Messing around
Linguist Mario Pei once described English spelling as “the world’s most awesome mess.”
Without a doubt, English spelling is quirky. (See this video from a previous column about why colonel is spelled the way it is and this one about the spelling of words like knifeand knight.)
Yet, in my experience, when you propose any significant reform to English spelling, people resist. English spelling might be a mess, but it’s our mess. We’ve spent many years in school grappling with it and, perhaps, conquering it. And we’re kind of fond of it.For example, how do you feel about cigaret? Or wuz? Or nemonia?
Modern attempts at systematic spelling reform go back to at least the 16th century, when a British grammarian named William Bullokar made the case for a new spelling system that used doubled letters and diacritics over vowels to clarify things. He even wrote A Bref Grammar of English(1586) using this new system, and I can tell you that it is very slow reading!
Just consider these few examples: genderz of a nown, hau, litl, whoo, som tym, and az.
Independence day
Benjamin Franklin (Image: Joseph-Siffrein Duplessis)
In the U.S., Benjamin Franklin had his own concerns about English spelling. He worried that in the long run, the spelling of English words would lose all correspondence with the pronunciation.
Franklin found an ally in Noah Webster, who shared an interest in promoting logical spellings, as well as developing an American spelling system that would help establish the independence of American English from British English.
In fact, many of the spelling differences between British and American English can be traced back to the reformed spellings in Webster’s 1828 dictionary. For example:
- or rather than –our (honor, color)
- er rather than –re (theater, center)
- ense rather than –ence (defense, offense)
But I don’t want to paint too rosy a picture. Not all of Webster’s reforms were successful. He wanted porpoisesspelled porpesses,and he proposed dropping the final –efrom determineand medicine.
Tenacious “e”
Noah Webster (Image: James Herring)
Since Webster’s day, there have continued to be efforts to reform English spelling. In the late 19th century, for instance, the American Philological Reform Association produced lists of new spellings that should be adopted, including: ar, giv, hav, infinit, definit, tho, and wisht.
As you can see, the silent final –eoften has been a target of reform proposals, and yet it tenaciously remains a staple in modern English spelling.
Here is the fundamental question I would ask: Do we really want reform?
For all the complaints out there about the chaos of English spelling, we are quite attached to its idiosyncrasies. We are used to how words look on a page and can find it disconcerting to see them spelled otherwise … Surpriz! And certainly spelling bees would lose much of their interest.
History speaks
On a more serious note, with systematic spelling reform we would lose the historical ties between some related words, which over time have come to be pronounced differently (e.g., south/southern, Christ/Christmas, holy/holiday).
As a historian of the language, I would be sorry to lose the museum of older pronunciations that remain in some English spellings (e.g., gnatreally did used to have an initial “g” sound). Serious discourse on this topic also raises the question of whose pronunciation would set the foundation of reform — my pronunciation of route, roof, and aunt, or yours?
In the end, I think our professed desire to meddle in English spelling is more talk than actual desire for action. It is worth noting, too, that a few spellings are changing right under our noses without a lot of meddling. For instance, donutdoesn’t look funny at all today, nor does catalogor lite.
And perhaps tho,already healthy in the world of social media, eventually will sneak its way, thru the nite, into more formal writing.
Alan Headbloom - 1980
While most languages don’t lend themselves to spelling bees (because of their sound/letter consistency), one other language seems to qualify, Tibetan: http://wapo.st/1H5mJCR.
Reply
Dan Kurkowski - 1973
I loves me some Anne readin.
Reply
dan linkie - 1971
Always an enjoyable read. Thanks.
As to word usage, I am “bummed” when in my reading of popular literature (novels, etc.) author’s use the word adrenalin as if they understand what adrenalin actually is! Seems adrenalin has joined the ranks of “conventional wisdom.”
Reply
Richard Dowling - 78
My kids have been telling me I’m old but I didn’t realize how old until I read this article. I am forever spelling words with “-re” instead of “-er” and “-ence “ instead of “-ense”. I didn’t realize I was a contemporary of Franklin. I guess I’m a bit slow at the uptake. Maybe the new system will work better for me. ty gtg (a lot less vowels to deal with)
Reply
Daniel Davis - UMD faculty
ɵæŋks, ᴁn. ɑɪ læft ɑʊt lɑʊd æt təneɪʃəs “i”.
