The English Spelling Society was founded in 1908. This was a good time for the reformers. Great people, like G. B. Shaw and Walter W. Skeat, among quite a few others, supported the movement and hoped that it would be possible to make English spelling look more humane. But time worked against the reformers. The World War, the Bolshevik takeover in Russia, and the triumph of the Nazis in Germany, followed by another, even more devastating war, pushed many worthy projects into the background.
Among the chaos of the twentieth century, the ills of the irrational English spelling began to look like almost invisible inconveniences. Still later, computers came into being, spellcheckers were invented, and then AI speedily outsmarted the best of us. Against that background, the Reform lost appeal even to the few remaining enthusiasts. But the Society did not die. Nor did the problems, once addressed by people like Shaw, Skeat, and their allies go away.
Now, perhaps more than at any time in the past, English spelling cries to be reformed, because most of the world uses English as a vital means of communication, and people from east to west learn to read and write English. EVERYBODY will gain if we dispense with c in acquire, the second m in communal, and the second f in sufficient. I have of course cited only a few egregious examples, to illustrate my thesis.
Last week, the Spelling Society, of which I am President (an honorary post; all the work is done in the UK), convened a congress in London, and it would be wrong to say that the mood was invariably upbeat. The Devil’s Advocate even suggested that the Society should be disbanded, because no progress had been achieved since 1908, and it is unclear whether the future looks rosier than the past. Yet I am pleased to report that the Society will continue its activities and address not only spelling but also literacy in the broadest sense of the term. This, I believe, was a good decision.
Writing is inseparable from reading in the time-honored concert of three R’s. Paradoxically, though today more people are literate than ever, fewer read books. The young live in a digitalized cloud, glued to their mobile phones. Though some teachers are horrified, as always, the larger world has more pressing business to attend to. Yet its indifference to spelling is not the only obstacle in the way of the Reform. There is no unanimity among the members of the Society in what direction and how far the Reform should go. And here I will risk offering a few suggestions. As I understand, quite a few members of the Society share my views, and some of them have put forth similar proposals before.
To repeat: those who have mastered the intricacies of English spelling tend to resist the idea of a sweeping change and possibly of any change. Literate people have spent years learning the spelling of leaden and its likes and will be reluctant to admit that if the adjective acquires the form leden, their troubles were not worth the effort. In my opinion, our only hope to make progress is to adopt a minimalist program, trying to reach the desired goal by alienating no one and taking one small step after another over possibly several decades.
This is where I think we should begin. Get rid of the letters whose absence few will regret: co(m)munity, mis(c)e(l)lany, ca(n)nibal, co(r)ruscate, su(f)ficient, and their likes. If image bothers no one, scrimage with one m may also be acceptable to everybody. (Note my careful emphasis on everybody!) It is also reasonable to leave alone horrors like the borrowed words conscientious, colonel, and fuchsia, along with the native monsters through, laugh, eerie, and their ilk. Their time will come.
Here are a few more stray examples of the losses no one should rue: dumb, numb, thumb, succumb. Climb is more controversial, because clim is out of the question, and clime will collide with its homonym. (Who expects consistency in the erratic world of English spelling!) One more important case. I am convinced that wherever possible, we should suggest regularizing g before the i ~ e and introduce j in the likes of gibberish. Change gin (liquor) to jin and enjoy the beauty of James Joyce’s phrase jejune Jesuit.
I am not ready to lay out an extensive list of words in need of respelling. At this stage, our modest goal is, as I believe, to change at least something without offending anyone. Not only dyed in the wool conservatives will be up in arms if we suggest respelling come, gone, eight, sure, and sugar. However, most will perhaps tolerate occupy with one c and succumb also with one c and without b. Let us appease the conservatives. The next step will (I hope) turn scullion and scrub into skullion and skrub and introduce other relatively non-traumatic changes, but this is not the time to envision a distant future. Let me repeat: the problem is how to talk the world into starting the reform. If some members vote against any version of the minimalist program, we may go ahead without their consent.
