Warning: Simplified (and smarter) spelling ahed! — Would one expect anything less in a writ about spelling?
In the forward to Pygmalion, George Bernard Shaw writes:
The English have no respect for their language, and will not teach their children to speak it. They cannot spell it because they have nothing to spell it with but an old foreign alphabet of which only the consonants – and not all of them – have any agreed speech value. Consequently no man can teach himself what it should sound like from reading it … Most European languages are now accessible in black and white to foreigners: English and French are not thus accessible even to Englishmen and Frenchmen.
When I say stupid spelling, I’m not talking about the way some kids write for fun by mixing big and small stafs (or staves) and often along with fonetic spelling: dA PhAt gUrL hAz pUrtY Eyz. That’s stupid writing, not stupid spelling.
Truthfully tho, the spelling itself (da phat gurl haz purty eyz) is less stupid than:
Though the rough cough and hiccough plough me through,
O'er life's dark lough I ought my way pursue.
— 1842, Horace Mann, first Commissioner of Education of Massachusetts / He publisht this to show the problems of spellings the -ough sounds in English.
It hasn’t been until the last few years that my interest in spelling reform has truly kickt into high gear. Aside from being a bit of a rebel and always noting tho, altho, thru, and thoro thru high school (thru undergraduate, graduate, the military, law enforcement, and corporate worlds), I’v mostly stuck to conventional spelling of words even if they didn’t make much wit (sense). I shruggd my shoulders and kept going. I simply didn’t want to waste the time to do battle over spelling other than handing them my pocket wordbook that listed altho, tho, thru, and thoro … and stedfast.
I’v always been a good speller but many spellings hav always irkt me. They didn’t make any wit at all. I hav workt with smart folks with high degrees who hav had a hard time with spelling. In the fore-spellcheck, mainframe days, I spent a lot of time righting the spelling of my bosses and coworkers. That was time that could hav been spent doing other, more productiv things. They were not dumb nor illiterate nor unlern'd folks, they only hadn’t wasted their time to lern (from Middle English [ME] lernen) the stupid spellings. I’v known geniuses in Mensa that couldn’t spell … Why? … Forwhy English spelling not only isn’t wit-crafty (logical) but it’s not steddy (consistent) either!
English spelling is NOT a token of intelligence or literacy but only a token of a willingness to waste time that could be better spent lerning sumthing more fremful (effectiv, useful) than archaic stupid spellings.
One would think that if so many folks hav problems then spelling would change … but it doesn’t. Or rather, it does so slower than a snail’s pace.
So what chanj'd for me? Well, I hav more time on my hands these days. I’v been reading a bunch of old books. I’v even gone back to Middel (OE middel) and Old English writs. What hav I found? Well, I found a lot of other spellings and a lot of them make more wit than what we do now. It’s a true wunder (OE wundor/wunder) that English has pickt up sum truly odd spellings along the way … and mor of a wunder that we’v stuck with them!
I gess (ME gessen) we shouldn’t be too amaz'd since one of the most screwd up spelling ways (orthographies) in the world is that of French and French has had more sway on English than any other tung (OE tung/tunge). Indeed, the French rooted spelling of colour (Old French colour, from Latin color) has become a point of honour by many Brits.
Not only that, but we seem to be going backwards. Dialog (without -ue) until the year 2000 dominated. But in the 2000, it droppt off and the ugly dialogue shot up. Why? I don’t know. I can only gess that a lot of editors and publishers suddenly went back to the old, stupid spelling.
The other thing is that I tutor a lot of ESL (English as a Second Language) students. I’v had to try to tell them how to deal with English spelling which is tuff enuff for English speakers! I often end up writing words out in a more fonetic way for them and often afterwards wunder why we don’t spell the words that way insted. English is the tung of the world for many reasons but easy writing is not one of them! I’v spoken with many outlanders who, while finding English grammar to be rather easy, are dumbfounded and unharten'd when trying to read and write in English.
