Talk:English spelling reform

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the English spelling reform article.
Article policies
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.

Contents

[edit] The 'Irish Question'(?)

To reiterate what I have stated elsewhere on the Net when the question of an international commission on the reform of the spelling of the English language has been raised: it should be called just that, the 'Commission on the Spelling of English,' not 'English Spelling Commission' as some suggest. We are talking about an international language many of whose non-English speakers and nations count it as their mother tongue/first language, and 'English' used adjectivally seems to confer English ownership on the proceedings as opposed to the due recognition owed to the language's original country of origin[[1]]. The same of course applies to this Wiki article. While it seems reasonable for readers looking for 'English Spelling Reform' to be directed here, the article itself should be entitled 'Reform of the Spelling of English[[2]].' This is not about political correctness, but ownership. Etaonsh 18:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This problem involves the article title and can thus only be rectified by setting up an alternative article with the title 'Reform of the Spelling of English[[3]].' Unfortunately, one of the young moderators of this 'free encyclopedia that anyone can edit' has had other ideas: [[4]] He now says that, if still resolute in my intent, I should first propose a move[[5]] here[[6]], i.e., that we (assuming we are reading this) discuss a move to 'Reform of the Spelling of English'[[7]]. What do people think? Etaonsh 15:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

How does 'English language spelling reform' sound? (Your proposed title feels rather cumbersome to me). ColinBell 10:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand, Colin, re 'cumbersome,' but it is a 'cumbersome' designed to be inclusive and avoid conflict. My first entry, 'Reform of the Spelling of the English Language'[[8]] was similar to yours, in that it made reference (uncontroversially it seemed, at first) to 'the English language.' Then I realised almost at once that the common, innocent-sounding phrase 'the English language,' also subtly expresses the very suggestion of ownership I was trying to avoid, and is itself also cumbersome - 'English' (as a noun) will do - hence my second entry [[9]]. It's all about trying to invite the non-English English-speaking world to participate in this important issue, and not appearing to exclude said relevant majority. To refer you back to my earlier premise, above: ' 'English' used adjectivally seems to confer English ownership.' Etaonsh 11:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I remain unconvinced as to why "English" as a noun is better than the noun phrase "English language". Nor, since there has been no serious interest in spelling reform in England (or the UK) for some time, is the issue you raise a live one, or likely to become so in the forseeable future. ColinBell 11:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
What does "English language" convey over the noun "English" beyond tautology and ownership?
An active minority [[10]] maintain a lively interest in the issue, whose potential as a live issue increases with considerations surrounding new communications technologies. Etaonsh 11:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
"English language spelling reform" would remove the ambiguity in the current title, which could be read as "spelling reform by the English". I disagree that "English language" conveys any more ownership than the noun "English".
I should have said "no serious mainstream interest", i.e., by government, education authorities, dictionary makers or the press.
I don't think I have anything further useful to contribute on this topic. ColinBell 12:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh dear, that rather puts you at a disadvantage.
Since when did 'government, education authorities, dictionary makers or the press' represent mainstream interests? --Etaonsh 22:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The movement is almost universally refered to as "English spelling reform." If you want to change that, Wikipedia is not the place to start. An encyclopedia describes; it does not dictate. --Tysto 02:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
'Wikipedia is not the place to start' is not dictating? Where is the clever money, then? --londheart 22:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Lets just do this, and then worry about what to call it.Cameron Nedland 16:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
As the actress said to the bishop? --londheart 22:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
lol, that's not what i ment.Cameron Nedland 20:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How can everyone agree?

I'm very surprised that Noah Webster could get the government to do new spelling reforms, however today spelling reforms are very hard to do (similar to getting the metric system used in the United States). It just won't happen. Pronounciation based on what dialect? Hard northern England accent, hard southern American accent, the terrible-sounding Boston accent (IMO), so called American English (used on news shows on TV in the US)? I guess I would go with American English, although the official received pronounciation British accent would be fine too.


