswood]

Originally Posted by dar512

If you really want to know more about why English has such inconsistent spelling, you should read: The Mother Tongue: English and How it Got That Way by Bill Bryson. Though it sounds dry reading, it's actually quite fun to read.

The short version is that "English is the result of Norman soldiers attempting to pick up Anglo-Saxon barmaids, and is no more legitimate than any of the other results."
— H. Beam Piper

Thanks for the book recommendation. I will try to find a copy. How much coverage does the book give to the late Middle English period, especially the Great Vowel Shift and the Chancery Standard?

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by Kingswood

...How much coverage does the book give to...the Great Vowel Shift and the Chancery Standard?

Well, this tears it.

I crown you of the Geeks. Wear it loud, wear it proud, you nerd.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by Kingswood

Thanks for the book recommendation. I will try to find a copy. How much coverage does the book give to the late Middle English period, especially the Great Vowel Shift and the Chancery Standard?

It's written for the layperson, so probably not a lot. It's been years since I read it in its entirety. Hence the "probably".

[dar512]

Originally Posted by Kingswood

Thanks for the book recommendation. I will try to find a copy. How much coverage does the book give to the late Middle English period, especially the Great Vowel Shift and the Chancery Standard?

Ok, I just checked. Middle English as a whole gets about 45 pages. It does cover the great vowel shift which gets four pages. I don't see "Chancery Standard" in the index. But as I said this is book for general consumption, so it may just not be mentioned by name.

[Kingswood]

Originally Posted by dar512

Middle English as a whole gets about 45 pages. It does cover the great vowel shift which gets four pages. I don't see "Chancery Standard" in the index. But as I said this is book for general consumption, so it may just not be mentioned by name.

The Chancery Standard was a language reform that was introduced during the reign of King Henry V in the early 15th century to provide a standardized language for use across all of England by the bureaucracy (called the chancery). When it was introduced, English had several dialect forms and it was sometimes difficult for someone who spoke one dialect to read something written in another. The Chancery Standard was mainly based on the London and East Midland dialects but sometimes used other dialect forms.

One of the most noticeable features of the Chancery Standard that still persists today are the third person pronouns they, them and their. Before the Chancery Standard, the usual form of these pronouns in London English was he, hem and hir. As these could be confused with singular pronouns, the dialect forms from the North of England (where the dialect was heavily influence by Norse immigrants) were selected for the Chancery Standard to clarify written communication.