I feel their pain. Many years ago I stoppt studying French for that selfsame reason. I went on to lern Russian, German, and Spanish well enuff to be conversant in them but French … blah. Sadly for English, it was the Norman-French who took over the land of the Anglo-Saxons and their scribes began writing Saxon words with French spelling ways which brought about the screwing up English spelling too!
For a background of how we got here, read this.
Why do we do it? — Snobbery
So why do we hang on to unfonetic spellings hwen (OE hwænne), in the bygone days, they were spelt more fonetically? Snobbery. It’s a kind of elite speak or rather, elite write. That’s hwat (OE hwæt) it comes down to. For many, it is fear of ridicule by these snobs. They fear being thought of as illiterate or too lazy to lern and write the stupid spelling.
Kenseek (research) into the social aspects of linguistics givs us more background. One is that hard spelling splits the lernd n leisurely from the rest of society. In other words, it makes sum folks feel abuv others after they hav wasted a lot of time to lern unfonetic spellings. And since they hav wasted their time, then they think the everyone should acknowledg this wastefulness.
Don't believ me? Here is a May, 2014 qwote from a blog from on which somone nam'd Luna writes in opposition to spelling reform:
One of my reason for opposition is that it would make those who knew the previous, appropriate spellings feel uneducated and or lazy. Yes, it does take a long time to master English, but that mastery sets people apart: it can raise people from the slums or lower them to trash. (Emphasis mine.)
So, according to Luna, if you hav trubbel with English spelling, you must be trashy, unlernd, and/or downright lazy! He wants to you to acknowledg HIS wastefulness hwile (OE hwīl) he looks down his nose at you!
This snobbiness isn’t held to English. Read about the Korean writing way call'd Hangul. Before the taking up Hangul, the Koreans wrote with the Chinese Hanja. It took a lot of time to lern and only the elite/upper class could read and write. They likely wanted to keep it that way since they naysaid any new, simpler way of writing … just like som folks today look down on writing with cleaner and smarter spellings. They then deem anybody who wants to make English spelling better as being lazy.
Another problem is the rize (Spencer writes rize in the Faerie Queene) of the doctrin of correctness in usage (see the Sumner qwote below), hwich (OE hwilc) involves elitism, class snobbishness, and authoritarian teaching. Again, it is the same ol' story. “By God I lernt it this way and so can yu!” It must be the student’s fault that he has trubbel lerning such a kaotic way of writing.
Hwy (OE hwī, hwy) chanje?
There are 561 spellings in an abridged dictionary for the 40 common sounds of English, or about 14 per sound. If we take only the 10,000 most common words, as found in a sample of 100,000, there are still 361 different spellings, or 9 per sound. … In an abridged dictionary there are 43 spellings for "schwa". (Dewey, 971; 8, 110-1)
This snobbery comes at a cost. Over 40 years ago, back in the 70s, it was reckon'd that the MINDOM (minimum) cost was $1 for each one of us … man, woman, and child …, per year for school tax funds that was the straightforward cost of keeping archaic spelling in our schools. That’s a lot of money that could be spent on teaching sumthin' more fremful like math or science.
Further back in 1925, a study likend the reading ability of Puerto Rican children lerning to read in Spanish, a fairly fonetically written tung, with New York City children lerning to read in English. Puerto Rican children were about a year ahed in the content of their reading than English speaking American children! Hence one observer (Wijk, 1969; 55-6) notes:
If an orthographic system for English could be devised which would be just as simple, regular and logical as those found in most other European languages, it would be possible for all English-speaking school children to save at least one year’s work.
See that he said "most" other European tungs … French is far from fonetic.
Here we are, nearly 100 years later and still stuck on stupid; still writing many truly unfonetic, ugly stupid spellings like through or dialogue rather than the cleaner thru and dialog.
