3 ms·

The spelling of English words gives you two separate clues: 1. How it is pronounced. 2. Its etymology and what it means. Because pronunciation has changed ov

The spelling of English words gives you two separate clues: 1. How it is pronounced. 2. Its etymology and what it means. Because pronunciation has changed over time and changes across regions, these two features are in conflict. If we made spelling uniformly reflect (current, in some given place) pronunciation, then we would lose clues as to etymology and meaning. For example, an English speaker can reasonably guess that "native", "nation" have related meanings because of the shared "nat". If we made the spelling follow pronunciation and did "naytiv" and "nayshun", some of that is lost. Ideally, pronunciation would be fixed across time and place so that a language's spelling reliably reflected both meaning and sound. But that ain't how humans work. In written languages that do this "better", it's mainly through some combination of: 1. The written language is simply younger than written English and thus has had less time for pronunciation to diverge. 2. The language is used by a smaller, more homogeneous community. 3. Elites exert political force to prevent pronunciation or meaning from changing and to reject loanwords at the loss of expressivity. English does none of those things. It's been around a long time, has spread throughout the world across widely disparate communities, and is happy to absorb any good idea it finds in any other language. It is the Perl of written languages, for better or worse.

mcguire 4y ago
By the way, meaning also drifts over time.
- ttfkam 4y ago
  You just "decimated" his proposal.
tragomaskhalos 4y ago
4. Spelling reforms have been introduced to amend the orthography to rationalise it and better reflect current pronunciation. This is what some people advocate for English - entirely misguidedly in my view.
- zztop44 4y ago
  Why misguidedly, in your view?
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    The usual argument against spelling reform is that it isn't possible to do it in a way that is compatible with the language of more than one region. For example, in Australian English they have a system of phonemic vowel length. This does not exist in other varieties of English, so the options you have in a spelling reform are (1) ignore the Australians and set spellings that are ambiguous in Australia, or (2) placate the Australians and include their vowels in the reformed spelling system, despite the fact that this leaves everyone else in the world mystified as to why certain words are spelled with doubled vowels and certain words aren't.
    - lIl-IIIl 4y ago
      Start small, and use compromises. Don't try to be completely phonetic, which won't work for the reasons you mentioned. You can start by undoing misguided spelling reforms of the past. "Debt" used to be spelled "det" but due to incorrectly inferred etymology it was changed to be non-phonetic. There are many words like these. Then look for major inconsistencies where a cluster of letters is pronounced more than one way, and simplify one of them. For example, "ough" is pronounced as in "tough" more often than as in "though". Change "tough" to be spelled as "tuff" and "rough" as "ruff". Going further, embrace text/informal writing and use tho, altho, nite, tonite, etc. Although the last two are not necessary since "ight" is pretty consistent. Keep common clusters of letters so that it still looks like English. Do it in in stages over a 100 years , making changes every 15 years or so. I'm mostly aiming at ease of reading vs ease of writing.
      - ttfkam 4y ago
        Every other major language had a recognized central authority to do its work. Spanish, French, written Chinese, etc. all had a monarchy/dictatorship of some sort to mandate the change and enforce its use. England could have done it perhaps in Shakespeare's time or shortly thereafter, but once English spread across the globe in its modern (lack of) form with no recognized central authority with the power to force the change, it's not going to happen. You couldn't get three states in the United States to agree on a universal spelling/pronunciation let alone the three countries in the United Kingdom. You think you'll have any more success over continents and across oceans? Good luck!
Shorel 4y ago
The spelling of English definitely doesn't give enough clues about how a word is pronounced. Me, and millions of other speakers of English as a second language, will vehemently disagree with that point. The rest of your comment reads like a detailed attempt at rationalization of this untrue affirmation. As a counterargument, take Spanish. Spanish is not younger than English, pronunciation has diverged and for example someone from Cuba and someone from Argentina pronounce many words differently. The Spanish-speaking world is by no means small, or homogeneous. And we absorb loanwords like madmen. Mostly from English, but also French, Japanese, Italian, etc. The point is: Spanish is a much more phonetic language in its written form than English, so much that we have no spelling bees. English simply fucked up itself with the great vowel shift, that's all.
- ttfkam 4y ago
  Spanish is in fact younger. The language was standardized and normalized by royal edict about 500 years ago. While strongly based on Castilliano, it was not the same. "Spanish" as a single cohesive, consistent language did not exist before then in Spain or anywhere else. By comparison, the rules and structures of English (such as they are) were not altered significantly following the great vowel shift in Chaucer's time. Mostly minor spelling changes and word choice. All languages adopt foreign words unless there is an active body attempting to prevent it, such as the French Language Academy. French words are not however just loaned to English. It was thoroughly baked in following the Battle of Hastings in 1066, when the nobility all spoke French for hundreds of years. Basically every "fancy" word in English came directly from French while "plain" words came from Anglo Saxon (Germanic) or other related sources. Incarcerated vs jailed. Debris vs trash. Magnificent vs great. "The player regarded his opponent." vs. "The player looked at his opponent." (French for "He looks" is "Il regarde". The great vowel shift didn't mess up English; the lack of concerted normalization of English is what did it in. English is the greatest pragmatist without design of all world languages.