The above in my own spelling reform (yes I think þ should be used again, how did th ever make þ):
Aim veri serpraizd þat Noa Ùebster kud get þe guverment tu du nu spelìng ruformz, hauever tudei spelìng ruformz ar veri hard tu du (sìmìlar tu getìng þe metrik sistum iuzd in þe Iunaitud Steitz). Ìt just wont hapun. Ruform spelìng beisd òn uat daialekt? Hard norþern Ìnglìnd aksent, hard suþern Amerikan aksent, þe terubul-saundìng Bòstìn aksent (IMU), so cald Amerikan Ìnglìś (iuzd òn nuz śows òn TV ìn þe IS)? Ai gies ai ùud go uìþ Amerikan Ìnglìs, òlþo þe ufìśul risivd pronaunzieiśìn Brìtìś aksent ùud bi fain tu.

Explanation:
long a -> ei
short a -> a
long e -> i
short e -> e
long i -> ai
short i -> i
long o -> o
short o -> ò
long u -> ?
short u -> ù
"uh" sound -> u
th -> þ
sh -> ś
i in "in" -> ì

Some of you might be able to tell this derives a bit from Japanese Romaji (namely ei, ai, etc), and the rest I derive from other languages. With the thorn, I show how I think English should go much more back into its Germanic roots. Using runic for letters would be way cool.

Again, like I said, too many people know English the way it is now to ever switch to anything this extreme. I still like it though.

At least one benefit: spelling reformation could mean less ink, less paper used in books! :) --User:Tatsh 23:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If its any consolation, Id go with it.Cameron Nedland 23:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear lord, someone's got too much free time. Dude, go outside. PeteJayhawk 03:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I'd prefer something that wasn't quite so radical and incorporated some of the Germanic, Low Franconian system of open and closed syllables and long and short vowels denoted by single and double consonants and vowels that is preserved to some extent still in English. I'd get rid of the redundant letter C and replace it with K or S as appropriate, replace Q with KW and X with KS. This would also mean a lot of redundant consonants could be done away with, eg. tell > tel, less > les, add > ad, address > adres. Also the redundant E and double consonants of words like "cigarette" would be got rid of, so "siggaret" instead. The redundant -te I want to pronounce as an extra, fourth syllable.
So:-
I'm verrie serprized that Noa Webster koed get the guvvernment tu du nu spelling refforms, houevver tuda spelling refforms ar verrie hard tu du (simmillar tu getting the metrik sistem used in the United Staats). It just won't happen. Pronunsiaashion based on wot dialekt? Hard nôthern Ingland aksent, hard suthern Amerrikan aksent, the terribel-sounding Boston aksent, so kôled Amerrikan Inglish (used on nuus shoos on TV in the US). I ges I woed go with Amerrikan Inglish, ôltho the offishial resseved pronunsiaashion Brittish aksent woed be fiin tu.

Booshank 16:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agree to Remove the Totally Bizzar

personally, i favor a major overhall of spelling. however, that's problematic, controversial, and difficult. in the meantime, i wonder if everyone could agree to modify the completely bizzar spellings that don't make much sense and could be adopted without much hassle. to facilitate the transition maybe english speakers could tolerate two or three 'correct' spellings (which already happens with uk and us spellings, especially on the internet). i would love to replace 'gh' and 'ph' with 'f', 'ps' with 's' (psychology), 'though' with 'tho', 'thought' with 'thot', 'knife' with 'nife', 'Christian church schedule' with 'Kristian church skedule' (or shedule in the U.K.). maybe adopted foreign words could be modified to better represent their pronunciation in english spelling e.g. 'rendevous' with 'rondevu' or 'rondevoo'. maybe having two or three official alternate spellings would allow people to use the spellings they prefer without the scorn of being unable to spell and an idiot. imo the internet will both allow and encourage people to use and later accept simplified spellings. AnFu 21:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I love the idea!Cameron Nedland 23:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe its actually a bad idea.

Spelling reform is an unpopular idea already, in spite of the tremendous cost of supporting the current mess. If the spelling werent so obviously goofy, people would be more likely to say 'not worth the hassle'.JO753 08:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The derivational argument against

This was the earlier text:

For example, Latin- or Greek-based word parts are often reduceable to their meaning.

