Its been interesting to hear different views.
Heretic! And you call yourself British. Just think of all the works you would have to change: lieutenant to lef-tenant.
Anyway, why elimante the "gh"? It connects us to the Anglo-Saxon background of English and if we shorten our words, we'd just become lazy Americans. No offense American neighbours, but I like to spell it "photo" not foto. Through, not thru. etc. etc.
Classicist, you misunderstand me, i was merely opening up the topic for debate. As a historical linguist, i am in full favour of keeping certain "outdated" spellings such as "photo" and "lieutenant". First of all because they are recognised, and secondly because they have helped us piece together both linguistic AND non-linguistic history.* I do agree that "It connects us to the Anglo-Saxon background of English" as you said, but i cannot agree with your statement about "lazy Americans"... Americans in general are less concerned about pre-Mayflower history than the British, so it is merely their cultural perspective which is different. It teems with a spirit of breaking away from the old way of doing things back on that "small island that used to oppress us", and Americans have shown great innovative tendancies in certain areas. It is merely modern American pop culture and rogue world-superpower tendancies which has led to a demise in their reputation.
In addition, any version of our language is just as valid and sophisticated as the next, whether it be International English or West Indian English (which is as linguistically sophisticated as Standard English, believe it or not)... 8th century Anglo-Saxon England actually had 4 types of English (Northumbrian, Kentish, West Saxon and Mercian). Each dialect was associated with an independant kingdom until they were integrated into "the Kingdom of England" and the Wessex dialect of West Sussex began to dominate. Even back then certain members of dialectal groups would think others slovenly and lazy because of certain features of pronunciation.
And to add to Pole's comments (though certainly not to top them). Most English spellings have direct connections to their Greek or Latin cognates. To change spelling in most of our words would seriously piss off linguists in years to come (and Classicists, since we can use our knowledge of Latin and Greek to find the meaning of long/obscure words).
Exactly, a knowledge of etymology helps us to realise where words come from and what they actually mean. For example the word "diarrhea" comes from Greek "dia"- through and "rhein"- to flow...... so why dont we just call it "through-flow" like the typical plain-speak German word "Durch-fall"? Why do we need these "long/obscure words"?
Is it an artificial attempt to elevate English to the status of an "educated" language? Or is it to hide the original meanings of words?...... The Watchtower is adept at trying to confuse its sheep in this manner, trusting that no one will even dare to do the volumes of research necessary to verify that the word "parousia" can just as well mean "coming" as "presence".
So, in a nutshell, we're deep in sh**t and any attempts to change the situation globally and radically would only sink us deeper in it.
I agree with you Pole, that it may be too late to change things, it should have been done if at all before English became an international language. The Germans can get away with a "Rechtschreibreform" because there is one body that governs spelling in Germany. French though is in a similar position as English as a world language yet they have their "Académie Française" which regulates global spelling of French. No single English speaking country though is in control of the language, that is what makes reform so difficult.
but the pronunciation [of french] is at least consistent
yes you're right Ig, there are logical rules to French. Even though they don't pronounce certain letters, these letters are often pronounced in liaison with vowels at the beginning of the next word. There is no single logical system in English. English is a mix of logical systems, which lose their logic when hauled unnaturally together... I agree with the apostophe thing, its almost completely useless and other Germanic languages which use the possesive-"s" don't use apostrophes. Finally, "text speak" could be described as a more valid form of spelling, because it (often) more accurately represents our pronunciation, in the same way as our present orthography once accurately represented pronunciation back in Johnson's day (he's the first dictionnary guy). But although i do use "text speak" on both mobile and internet, i believe it is good to have a knowledge of the traditionnal deviant spellings in order to be less ignorant of our history and in order to be conscious of the process of language change.
a few more questions: - Would spelling reform really benefit dyslexia sufferers?
- Would it be too much of a social
change upheaval to be sucessful? - Would it render books and documents produced in this period un-readable to future English speakers in the same way as Old English is illegible to us?
(* n.b. the "ph" in photo was properly pronounced as a bi-labial fricative (using two lips like a "p") and NOT a labio-dental "f" (using top teeth and bottom lip).