A study from 50 years ago show'd that Soviet (Russian) children were far ahed of English speaking children in mastering of reading wordstock and academics at the same ages. While English speaking children were still reading babyish primers, the Soviet children were handling material of a kind that English speaking children did not reach until years later. … Trace, Arthur S., Jr. What Ivan Knows that Johnny Doesn’t
The American Literacy Council writes that in 2003, a sample of adults in the U.S. were given a reading proficiency test and only 13% were rated proficient (that's 87% NOT proficient). Amazingly, only 30% of adult college graduates scored as proficient in literacy on the test.
Taxpayers are paying more and kids are taking longer to lern only for that pedants and snobs not only refuze to giv up the archaic and downright stupid spellings, but hav the gall to ridicule those (w)hu write with the better spellings! … Or I should say, they hav the gall to try. It doesn’t work well with me since they cannot defend the stupid spellings with anything more than: that’s they way they were taught and had it beaten into them.
Timeline of reform
In 1569, John Hart made a fonetic alphabet.
A century later, John Milton, a well-known poet, "deliberatly noted spelling to convey the sound and meaning of his words." (Darbishire, 1952; xi) which has been sumwhat followed by others such as Edmund Spenser who wrote The Faerie Queen:
1. dropping final silent e: climat, temperat, doctrin, determin, fertil
2. apostrophe for indistinct vowel after soft g or long vowel before final d: bridg'd, proov'd
3. dropping e from -ed endings wher the apostrophe was not needed as in #2 abuv: armd, dismayd, heapt, turnd
6. other fonetic spellings: moov'd, proov'd (Spenser)
The first true, widespred, successful reform came with Noah Webster's reforms tho not even all of his reforms were widely adopted and even the ones he put out took a long time to become the better like'd ones in the US. Truth be told is that many of his "reforms" were only bringing back older more fonetic spellings like aker for acre.
In 1876, the American Philological Association adopted 11 spellings, and began promoting their noting: ar, catalog, definit, gard, giv, hav, infinit, liv, tho, thru, and wisht. Two years later the Philological Society of England joind in the work. By 1886, the list had grown to 3500 words.
In 1879, the British Spelling Reform Association was founded.
In 1898, the (American) National Education Association began touting a list of 12 spellings: tho, altho, thru, thruout, thoro, thoroly, thorofare, program, prolog, catalog, decalog, and pedagog … all of hwich are still found today.
The Simplified Spelling Board was founded in the U.S. in 1906, and had a list of 300+ spellings.
The Chicago Tribune began noting smart spellings as far back as 1870. In 1941 it gave it another valiant, real-world try for 41 years with a few simplified, smart spellings. The paper began with writing catalog and other former "-gue" words. They wrote agast, ameba, burocrat, crum, glamor, harth, iland, intern, missil, subpena. Later they added tho, altho, thru, and thoro. They tried frate, frater for freight, freighter and changing ph not at the beginning of a word to f such as autograf, telegraf, philosofy, photograf, and sofomore. Sum of these stuck and are still seen. So we see, it can be dun. Sadly, and sumwhat ironically, the Tribune itself has backslidden to noting many stupid spellings. Why? Forwhy teachers had gone back to the stupid spellings and were whining that the students pointed to the Tribune as a justification for their smarter, fonetic, and cleaner spellings. (Remember, the NEA started it in the first place in 1898). Sadly, the editors at the Tribune cave'd in.
So hwer to do we stand now?
First we must acknowledg that English never has been and never will be perfectly fonetic. Also, ther are sundry dialects and words are said otherly. However, we shouldn’t let that stop us from fixing the easy ones and even going after sum of the harder ones. It’s not about reaching perfection; it’s about improoving and bettering hwat we hav now so that kids don’t hav to waste so much time lerning the 561 ways to spell 40 sounds.
Back in 1887, William Graham Sumner, a sociologist, put the problem in his own terms when he wrote:
I have two boys who are learning to spell. They often try to spell by analogy, thus using their brains and learning to think. Then I have to arrest them, turning them back from a rational procedure, and impose tradition and authority.