Reply
Kyle Williams - 1988, 1990
Ann: Yur the only person hoo cood make an enjineer wish he wuz an inglish majer!
Reply
Stan Skavery - 1986
Spelling rules apply for some words while others defy a rational explanation. Perhaps the onset of text codes is the future for our spelling quandary? Texting is simplistic, fast and easier to discern for many who rely upon cell phones. Factor in the elimination of teaching cursive writing in many school curriculums and we just threw a bean ball at our children. Yikes!
Reply
Jack Rollins - '64
As Professor Curzan knows well, spelling is doubtless one of the more ephemeral issues in language. For example, when and why did complex language in man occur? What was it that caused the then current form of communication to become inadequate for a certain group of our ancestors? Did their cranial cavities enlarge to accommodate the decoding of all these symbols? Then there’s the assumption that everyone has an equal opportunity to draw upon some trésor public of language when in fact books like the OED have, between many covers, everything one needs to be at the top of the hierarchical social ladder: etymology, pronunciation, spelling, vulgar variants of all of the preceding. All become discriminatory components of homo sapiens. And these imagined communities make it a point to mark themselves off from others. I wish that this Curzan page could become interactive, which would occasion some real dialogue with the professor, but alas, that would mean that she’d have to make healthy answers to swells of people. I’m sure that she has enough to do; however, reading encomia all day, well maybe in some moderation, is itself a form of understanding.
Reply
Anne Wolfe - 1980
To those that love language, “spelling reform” would be a disaster. The spelling of a word gives its history. It shows where the root of the word came from, what language, and what its root meaning was, quite often. It is a clue to how old it is, and how it came to be. To one who has never seen the word before, one can discern the meaning and use of the word from its spelling as well as context.
Not only that, but we have rules of pronunciation that are not all that simple. Should “out” be spelled “owt”? If “oat” were spelled “ot” how would you spell “ought”? We all might have our own ideas as to how to simplify words, and agreeing on them would work havoc on people.
However, my reason number one is to me sufficient to keep things as they are. If younger people do not want to deal with complexities, they should have been born in the Stone Age. And we should be teaching them to think for themselves, and to be literate, not teaching them to tests, or teaching them that computers are the end all. Ever look at an eighth grade reader from the mid-eighteen hundreds? Higher expectations for comprehension were placed on eighth graders back then. Why is that?
Reply
Robert Selwa - 1984
Some reform with spelling in the English language definitely would help. However, too many purely cosmetic changes without understanding the roots and history of the words themselves could destroy the sacredness of the word and further erode the effectiveness of communication. A true understanding of our vowels and consonants is necessary before we start making widespread changes. Otherwise, the changes might end up making less sense than what we already have.
Reply
Margaret Ahlness - 1956
When did the verb “grow” replace the word “increase” in relation to inanimate objects? I refer to sentences such as “We must grow more housing units to meet population needs.”
The decrease in teaching of spelling is accentuated by the increase in the use of texting. What happens when they can’t recharge their batteries?
Reply
Matthew Brown - 1994
I just watched all 26 of Anne’s informative and often funny lessons. I am relieved that I am not the only person struggling with the meaning of “bimonthly”. I am looking forward to many more short lessons. I dare not write “a lot more short lessons”, because my Composition teacher literally beat into me that “a lot” is a piece of land. I often lol when I picture the resulting scenes from the word “literally” being used figuratively. Hopefully, a future lesson will cover the evolving usage of the word “momentarily”, unless I am the only person considering the consequences of my flight actually “landing momentarily”. Now I’m off to take care of those suitcases which lay in the corner still unpacked.
Reply
Sally Oey - Faculty
I agree that keeping spelling rigid is fun for etymology, but having done some literacy tutoring, I suspect that failure to standardize spelling is probably a significant contributor to low literacy rates in the US. English spelling is a nightmare for people with reading disabilities.
Reply