No, no, no

[karohemd]

and no.

I'm all up for simplifying spelling (good examples of spelling reforms: Norwegian, Danish and Dutch, bad example: German) but allowing variations only leads to even more confusion.

Comments

[echo-echo.livejournal.com]

But without those changes language would never evolve. Whether that is a good or a bad thing, who knows. Shakespeare for example, was notoriously variable in his spelling and prone to inventing words, yet who would argue that English as a language is not richer for it?

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

As I said, I'm all for spelling reform which allows for evolution. Allowing multiple variants makes it incredibly difficult to learn how to spell properly because it becomes a mess.

What English needs is unambiguous spellings for the various sounds. For example, in a written text, there is no indication why "read" in "I can read" and "Last night I read a book" should be pronounced differently. Native speakers hear and speak their language first before they can read or write so spelling should really be based on phonetics.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

unambiguous spellings for the various sounds

I'm not sure that's really possible though, because the various sounds vary between different regional Englishes... so words that are prnounced the same in one dialect may be different in another

Unless you want to privilege one dialect above all others (like they did [I think] when they codified Italian), which I don't think would be politically do-able.

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

*nods* Regional variations are obviously a problem but you need a common denominator.
English is a bit of a bottomless barrel in that regard and a proper reform will be almost impossible.

However, the point of my post was that you shouldn't introduce more variation than there already is.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

Sure, I absolutely agree with that, it could only make things worse!

[mr-malk.livejournal.com]

spelling should really be based on phonetics

Sorry, but no it shouldn't. The idea that it should is the root of a lot of misconceptions about language, espcially the English language. The fact that written English is mostly phonetic obscures the fact that written and spoken forms of the language evolved separately, and with different influences on each. Also, it would in no way make the language more accessible or less ambiguous. For every example you could give that would benefit from strict phonetics, there will be another one or more examples of additional problems being created. Right, write, rite and wright being spelt the same would help no one!

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

From a purely linguistic point of view, I agree entirely. Eliminating spelling variations eliminates etymology but that's not the issue here. We're talking about finding away to make spelling as easy as possible and that - in theory - only works if you can come up with clear-cut und unique rules for how sounds are reproduced in text.
Unfortunately, English is basically unsuitable for this, your example of "Right, write, rite and wright" is a very good one. It also supports my argument (and the point of this post) that you should avoid introducing even more variations.

[mr-malk.livejournal.com]

Yes, I agree entirely with your central point, i.e. the reason you made the initial post, I suspect that anyone who knows me could have confidently predicted that I would! As for phonetic spelling, I concur, English is basically unsuitable for it (which doesn't stop some well-meaning but (IMO) misguided people from advocating it, as in this case.

To my mind, people who think like that should go and learn Esperanto, and leave real languages to people that can cope with them!

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

Harsh, but fair. :o)

[slev.livejournal.com]

At the minute though, we have no standard system of spelling, only a large list of standard spellings with no rhyme or reason.

This is why, as a dyslexic, I had such trouble learning to spell - I was looking for a system where none exists.

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

However, that is an argument for spelling reform rather than for allowing multiple spellings for the same word.

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

Exactly.

[thepussykat.livejournal.com]

Interesting, surely if we adopted spelling simplifications along those lines we'd just be writing in American rather than English?

(Sweeping generalisation I know but...)

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

Not at all. American English has most of the same amibiguities as British English (e.g. weird, to take an example from the article), it just drops a few letters that aren't pronounced and changes a few pronunciations.
See my reply to echo_echo for what a spelling reform needs to do.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

That was certainly Noah Wesbter's idea when drawing up his dictionary, and most of his spelling reforms / simplifications do seem to have stuck in US English.

[dreamsewing.livejournal.com]

I agree. English being the most hodge-podge irregular language in the world, it does NOT need more "varients" in existing words than it has already.
Trying to explain "right,wright,write,rite" ( which comes up a lot when trying to leave notes for my foreign local help) usually gets the reponse; " but why don't you have different words for these things" . * snort* yeah. It's really a mad language.