They ask me, 'Why?'
I answer, 'Because your father and others who have lived before you have never had the courage and energy to correct a ridiculous old abuse, and you are now inheriting it with all the intellectual injury, loss of time, and wasted labor which it occasions. I am ashamed that it should be so.
(Robertson and Cassidy, 1954; 363) *doctrin of "correctness in usage" see abuv.
Nuthin' has chanj'd in over 100 years. Do YU hav the boldness to right this wrong?
How does a teacher get a child to understand why the diphthong ou is noted to show six otherly sounds, as in the following sentence?:
The tourist, poor soul, had recourse to roulette, but found he could double only his troubles.
In tourist the ou is like the u in pull. In soul it is like ow in bowl. In recourse it is like the o in horse. In roulette it is like the oo in fool. In found it is like ow in how. In double and trouble it is like u in but.
How should one teach a child to read the following simple sentence, in which o is said in eight stark ways?:
The poet did nothing to remove from his record the blot of the wrong his tongue had once done Woman, that is, all women.
In poet the o is said like oa in boat. In nothing, from, record, tongue, done it sounds like u in mud. And hwat is the reason of the the ue at the end of tongue? It shuud be written tung (liken hung, lung, sung). In to remove it is like oo in fool with an unneeded e to boot! In blot it is like the a in hwat. In wrong it is like the a in all. In once it is like the wo in won. In Woman it is like the u in full. In women it is like the i in is.
No letter should be let to stand for eight otherly sounds as o does in the above sentence.
In the following byspel we find nine ways of writing the sound shown by sh:
Sure enuff, after his first parachute jump, the nation’s precious pensioner was sentient and anxiously conscious of pressure on his gunshot wound.
Here the sh sound is written: ch, ci, s, sci, si, ss, ti, xi, and sh; another flagrant violation of the elementary rule that each sound of a tung should hav one steddy way of writing it
One would think that English must be poverty stricken if it has to make one blend of two letters stand for so many vowels. But that is not the hitch. For it seems that we hav at least 10 ways of spelling the vowel sound of ai in jail:
Inveighing in the same vein, the great broad-gauged dictator made it plain that during his reign the way to stay out of jail was to obey without feigning and pay without complaining.
Here a, a-e, ai, au, ay, ea, ei, eig, eigh, and ey are all said alike. It is hard to think how any system of spelling cuud be worse.
The ough anomaly is bewildering. A blend of letters that shuud not be at all is written and said in so many nother ways as to bewilder most folks. In the following sentence there are eight ways:
The slough, made by the lough, was like dough, but with a laff and a cough the tough driver got team and wagon through without a hiccough, as he said he ought to do.
In slough the ough can be like uff in buff or oo in shoot. In lough it is said as lokh. In dough it is like oa in boat. In cough it is like off in scoff. In tough it is like uff in stuff. In through it is like oo in shoot. In hiccough it rimes with up. In ought it is sounded like aw.
Everyone who learns to read English must sumhow struggel with this among other mindless, stupid spellings. Hwile it is true you will not oft find so many stupid spellings in one sentence, is it any less bothersum to be beset piecemeal by them?
English spelling is so far from fonetic or even steddy as to be sumthing between a joke and a crime. The hardness of learning to read and write English with our spelling is said to be the main reason for the dropping out of a great tale of our school children before getting thru high school. Even English majors in college hav trouble with spelling, and candidates for a PhD in English philology can misspell a word. Why should a teacher with a PhD need to waste time fixing spelling on papers given by college students? The rules for spelling in English ought to be straightforward and clear enuff to make this unneeded. The word siege, for byspel, is often misspelt owing to that there is more than one way of writing each sound of the word. It ought to be seej without any other way to spell it.
Reform is slooooowly coming along (sked is now in the OED) but I think it is picking up for two reasons.