I find it hilarious that the author makes exactly the mistake (misspelling reducible as reduce + able) that he or she is claiming traditional orthography helps with. Nothing against the author; and his or her point is, in fact, valid. It's just fascinating. It shows how TO betrays us just where it could be most helpful. --Tysto 05:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The argument quoted above is weak and controversial, and no evidence has been supplied in the article to support it. No good reason exists why Greek roots such as phone, graph, photo and phobia would be readily discernible when spelt with the redundant -ph- digraph, but the roots would be incomprehensible when respelt more consistently with Germanic orthography as fone, graf, foto and fobia. Show someone the word grafofobia (it's a Spanish word with Greek roots) and if they know their Greek roots they may correctly guess the meaning as fear of writing, even though the word is not spelt using the usual English orthography for words with Greek roots.
A similar argument can be made for Latin roots and roots from other languages.--B.d.mills 11:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The unstated 'missing argument' referred to above is presumably one to the effect that e.g., the letters 'ph' for 'f' send out a) a warning signal to the reader that Greek roots are involved and b) a continual reminder that the original Greek phi was a somewhat different sound. It is indeed a weak and academic argument that this somehow greatly assists the reader in acquiring knowledge of Greek roots, and in view of the cumulative cost of these orthographic extravagances to the English-speaking world as a whole - in which poverty remains far from unknown - it is surely also an irresponsible one, to boot? --Etaonsh 13:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Spanish for instance has telefono for telephone, and caracteristica for characteristic, &c.Cameron Nedland 16:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is rather a silly point as the Spanish demonstrates. Afrikaans manages perfectly well with telefoon (double o to denote the long vowel), ekwatoriaal, seksueel etc. Plenty of other languages do too. Booshank 16:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prominent Supporters of Reform

Some mention/list should be made of 3e prominent supporters and backers of spelling reform: Sir James Pitman, President Theodore Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw, Dewey, Carnegie, etc. Etaonsh 09:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Tysto 02:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
And then theres me...Cameron Nedland 16:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obstacles

The article as it currently stands seems to place 1755 in the early 19th century. --Etaonsh 13:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I'm missing the argument that most or all spelling reforms concentrate on foreigners learning to spell, on first class school children learning to write, on adults passing over to the new rules, but tend to neglect that (fixed) spelling is a service to the reader, and only to the reader. Any degree of complication in writing is justified by speeding up, simplifying, disambiguating the process of reading. A spelling reform considerably improving readibilty might be welcome. Unfortunately, English spelling is not yet unintelligible enough, so there actually is no consent within eyeshot on going into the trouble of modifying a proven system for nothing. --[IP] 09:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I have added some useful info and a link to many more objections & their rebuttals. And within a few days someone will delete it without consulting anybody else. Gate Keepers! They act just like religious fundamentalists.JO753 03:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Increasing use of Hindi Alphabets while writing English

What is lacking in our language system and how can we make sustainable changes to correct it ?

Yes . One of the world's biggest Problem of Language and Education . Language is more than anything else makes us human...

Unlike most other languages English doesn't have a set phonetic pronunciation for every word. Besides English,learning another 1 or 2 languages is an added advantage in a new economy in the long term. And the fact that every single rule of grammar and spelling has exceptions and the exceptions are never consistant. So I would say that the main disadvantage of the English language is that it is hard to learn.


Aren't there opportunities here for creative problem solvers? The USA has a multitude of children's publications. Could those in the publishing industry provide A new language named Simplish a uniform International standard for English language and it is important to erradicate illiteracy by using English Language , which will include our colloquial terms and the most essential words.If you want to be logical use Hindi alphabets. Because Hindi language is phonetic not English. Phonetic here means that you can predict the pronunciation from the spelling, and predict the spelling from the pronunciation . And the fact that every single rule of grammar and spelling has exceptions and the exceptions are never consistant. So I would say that the main disadvantage of the English language is that it is hard to learn.


In addition, the language is continuing to grow, with at least 25,00 words per year being added. I have found a hidden talent I never knew I had. I am able to embrace and encourage this new talent within myself So my latest Recipe ( languageSimplish) :

Take some Gaelic (original language of the Celts) Add a little Latin (from the Roman invasion) Mix in a lot of Anglo-Saxon (invasions from what is now Denmark and northern Germany) Fold in a little French (1066 and Do not forget If you want to be logical use Hindi alphabets. Because Hindi language is phonetic not English. Phonetic here means that you can predict the pronunciation from the spelling, and predict the spelling from the pronunciation .

How can we make it popular for people who have problem of learning spellings .?