mcguire 4y ago

By the way, meaning also drifts over time.

ttfkam 4y ago
You just "decimated" his proposal.

tragomaskhalos 4y ago

4. Spelling reforms have been introduced to amend the orthography to rationalise it and better reflect current pronunciation. This is what some people advocate for English - entirely misguidedly in my view.

zztop44 4y ago
Why misguidedly, in your view?
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  The usual argument against spelling reform is that it isn't possible to do it in a way that is compatible with the language of more than one region. For example, in Australian English they have a system of phonemic vowel length. This does not exist in other varieties of English, so the options you have in a spelling reform are (1) ignore the Australians and set spellings that are ambiguous in Australia, or (2) placate the Australians and include their vowels in the reformed spelling system, despite the fact that this leaves everyone else in the world mystified as to why certain words are spelled with doubled vowels and certain words aren't.
  - lIl-IIIl 4y ago
    Start small, and use compromises. Don't try to be completely phonetic, which won't work for the reasons you mentioned. You can start by undoing misguided spelling reforms of the past. "Debt" used to be spelled "det" but due to incorrectly inferred etymology it was changed to be non-phonetic. There are many words like these. Then look for major inconsistencies where a cluster of letters is pronounced more than one way, and simplify one of them. For example, "ough" is pronounced as in "tough" more often than as in "though". Change "tough" to be spelled as "tuff" and "rough" as "ruff". Going further, embrace text/informal writing and use tho, altho, nite, tonite, etc. Although the last two are not necessary since "ight" is pretty consistent. Keep common clusters of letters so that it still looks like English. Do it in in stages over a 100 years , making changes every 15 years or so. I'm mostly aiming at ease of reading vs ease of writing.
    - ttfkam 4y ago
      Every other major language had a recognized central authority to do its work. Spanish, French, written Chinese, etc. all had a monarchy/dictatorship of some sort to mandate the change and enforce its use. England could have done it perhaps in Shakespeare's time or shortly thereafter, but once English spread across the globe in its modern (lack of) form with no recognized central authority with the power to force the change, it's not going to happen. You couldn't get three states in the United States to agree on a universal spelling/pronunciation let alone the three countries in the United Kingdom. You think you'll have any more success over continents and across oceans? Good luck!

Shorel 4y ago

The spelling of English definitely doesn't give enough clues about how a word is pronounced. Me, and millions of other speakers of English as a second language, will vehemently disagree with that point. The rest of your comment reads like a detailed attempt at rationalization of this untrue affirmation. As a counterargument, take Spanish. Spanish is not younger than English, pronunciation has diverged and for example someone from Cuba and someone from Argentina pronounce many words differently. The Spanish-speaking world is by no means small, or homogeneous. And we absorb loanwords like madmen. Mostly from English, but also French, Japanese, Italian, etc. The point is: Spanish is a much more phonetic language in its written form than English, so much that we have no spelling bees. English simply fucked up itself with the great vowel shift, that's all.

ttfkam 4y ago
Spanish is in fact younger. The language was standardized and normalized by royal edict about 500 years ago. While strongly based on Castilliano, it was not the same. "Spanish" as a single cohesive, consistent language did not exist before then in Spain or anywhere else. By comparison, the rules and structures of English (such as they are) were not altered significantly following the great vowel shift in Chaucer's time. Mostly minor spelling changes and word choice. All languages adopt foreign words unless there is an active body attempting to prevent it, such as the French Language Academy. French words are not however just loaned to English. It was thoroughly baked in following the Battle of Hastings in 1066, when the nobility all spoke French for hundreds of years. Basically every "fancy" word in English came directly from French while "plain" words came from Anglo Saxon (Germanic) or other related sources. Incarcerated vs jailed. Debris vs trash. Magnificent vs great. "The player regarded his opponent." vs. "The player looked at his opponent." (French for "He looks" is "Il regarde". The great vowel shift didn't mess up English; the lack of concerted normalization of English is what did it in. English is the greatest pragmatist without design of all world languages.