1. Electronic media like the web and texting are helping to speed up the work. Not only are folks more willing to write the simplified, smart spellings but ther are fewer “gatekeepers” … teachers, editors, pedants, and snobs … that would hav otherwize stoppt them as in days gone by. Anyone, like me, can post a blog noting hwatever spelling, words, or even grammar that he or she wishes. That an arcade business calls itself The Time Masheen doesn’t even slow us down … That is, not most of us aside from the pedants and snobs whu get workt up over it.
The web is also helping those whu believ in and support spelling reform to link up; unlike years ago hwen I wunderd if I wer the only one whu thought that English spelling stunk. Spelling reformers ranje from the American Literacy Council and the British English Spelling Society to the more outlandish freespelers.
2. English is the worldwide tung of business. Ther are more outlanders speaking … and writing … English than nativ speakers. They will push edge. For byspel, in Malay, garage is spelt garaj. That makes good wit! The word raj is in the wordbooks and is said the same way as the -rage in garage, so hwy not write garaj insted of garage? At least they don’t befuddl the sounds of garage with rage … or page … or sage … or age. They also write mesej (see after-writ B below for more). But this highlights hwat can happen if nativ speakers don’t reform English spelling on their own. Outlanders will do it for us and it could come out looking sumthing like this: link to freespelers
Nicholas Ostler, a linguist whose insights are often brilliantly surprizing (so says the writ), said that:
“… the peculiarly conservative, and hence increasingly anti-phonetic, system is another facet of English that bears a resemblance to Chinese”, and “as has happened with Chinese … the life of English as it is spoken has become only loosely attached to the written traditions of the language.” (Emphasis mine.)
However, unlike Chinese, English can and is being shapen by others. Madhukar Gogate, a retired Indian engineer, has come up with sumthing he calls Globish. It notes fonetic spellings to build what he believs is a cleaner shape of English. Another Indian Govind Deodhekar wrought lojikon.
Hwer to go from here?
Small steps. Without nay, write the NEA’s list of 12 spellings: tho, altho, thru, thruout, thoro, thoroly, thorofare, program, prolog, catalog, decalog, and pedagog. These hav been written in formal writing for over 100 years now and don’t let anyone tell you otherwize!
Next, eke to that the APA’s spellings: ar, catalog, definit, gard, giv, hav, infinit, liv, tho, thru, and wisht. (Tho, thru and catalog are on both lists).
Build on those slowly. Don’t try to spell every word perfectly and fonetically. For true, I strongly recommend that yu don’t! Yu need to take it slo and slide into it not only for yurself but for kith and kin as well! Don’t overhwelm them a bunch of chanjes all at once. Tell them that yu ar going to shift yur spelling ways so that they’r not shockt when they see it. I started off this writ with only a few spelling chanjes and put more in as I went along. Giv their eyes time to tweak themselves to the smarter, cleaner, and better spellings.
Again, don’t try to chanje them all. Insted, only try to be more consistent. For byspel, ea should be noted for the ē sound like in bead or meat. For sum words this is eath, for others not so much. Go BACK to older spellings of sted for stead, as in stedfast; reddy, redi, or reddi for ready; and so forth.
If ther are only a few words that yu want to swap to a the simplified, smart spelling like thru. Then do it. Yu don’t hav to go whole (hoel) hog. As I said, I put forth that yu don’t. But if yu do, try the ALC’s Soundspel … aside from dropping k rather c (a mistake I ween) and a few others that I didn’t like, it’s a fairly good way to go. Ther is also the Spelling Society’s lojikon … It dodges a few problems and tries to split the th sounds which I strongly naysay doing (see below). Yu can write yu and yur or yu and your. But hwatever simplified, clean, smart spelling that yu choose, stick with it thru thick and thin.
Don’t go all "linguistic" by trying to get every sound just right. Does it matter that ther are two sounds for th? Naw. Most folks don’t even notis nor do they care. More meaningful is that folks want simpler, not more complex. Having to kno hwich th letter to write for hwich th sound will make them overlook it altogether. Think about it, the sound shapes itself naturally hwen saying th. It’s not meaningful to hav th and dh. Irish munks introduc'd the letter eth (ð) trying to sunder the two sounds by writing thorn (þ) for one and eth (ð) for the other. It didn’t work. Saxon scribes swappt them at will.