Kindly add a phonetic language{ Simplish } in www.wikipedia.org

Why can't people learn to spell properly - and what has happened to grammar? I am sorry to say that some of the answers I have received from people makes me believe that the schools are not teaching English anymore. Small problem.....? Problem is .. Unlike most other languages English doesn't have a set phonetic pronunciation for every word. One of the world's biggest Problem of Language and Education . Language is more than anything else makes us human...

World needs a phonetic language for better education because...English is not extremely hard to start learning, but hard to perfect. A new language named Simplish a uniform International standard for English language and it is important to erradicate illiteracy by using English Language . Transliteration is the practice of transcribing a word or text written in one writing system into another writing system or system of rules for such practice.Transliteration because Hindi language is phonetic not English . Kindly add a phonetic language { Simplish or language X } in www.wikipedia.org . It needs a website like Globish language { http://www.globish.com/ } Spelling - Because of the many changes in pronunciation which have occurred since a written standard developed, and the retention of many historical idiosyncrasies in spelling, English spelling is difficult even for native speakers to master. This difficulty is shown in such activities as spelling bees that generally require the memorization of words.

English is messed up even without slang and or jargon being thrown into the mix. Take for example the word cleave it can mean both: to adhere closely; stick; cling (usually fol. by to). or to cut off; sever: could these two definitions be more opposite? No wonder it is such a hard languange to learn.

Spellings in english is hard...because so many words have extra letters that you don't need...like through...psycology.The fact that the spelling is far from phonetic - the same combinations of letters can stand for totally different words, like the "ough" in "tough", "though", "drought", etc.

No wonder it is such a hard languange to learn. lot of the spelling rules are also not consistent like with the word "pretty" for example . Phonics rules are that the "e" in this word should be a short sound. This is not true for the letter "e" at all. IN this word, the letter "e" has the sound of the short "i". Why not spell this word "pritty" as it is pronounced? This is just one such example and then you have all of the silent sounds.

Its pronunciation, and all the words that sound the same but arent, like see and sea, red and read . It makes it hard to follow ppl sometimes, especially when accents are involved. In most words that end in "e", the vowel is long (says it's name) bake, take, fate, smite, home, phone. Oxford , Yahoo Groups , teachers and wikipedia like things can help us selecting one of a Phonetic language for children like Kanata

Hindi

Japanese! :) Everyone should learn because 36 letters would be needed to make English language phonetic.

Phonetic here means that you can predict the pronunciation from the spelling, and predict the spelling from the pronunciation .Hindi is said to be more phonetic because of 47..alphabets 14 vowels 33 consonants



According to the Oxford dictionary's Key to Phonetic Symbols, there are 20 pronunciations of vowels/ diphthongs and 24 pronunciations of consonants in the English language, total: 44 letters

When IM and TXT messaging arrived, people wanted to message quickly and a new set of shorthand developed from the need. However, English is still alive and well. I have a good friend who teaches HS English. Here is a version of her speech at the beginning of each semester. "My name is Mrs. X and this is junior English. We will be learning English this semester, and you will be required to write several essays and papers. You need to be aware that all of these writing assignments need to be written in proper English. Any paper that is turned in with technological shorthand will receive an automatic failing grade. There will be no exceptions."

People who speak English as their first language are not necessarily aware which sound for A they are using when they use or read a word they have known . Of course, they are literate, whether they can explain the phonics system or not, because literate means capable of reading.

Transliteration is the practice of transcribing a word or text written in one writing system into another writing system or system of rules for such practice.

From a linguistic point of view, transliteration is a mapping from one system of writing into another, word by word. Transliteration attempts to be exact, so that an informed reader should be able to reconstruct the original spelling of unknown transliterated words. To achieve this objective transliteration may define complex conventions for dealing with letters in a source script which do not correspond with letters in a goal script.

Yes . a language that is spelled based on what you hear. etymology is a science of words and the words often are spelled differently than what the ear hears.


Its pronunciation, and all the words that sound the same but arent, like see and sea, red and read . It makes it hard to follow ppl sometimes, especially when accents are involved. In most words that end in "e", the vowel is long (says it's name) bake, take, fate, smite, home, phone.


The idioms are insanely difficult for others to understand. ("Rains cats and dogs," "see the light," etc.)