Help to the Society won’t come from high legislative bodies. MP’s, congressmen, and senators are too busy to notice us. Who then is interested? Teachers, including teachers of special education. This means that their organizations may join our fight for the Reform. It makes sense to explain to them that we are their close allies and that we need a campaign from them in support of our efforts, rather than their money. Foreigners from all over the world. The groups to contact are the people who teach English as a second language and perhaps a few friendly embassies.
Media. Couldn’t we talk to the editors of magazines like Playboy, Newsweek, Vanity Fair, and so forth into joining our push for the Reform? They might place pictures of an unhappy child, trying to spell occurrence or wondering why quiz is not kwiz? (By the way, some European languages have abolished the letter q.) Our “influencers” and idols (rappers, comedians, producers, and eccentric billionaires) might perhaps be talked into helping an organization (I mean us, our Spelling Society) that does not need their funds but would be grateful for publicizing a worthy effort. Fun conquers the world. Vulgar? Not a bit. Just common sense. The English-speaking world has no official bodies to regulate spelling. We may achieve progress only with the help of popular culture.
Spelling reforms, drastic or moderate, overcame the resistance of opponents in Russia, Germany, France, and most recently, in Spain. Useful updates have been made in all the Scandinavian countries, including Iceland. Noah Webster modified American English spelling. We, English spelling reformers, should move slowly and probably stop discussing grand and grandiose projects. Nor is consistency our goal. Full and fill are spelt with two l’s, but fulfil wisely ignores this circumstance! English spelling will never achieve the finish and finesse of Finnish. Let us achieve what we can.
In the header you will see an image of G. B. Shaw’s play Androcles and the Lion. Search the Internet to find out what this image has to do with today’s story.
Featured image: Androcles and the Lion, staged at Indiana University, from “Arbutus” (1921). Public domain via Wikimedia Commons.
These suggestions for the reform of spelling seem completely unhelpful – and random. The Americans have messed with Oxford spelling before e.g. color / colour and caused further confusion and duplication rather than reform. Your ideas also kill stone-dead some of the etymological clues in words e.g. miscellany. They also imply in some cases changes to pronunciation. Sorry. A bad idea.
Two considerations. First, many of the noted spelling reforms can be accomplished more simply (theoretically) by getting rid of a few letters of the alphabet. The letter “c” can in all instances be replaced with either a “k” or “s,” or “tsh” (for “ch. “Q” by either “k” or “kw.” “X” usually by “z” or “eks).
Second, the lack of success since 1908 means the nature of the resistance needs study, and maybe more respect by advocates of change. The more common a usage, the harder the change. The name of New York’s Sixth Avenue was officially changed to “Avenue of the Americas” nearly 80 years ago, to no effect whatever on New Yorkers, Also, to what extent must language reform be autocratic? Successful reforms depicted in literature, say, in the novel “1984,” seem to be products of coercion.
Surely this entire post was written with tongue firmly planted in cheek, à la Jonathan Swift. Because it’s almost entirely nonsensical. And I say that as an Anglophilic American!
The society has been trying to bring about reform for well over a hundred years. What has it learned about the process of reform?
I welcome Prog Liberman’s stirring support for spelling reform. Following a successful conference last week, the Committee of the English Spelling Society will be considering medium term policy. We shall start with listing words that could be changed without causing much offence. Second item will be considering a five year consultation to examine the merits and demerits of a number of alternative schemes already published.
The main problem for supporters of spelling reform is undoubtedly: how to talk the world into supporting it. But is there any chance of it happening before it is widely understood that continuing to spell thousands of words unsystematically and teaching children to do the same entails huge costs?
Advocates of reform tend to imagine that this obvious to all. They seem unaware that for at least the last three decades poor literacy standards of school leavers have been blamed entirely on poor teaching, rather than any learning difficulties posed by how we spell.
Most people don’t know that at least 3,000 common English words contain unsystematic spellings like ‘head said any’. And that around 1,000 of those make learning to read excruciatingly difficult too. Or that most children can only cope with them with a great deal of help. Some parents are willing and able to provide it for free. But many can’t. And we all pay for that.
People get outraged when potholes don’t get repaired. The damage they cause is obvious to all. The damage done by the flaws in English spelling is costly too. Sadly, most people remain unaware of it.