Always keep in mind that the old n new spelling systems will be side-by-side for many years to cum. The newer generation will write with the simplified, clean, smart spelling hwile the older generation will likely stick to the archaic, unfonetic spellings.
Don’t fear the pedants and snobs.
Much of English spelling is not only indefensibl fonetically, it is indefensibl historically. Island was a wrongheaded try to link iland to the Latin isle (Latin lovers strike again). I’v alreddy shown how the Norman-French scribes messt things up and, over the centuries, French luving snobs hav stuck with the ugly, archaic French wrong-spellings for that it seems more “worldly” to write the French wrong-spelling (along with French words and phrases). Make them defend the archaic, stupid spelling. They can’t! They will, invariably, fall back on sum version of: That’s the way I had it beaten into me and, by God, that’s the way it should be! Pfft … Blo 'em off and keep going.
If yu’r in academics or even in the corporate world then go to yur teachers or bosses with a wordbook that has any of the simplified, clean, smart spellings or link to the spellings online and tell them that yu’r a freespeller (ƒ). Tell them that as long as the word can be found in a wordbook (printed or online), yu intend to write it for papers and such. That’s hwat I did for the FEW, and only a few, whu challenjd me for writing altho, tho, thru, thruout, thoro, thoroly, and stedfast. I simply handed them my pocket dictionary with the spellings and said, “It’s in the dictionary, it’s good to go.” And yes, that even workt on my boss.
Sum Spelling Reform Foresets
Ther are many more thoughts but these shuud get yu started. Keep in mind that one can pick and choose. Brook sum, none, or all!
* Drop ~ough for ~o, ~u, ~uff, asf (tho, altho; thru, thruout; thoro, thoroly; enuff, asf)
* Drop the -ue off ~gue and -que words: catalog, dialog, prolog, synagog, leag, asf; (asterisk was first written asterique in 1674!)
* Drop the silent e if the vowel before is short unless it affects the consonant before it as well such as else (it stretches the s sound; els is not said the same as else tho one cuud write elss).
>>> ~ve > ~v hwen the vowel before is short: giv, hav, liv, and so forth (but behave, alive … the vowel is long)
>>> ~ine > ~in: engin (or better, enjin), determin
>>> ~ive > ~iv: fugativ (or fujativ), defensiv
* g > j hwer befitting: serjeant (better sarjant), jeneral
* ch > sh, k/c, or kh hwer befitting (masheen, shef, karacter (or kharacter if yu want to stay truer to the translit of the Greek root), lokh, asf. Sked is now in the Oxford Dictionary.
* Drop ou for o,u, or oo: corse (ME cors), cuntry (O.Fr. cuntree), groop, asf. Keep it for the ou in about … thus southern becomes suthern but south stays the same since ou sounds like the ou in about.
* o back to u: abuv, luv, munk, sum, wunder, wunt (insted of wont … which isn’t won’t), asf
* Note -ed, -d, or -t as befitting the sound in the bygone tense (pok't, prodded, prickt, swabbd)
* ea = ē as in seat, meat, feat, thus: ea ≠ ē > e: sted, stedfast, steddy, reddy, brekfast, dremt/drempt (like kempt, tempt), lept (like keep > kept, weep > wept), erly, ernest, asf
>>> Overall, short vowels, huru in words of more than one syllable, shuud be followed by twain consonants (bubbl, suppl, Fred > Freddy, dad > daddy, mom > mommy, eddy, bed > bedded, beddable, get > getter, grammar, beggar, bonny, laddie, button, asf or ~ck and ~dg, as in chicken and badger). Compound words of two one-syllable words (stedfast = sted+fast) need not follow this rule. This isn’t strictly follow'd but keep it in mind as a guide.