Then there are things like phrasal verbs (which, I'll call a kind of slang for argument's sake). Phrasal verbs are those verb phrases that we know so well and use so often that most often consist of some basic verb plus a preposition or adverb that then changes the meaning of the verb. Take for example, the verb to MAKE. Then add some prepositions/adverbs to it: to make OUT (= to kiss and smoosh faces with someone passionately) to make UP (=to do at a later time, as with a test; to get back on good terms with someone you might have been fighting with) to make OVER (=to complete redo, as with getting a whole new wardrobe, look, etc.) See what I mean? :P These phrasal verbs are some of the hardest things for non-native English speaking to learn, and to be able to use correctly.

English is messed up even without slang and or jargon being thrown into the mix. Hindi language is phonetic not English. Phoneticism has been embraced by some Eastern civilizations in recent years.


Simplish needs place in Wikipedia etc. ( Wikipedia does not accept this on the base of website like answers.yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammbaanig (talk • contribs) 18:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'Spelling Reform Campaigns'

Are these truly 'campaigns' as such or a shortlist of proposed simplified systems? As there are potentially dozens of possible contenders for inclusion on the list, why these and not others? --Etaonsh 20:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for the others on the list, but The Nooalf Revolution is an actual campaign. I've been tilting my lance at this for 8 years. I think very few of the people offering up reform proposals have any idea of the magnitude of the project. The typical 'reformer' puts together a system (usually just a sort of regularization scheme, which ends up looking like mispelled regular english), gets on the internet and discovers that his system has been preceeded by a hundred years, maybe joins Saundspel for a while, then drops it and goes on with his life.

What gets me is the resistance to the whole idea of reform. Its exactly like trying to get someone to quit smoking! Anybody who's been watching this topic lately knows that SOMEONE with a serious tradspelotine addiction has been deleting my additions. JO753 02:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The meaning of "Spelling Reform" when no central language regulator exists

That may sound like a silly question, but does the discussion on English spelling reform even make sense considering that there is in fact no official orthography of English set out by a centralized body like "l'Académie française", "la Real Academia Espanõla", or "de Nederlandse Taalunie" ?

Considering that there is no legally-binding orthographic standard in the United States, or the United Kingdom, or any other English-speaking country for that matter, aren't newspapers, publishers, writers, educators, or ordinary individuals basically free to use any spelling they may choose, without any need for a formal "spelling reform" ? This (rhetorical) question is related to a broader discussion now going on here on whether standard English is actually regulated or not. Please contribute. 200.177.13.136 02:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that centralized language regulation is a necessary condition for a spelling reform to take place. After all, Noah Webster managed to reform English spelling in America without the aid of any centralized language regulator. FilipeS 21:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Noah Webster was only able to institute some changes because he published the first dictionary of American English. Even so, many of his proposed changes were not accepted, such as respelling tongue as tung. I have since added a paragraph about the lack of a spelling regulator as an obstacle to spelling reform of the English language. --B.d.mills 06:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Even though many reformers think that, its just an opinion. As you can see with the French & German reforms, having a central regulator/authority dictating changes can be very unpopular and possibly unsuccessful. Because of the social differences and the magnitude, I believe it would be a total failiure for English. Here's a future history thing I did about it: The Feared & Reviled Shlock Tank Analogy. JO 753 19:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biased article

Its my opinion that the Spelling Reform & English Spelling Reform articles are inteneded to discourage interest in the subject. It seems they were written, or at least modified, by somebody who is against the whole idea.

Generally, the articles are very tedious. Maybe this is an indirect result of the Wiki style and the fact that the whole subject of spelling is not exactly buxom babes on flying motorcycles, but it certainly will not keep your average grammer school student interested in persuing it after his report is turned in. Wether it is intentionally boring or not, the result is the same.

Evidence that the article is not neutral:

In the English section of the main Reform article, you will see that the 2nd half of it is clearly discouraging and concludes with a sentence & link refering to a parody of reform.

