Shuud we reform English spelling?

[Zoesmama]

Do your children struggle with spelling?
Would you like to see traditional spellings updated?
The English Spelling Society were set up in 1908 by philanthropists and educators with the express intention of revising and simplifying English spelling.
This weekend the Society have launched a new simplified spelling scheme. The Sunday Times would like to hear your views!
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/readers-poll-should-english-spelling-be-reformed-to-make-it-easier-to-learn-kfhtxpccn

NOOOO!! The history of English is fascinating and our spelling reflects this. It’s a joy to discover the shared roots when you’re learning another language and even find little historical explanations for strange spellings. It takes a bit of getting used to at first but if the billions of people who learn it as a second language can manage it, then so can the native speakers!

I’d love to read the article but it is behind a paywall.

No.

No

But why would should have 2 ‘u’s in it?

No! No! No! There's nothing wrong with it as it is. Why does everything have to be reduced to the lowest common denominator?

I can't read the article.

My elder DD (9yo) is suspected dyslexic, or at least a poor working memory. Her spelling is atrocious and very phonetic. (She spelt Mummy wrong on my birthday card to give you an example). The randomness of the English language definitely doesn't help. So simplified would help her immensely.

On the other hand... English is odd because of its roots. Its beautiful in its own unique way. It would be a shame to lose its history.

Language evolves, forcing spelling changes on a population seems a little pointless to me, as spellings will adapt as language evolves.

I appreciate there are people who struggle now, but how does changing the way we spell help? People still have to learn/relearn the spelling. One example given in the article is that 'educate' would become 'edducate', how is that simpler or easier to remember than the original?

I was hoping the 'shuud' in the title was a typo. How is that a simplification? Two u's make a 'yoo' sound (eg vacuum). So phonetically shuud would become sh-yoo-d (more like shoed than should.

I suppose this is meant to make English spelling more phonetic for Received Pronunciation speakers (mainly Southerners). Not too sure how this would help Mancunians or Geordies.

It would be easier if each sound only had one way of writing it down.

Im thinh ow, ough, ou or f, ph or having to say is that c like an s or c like a k?

No.

Love this idea. Languages change and evolve nothing wrong with that. This would just be a planned evolution. Dont agree it lessens the history of words.

It would be more logical, help puerile with learning difficulties and make it more attractive and easy to foreigner learning.

Agree wouldnt help for regional dialects but cant be worse really. Dialects dont match the either spelling anyway

Cant realistically see it happening though. People are so stuck in there ways and resist change. i. e. They have learnt illogical spellings so they must be the only right spellings. As the previous posts demonstrate

NO!

I am SICK of seeing:

Should of/would of/could of
Mixing up there/their/they're
Confusing you're/your
Defiantly for definitely
Are for our
Appauling - because it sounds like it has the name Paul in the middle, doesn't mean that it does
I/he/she/they "should of went" Whaaaaaat???

How does it happen? This is not dyslexia is it? I left school in 2001 and I remember a teacher writing "If Sandra does not no something she needs to ask". I knew how to spell, Miss Brunt!

No. I assume those of us who can already spell correctly would be expected to 'unlearn' what we know?

In the era of spell checks it is really becoming less necessary anyway. I do spell some words incorrectly, but I make the effort to use a dictionary.

No, languages should evolve and not be forcibly changed.

Well, not in your case, Sandcastles24!
You have already picked a new spelling for “their” in your post.

No.

George Bernard Shaw was a leading light of this iirc - we studied this for A Level many moons ago. One if his examples was that ghoti could be an alternative spelling of fish.

Ideally I susppose - I'm dyslexic mainly affects my spelling - and my children seem similar.

It is suspring how many easier to spell languages did go through a spelling reform at some point.

I just don't think it a practicle suggestion as there's no overall control of English as a langaue - and it's very widespread.

I do think better teaching of spelling would massively help many who currently struggle.

I stepped in with structured programs at home at very young age with younger children and they have fewer spelling problems than eldest - though she was only Y2 when we started helping her but so many mistake had been fixed at that point and she wasn't being corrected in her school work with spelling though out primary.

Spelling tests don't teach spelling but seem to be expected to teach spelling and they don't really help struggling spellers get better though the do help fix idea that the child is bad at spelling.

But here is the rub.

You cannot make English phonetic, because by doing so you are declaring one accent to be the 'correct' pronunciation.

So would it be bath or bahth?
Would it be butter or bu''er
would it be mom or mum?

and so on.

English is pronounced so many different ways, not only round this country but round the world, that it would not be possible to find a standardised phonetic spelling

Just for interest Indonesian transformed all its spelling in about 1970/1980s sometime.

When it was originally written down, it used Dutch spellings so
Jogjakarta was pronounced Yogyakarta as in Dutch the j is a y sound.

the word for cat is kucing. (in English it is kuching) Dutch spelling would be kutching (I think).

So they simplified the spelling. Gave every letter one sound.
Made the language totally phonetic.
There are no double consonants within a syllable at all. There are no double vowels either.
It is now the easiest language in the world to read and learn.
When you find old books they all have the old spelling, and it is amazing to see how complex it is.

just as an example

fridge = old spelling koelkast
new spelling kulkas

English spelling have also changed with time in more random ways.

www.lexico.com/grammar/english-spelling-changes

Dictionaries have slowed down spelling changes - though they still happen but pre-dictionaries spelling was more flexiable with Shakepear spellings same words different ways even names like his own- and changes in pronunciation could be reflected quicker.

The entomology of words isn't really covered in school - well wasn't for my children - instead we were trying to find word groups and guidlines that would probably apply.

It can feel unfair that if you don't pick spelling up well naturally because it not really taught well in many schools but your still examined and judged on it.

So I can see the case for reform but I don't think it will ever happen.

Absolutely not. The English language is already in the process of being downgraded, with the use of text language. If we 'simplify' our language much more, we'll be down to a series of grunts, u o k hun, and ru ok?
It's already ridiculous.

@Babdoc 😂
I know, I was looking to see see if any pedantic sticklers would have rant.
I also think homophones are a waste of time too.

Language should be for communication and expression not an arbitrary set of rules.

Read some old English for truely creative spelling. It was all correct at the time