* This is a little bolder, but try shuud, wuud, cuud for should, would, and could. Hwy not oo? Ther ar four sounds (loop, blood, book, floor) for oo and this gets about that. It is also the way put forth by Soundspel.
Sum things to keep in mind
The -tion ending is almost always said as shun (mention being an outlier - men-chen) … so leav it. It’s steddy — It may not be fonetic, but it is mostly consistent.
The k in kn~ words are consistently silent so it’s okeh to keep it if yu want (same for gn~ words) and they sumtimes sho the otherness between words such as night and knight.
The -igh always shows the long ī: sigh, bight, light, asf. It’s steddy. Tho one cuud drop the g with no loss: biht, liht, niht (OE liht, niht).
The -aught, -ought are mostly consistent and need not be swappt. However, if one wishes to make them mor fonetic, it could be done mostly by dropping the the g and maybe the h as well: Sumtimes the -ough is more of a long ō. Thus daughter could be dohter (OE), dauhter, dauter, or dawter. (Swapping to -auht, -aut, or -awt / -oht for the ō).
The wh is mostly consistent for hw (whore and whole being outliers) but if yu want to be bold and fonetic, swap it to hw … hwat, hwen, hwer, asf.
The qu for cw or kw is less consistent and with the inflow of Spanish words like quesadilla, queso blanco, and other words like piquant, where it is k. It is likely to become even more inconsistent over time. So again, if yu feel bold, yu can swap in cw, kw or even qw for the words with the w glide and k for the hard sound … thus cwick, kwick, or qwick for the w glide and boukay/bookay for bouquet.
We don’t make our kids walk to school only for that we did; or make them do math without calculators for that is we didn’t hav them and that’s how we lernd; … Yet, we think it’s okay to saddel our children with an archaic, unfonetic, writing system only for that is how we lernd it!
We try to unladen from our children any burdens that we might hav had as children but yet we still fordeem them to spend hours lerning an archaic, stupid way of spelling.
Hotson, Clarence, Can We Catch Up With Russian Education?, 1963, Spelling Progress Bulletin, Jun, p6-7
Ives, Kenneth, Written Dialects N Spelling Reforms: History N Alternatives, 1979 PROGRESIV PUBLISHR, ISBN 0-89670-004-6
Kimball, Cornell, The History of Spelling Reform
Onhenge A. Byspels
Abuv all, stick to yur guns. If anyone asks, tell them that yu are a freespeller and that yu note the simpler, cleaner, SMARTER spelling shapes rather than the ugly, archaic, "stupid spelling". Yu might be better off leaving off the "stupid" unless yu’re trying to pick fight! … Folks get workt up even if yu’r right. Sum folks hav an emotional attachment to stupid spelling and will even tell you that all those extra letters sumhow make it more "elegant". Uh-huh, right. After all, they wasted a lot of time lerning them and want to sho off their snobbery by making certain that everyone is aware of that. They will resort ad hominem attacks by saying only trash and illiterates would note such spellings. Not true of corse, follow the links that I hav given on sum of the words and where yu'll see byspels. Keep 'em handy!
A few lines from Edmund Spencer’s The Faerie Queene, (with v swappt for u when befitting) to show better spellings and sum of the ones that hav been cleand up since he his time:
Thus ill bestedd, and fearefull more of shame [the cleaner bestedd for bestead; and fearefull is one that has now been cleand to fearful]
So been they parted both, with harts* on edge …
At her so pitteous cry was much amoov'd
Her champion stout, and for to aide his frend,
Againe his wonted angry weapon proov'd:
But all in vaine: for he has read his end
Her champion stout, and for to aide his frend,
Againe his wonted angry weapon proov'd:
But all in vaine: for he has read his end
Great God it planted in that blessed sted
That life nigh crusht out of his panting brest
*Hart is the more common spelling; but e before r was generally sounded a, as in clerk. This fact is recognised in the modern clumsy spelling of heart, which contains both the e and the a … — Morell, A Biographical History of English Literature, p126 (Emphasis mine.)