If someone were to click on the little link at the top of this section to get to the English Spelling Reform article, they will find only more discouragement:

Take a quick look at the WARNING boxes & notes in the English article. You will notice that the 1st 2 sentences have accuracy problem notes thrown in on very trivial issues, starting the reader off with a skeptical atttitude. The Reform Campaigns section has 3 big warning boxes in it. In contrast, the Obstacles and Criticisms sections, even tho the material is unsourced, has only the single [citation needed] which I added. The issues raised in these 2 sections are easily dismissed, yet I found that any refutations, or even references to further criticisms of reform with refutations, were deleted within a few days.

The Spelling Reform Campaigns section gives only links to some proposals with practically nothing about them, but finds the space to include a Successes in spelling complication subsection! Following it with a list of 11 'successfully' simplified words is not likely to give anybody an idea that there is any life in the subject. And in case somebody might still have some enthusiasm left for the subject, the failed Tribune campaign concludes the article.

To put some final nails in the coffin lid, the External Links section at the bottom includes at least 3 'humorous' webpages that basicly deride the idea of reform. At this point, I am suprised that my addition of a link to the Children of the Code site was not deleted.

Its seems to me that the average person reading these articles will be left with the impression that the subject is little more than a dusty old joke. Somebody who has a true interest in modern English spelling reform efforts will have wasted their time here.

Since I have an interest in this, I will be accused of being biased. Really, I wouldn't care, but since the Nooalf site gets quite a few visitors linking from here, people are obviously interested in the subject and looking to Wikipedia for information. The fact that Wiki has a very large web presence in general and on this subject requires that it be replaced with a truly unbised and complete article. With great power comes great responsibilty.JO 753 20:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I find the article biased in the opposite direction, but you find what you're looking for I guess. In essence it needs to be rewritten from the bottom-up, or top-down, whichever you prefer. Re-written with good sources. I would suggest a new layout would be:
  1. Lead
  2. History (would cover a history of spelling reform in English, including something on the politics of reform)
  3. General trends and approaches (would cover phonetic vs. phonemic, etc. — compare and contrast with other languages — probably Spanish and Serbo-Croatian would be useful in a European context, but also some details on the reform and standardisation — indeed "separation" of the Scandinavian languages — describing how reform is often linked to a standardisation and "distinction of language" process would be interesting)
  4. Major proposals (more details on approximately 3 of the largest ones, with articles {{main}}'d out)
  5. See also
  6. References
I don't have time to research this, so if anyone makes any other choices they'd probably be very welcome. I seem to remember reading a book by Geoffrey Sampson that discussed this subject, with references. It would make a good start for anyone undertaking the task. - Francis Tyers · 08:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
A final note, splitting the article into "Arguments for" and "Arguments against" is a dreadful way of writing. - Francis Tyers · 08:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Somebody want to explain why they deleted the Children of the Code link?JO 753 16:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Because it isn't an appropriate external link. - Francis Tyers · 17:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the major reason there is any debate at all about spelling reform is ignorance of the cost of disorganized orthography, this is THE most important link in both articles. Seriously, it is the 800 pound gorrila in the room.JO 753 16:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, my main issue is that it reads like a propaganda site and I cannot find any of the references, particularly for the economic effects. Appropriate references, links etc. will look like this:
  • Sylvia Defior and Pío Tudela (2005) "Effect of phonological training on reading and writing acquisition". Reading and Writing (Springer)
  • HOLGER JUUL and BALDUR SIGURDSSON (2005) Orthography as a handicap? A direct comparison of spelling acquisition in Danish and Icelandic". Scandinavian Journal of Psychology Volume 46 Issue 3 Page 263-272
  • Spencer, K. (2002) "English spelling and its contribution to illiteracy: word difficulty for common English words". Reading Literacy and Language Volume 36, Number 1, 1 April 2002 , pp. 16-25(10)
There is a wealth of information out there. I don't have the time to synthesise it into an article, but I am willing to help out a bit if you want. - Francis Tyers · 19:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

So your main objection is the style of the site. You have to keep in mind that its a large, well funded multimedia project, so its not going to look like the text only academic pages you are used to. Since the real material is presented in a bunch of videos, the text is mostly 'selling' the video material, and is thus a synopsis. It may seem alarmist to you because there is a reeeellly serious literacy problem here. A news story about a fire is not going to be presented like a stock report.71.194.49.234 03:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