Milton, Paradise Lost, Book XI
Against the Syrian King, who to surprize … line 218
Of us will soon determin … 227
His starrie Helme unbuckl'd … 245
… and his scatterd spirits returnd, … 294
Celestial, whether among the Thrones, or nam'd … 296
(for I have drencht her eyes) … 367
to life was formd. … 369
Sunk down and all his Spirits became intranst: … 420 (entranced)
… compassion quell'd … 496
… then first to marriage Rites invok't; … 591
… Judg not what is best … 603
but they his gifts acknowledg'd none. … 613
For that fair femal Troop thou sawst, that seemd … 614
in Array of Battel rang'd … 644 (Battle ranged)
and by imprudence mixt, … 686
Flood overwhelmd … 747
His Children, all in view destroyd at once; … 761
Man is not whom to warne: those few escapt … 777
When violence was ceas't, … 780
Of them derided, but of God observd … 817
Wrinkl'd the face of Deluge, as decai'd; … 843 (decay'd)
Of Paradise by might of Waves be moovd … 830
Fast on the top of som high mountain fixt. … 851
… late repenting him of Man deprav'd, … 886
Onhenge B. A few byspels of how the French scribes chanjd the spelling.
Old English (OE) spelling > Norman French influenced spelling > sum went back to the old spelling
OE u/y (y=ü) > o
abuf(an) (abuv) > above
clys(an) > close
clysing > closing
cum > come
dumb > dombe > then back to dumb
hand > hond > hand
land > lond > land
luf(a) (luv) > love
munec > monk
sum > some (thus somedeal insted of sumdel/sumdeal; something > sumthing; hearsome > hersum/hearsum)
sun > sonne > back to sunne > sun
sun(u) > son
sūþ (sūth) > south
sūþerne (suthern) > southern
sundor > sonder > sunder
þurh (thurh) > through
tunge, tung > tongue (the French note ue … as in prolog(ue) … to show a hard g; this is not needed in English)
þu (thu) > thou (still said as thu; saying it as ow as in now came later with pronunciation chasing spelling as part of the Great Vowel Shift)
wund > wound (the injury)
wundor > wonder
cw~ > qu~ (thus cwic > quick; cwēn > queen; cwēm > queem; asf)
hw~ > wh~ (thus hwā > who; hwæt > what; hwæl > whale; hwǣt > wheat; hwæþer > wheþer > whether; asf)
Later, we also lost three letters þ (thorn), ð (eth), and æ (ash). Æ is sumtimes still seen but not for the sound it was ment. It should be for the a in ash, thus æsh (ash), bæd (bad), bæk (OE bæc [back]) or as a long ā as in OE mægen, ‘bodily strength, might, 'main' force, power’ … today’s main.
Onhenge C. More Malay spellings (hat-tip to The Spelling Blog)
• ... nibble on a biskut
• ... put your car in the garaj
• ... buy a ticket at the kaunter
• ... be late for your English kelas (class)
• ... buy a new komputer
• ... take a mesej for somone (message; I put forth messej for English reform)
• ... try to understand a sistem
• ... take a teksi
• ... watch televisyen, or
• ... visit a muzium
Onhenge D. More alternativs for aught/ought (edshapen = reshapen)
brought - OE broht … edshapen spell - broht, brauht
daughter - OE dohter … edshapen spell - dohter for |dôtər| or dauter for |dätər|
naught - OE nauht, noht … edshapen spell - nauht, naut
slaughter - ME slaht(er) … edshapen spell - slauhter, slauter
taught - OE tæht … edshapen spell - tauht, taut (taut is another word from ME tought)
Onhenge E. Not reddy for prime time.
According to Kenneth Ives, author of Written Dialects N Spelling Reform, these hav gotten a negativ reaction:
th or Ћ, ћ (bar h) for the
n for and
wn for one