To coin another analogy, it looks like they're trying to sell a molehill as a mountain ;) The main thing in your text that does alarm me slightly is "the text is mostly 'selling' the video material", presumably these people sell their "presentation"/videos etc. If so it isn't really appropriate for Wikipedia. Another thing that concerns me is the US-bias. This article is to do with spelling reform in English, and although the US has the largest population of English speakers, it is important to see (at least on an educational level — systems vary) what the "costs" are in other countries with English first language speakers: Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Ireland, the United Kingdom, South Africa etc. Some more references from the other side of the fence:
  • B KESSLER (2003) "Is English Spelling Chaotic? Misconceptions concerning its irregularity" - Reading Psychology, 2003
  • N. Chomsky & M. Halle, The Sound Pattern of English, Harper and Row, New York, NY, 1968.
  • PT Smith (1980) "In Defence of Conservatism in English Orthography". Visible Language v14 n2 p122-36 1980
I really don't know how much of a literacy problem there is in the United States, but it occurs to me that the problem is mainly with the school system as opposed to any major difficulties with English orthography. It isn't particularly easy, in fact compared to Spanish or Serbo-Croatian it is quite hard, it is irregular and to be honest, I can see the benefit of orthographical reform. However, it should be noted that other countries with far harder writing systems (see for example Japanese orthography — three systems for one language) have extremely high levels of literacy. However, we should be discussing the page here, not the problem :)
Do you have any thoughts on how the page should be laid out, anew or in reference to my previous suggestion? - Francis Tyers · 07:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I didnt know Wiki policy extended to the sites it links to also. I think I hear the beginnings of a massive implosion! The CotC project is being done by non-profit organizations. Read the copywrite info at the bottom of the page.

People have been attempting to defend English spelling for centuries. The more highly educated they are, the more rediculous their arguments become. Unless you love modern art, a mess is a mess no matter how you look at it.

I dont know much about Japanese spelling. Maybe its complex, rather than disorganized? In any case its never a good argument to say 'thats worse so this is ok'.

My suggestion for the article would be to eliminate it and replace the English section in the general reform article with a few paragraphs about the historic and current attempts at reform. Unlike the other languages, English reform has yet to happen, so the current efforts are probably what most readers will be looking for. As you stated above, writing it as for & against is lousy, and in my opinion, not appropriate for Wiki.JO 753 06:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you are studying orthography, with a view to reform, it makes sense to look at the alternatives (I find Hangul particularly fascinating). I'm not saying the Japanese system is worse or better, I'm just saying that they have three systems, two syllabaries and one logographic system (Han characters). I'm not defending English spelling, its a pain in the arse, but I've yet to see a proposal for reform that I can wholeheartedly, or even partially-heartedly support. I think exaggerating the problems of English orthography are doing your cause more harm than good — although I admit that my experience of spelling hasn't ever been particularly troublesome. I'd agree that if the page cannot be improved it should be merged and re-directed into spelling reform. If you want to do it go ahead or let me know and I'll do it. - Francis Tyers · 07:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree with merging this article into Spelling reform. Noah Webster's changes to English spelling in America count as a reform in my book, and that alone deserves an article of its own. Reform proposals also deserve an article of their own, even if few people take them seriously. FilipeS 14:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
English reform was split off from the main article only recently. Before, it was the biggest chunk of the Spelling Reform article. As you can see, a trace of this is still left because the other languages are placed under the title 'Other Languages'. From the perspective of readers looking this up, that makes sense since this is the English version of Wiki and they will most likely type 'spelling reform' in the search rather than specifying 'English'. But I see your point, FilipeS. Theres a mountain of info on the subject, so how about a 'just the facts, mam' in the general reform article with links to reform sites and Wiki articles on the most notable efforts. This way the casual reader will not get inundated with minutiae and those who are really interested can pick which direction they want to go.
Francis, I am not exagerating the problems caused by this mess. You should take some time to watch the videos on Children of the Code. I never had any more of a problem with spelling than the average person does, but alot of people do. If you compare the amount of effort we put into learning & using it compared to languages with good spelling systems, such as Korean, you start to get an inkling of the magnitude of the problem.JO 753 16:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
If you have any good papers on the economic aspects of the lack of spelling reform I would love to read them. - Francis Tyers · 14:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I was the one who moved most of what was at Spelling reform here. I felt that the previous version of the other article overloaded the reader with information (some of it questioned), and why do that when there was also this article, specifically about spelling reforms in English, with free room?...
If your suggestion is that the text on the main article should be rewritten to give a clearer picture of the basic facts about spelling reform in English, then that sounds quite reasonable. Go for it! FilipeS 20:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel that my time will be wasted, since Bobet or Francis will delete nearly anything I do. Being knowledgeable about reform makes me biased in their view. I am also quite knowledgable about mechanical design, machining, the Terminator movies & the Simpsons, so shouldn't write about them either. Much better to have someone with a few days of casual Googling write about a subject than risk the appearance of an opinion.JO 753 09:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think we will delete it? If you write in accordance with Wikipedia policies, using reliable sources (I've listed some starting points above), there will be no problem. If you feel the content or source might be contentious, feel free to discuss it on the talk page first. - Francis Tyers · 14:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Take the Children of the Code link for example. An elementary aspect of reform is illiteracy, and you are not going to find a site that presents the problem more thuroughly. Yet you, who admits "I don't have time to research this" deletes it. From what you have written so far, it looks as if you haven't bothered to do more than glance over the intro page. If you had, you would have noticed that they are also avoiding the reform issue and blaming teachers, parents & poverty. So, why do you think I could write an entire article without running afoul of the editorial policies if even this one little link fails to satisfy you?

On top of this, in order to write a decent article, I would have to include some work from my own site, since none of my predecesors or contemporaries have thought beyond the most obvious (and often erroneous) notions of reform strategy, so you would immediatly hack the whole thing to gibberish or delete it as original material.

So my suggestion is that FilipeS should write it. Filipe, you are hereby given permission to use anything from Nooalf. The future of Spelling and theres a bunch of guys in the saundspel forum who will very enthusiasticly help if you have questions. (Try Gus Hasselquist 1st)JO 753 19:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

But you still haven't presented any reliable sources on the economic impact of unreformed spelling on the US, or world economies, or even the economy of a single state. Where are the studies, where are the reports ? If the problem is so big surely something must have been written about it, a paper, or a monograph ? Not even a letter to the editor in a respected journal of linguistics, writing systems or orthography? - Francis Tyers · 07:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there arent any? CotC doesnt directly blame the bad orthography, but it is chock full of PhDs and other experts. I just got hi speed, so will watch all the videos this weekend.JO 753 21:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry, but I don't think I would be comfortable rewriting this article, as I don't know much about this topic. It would be better if the opposing sides here could reach some agreement. You could discuss possible rewrites here in the Talk Page first. Regards. FilipeS 01:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I find this article rather biased in favour of reform at present. The criticisms section is much too short as well, and each of the criticisms is dismissed in short order, using arguments that an opponent of reform can immediately think of several counter-arguments for.

I think Francis Tyers's layout proposal for a new structure to the article is a very good one, as is the suggestion that more references to actual research be used - there is so much of it out there! Hundreds of people with a thorough grounding in their field have been devoting the matter a great deal of thought, devising countless experiments, and producing thousands upon thousands of scholarly papers and books for decades. Anyone who wants to form an objective view on reform, and in particular on whether more "phonological" spelling systems actually do produce higher levels of literacy or not, must look at these actual results. You cannot justify ignoring expert opionion when it goes against yours, or calling arguments ridiculous because they use concepts and issues that you haven't spent the best part of your life studying or because they raise issues that you don't deem relevant enough - the relative relevancy of the many advantages and drawbacks of reforming the spelling one way, reforming it another, or not reforming it at all, is an integral part of the whole debate.

And finally, if reasons of economy are invoked to justify reform, surely the costs of reform should be brought into the picture as well? 89.164.29.166 (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Worldwide

Eh? Why does it need a more worldwide view? The article discusses activities in places where the language has the most speakers. True, it doesn't mention the Falkland Islands or Singapore, but it needn't unless those places have prominent agitators for or against spelling reform. Jim.henderson 12:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that its silly to have a general requirement for a worldwide view on every subject. But, since English is virtually everywhere and has actual effects on nearly everybody, a general worldwide opinion on its spelling would be relevant to this article.JO 753 13:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)JO753

Worldwide view? Spelling bee is a bizarre thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.101.76.122 (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)