Talk:English-language spelling reform

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. --Tysto 02:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And then theres me...Cameron Nedland 16:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prominent Supporters of Reform

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: (I deleted the content that was here as it was awful in a number of ways. If you're interested, go to ammbaanig's talk page Hadrian89 (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone object to the above tract being removed? Poor style, rambling & repetitive, not to mention off topic...Hadrian89 (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have been interesting to know if Hindi alphabets were actually used to write English, however the above comments refer to no such practice, contrary to its title. Apcbg (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'd be interested to know as well. Oh well. I'm going to delete the body of his text and suggest that anybody interested goes to the user's talk page (which is exactly the same anyway). Hadrian89 (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Increasing use of Hindi Alphabets while writing English 

message: 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)
thread_title:  'Spelling Reform Campaigns' 

message: 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)
replies: text: Worldwide there is no centralized body; however, for British English I would say that the Oxford English Dictionary, even if it has no legal authority, has de facto authority. I'm pretty sure all the major publishing houses and newspapers follow its decisions. Hadrian89 (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that is the commercial interest: surely a language spelt problematically gives people a big reason to buy dictionaries? Not immediately obvious to all, perhaps, but hardly yet a conspiracy theory?--86.31.105.33 (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: ...added to which, there is the 'cavalier connection.' English spelling historically got more complicated with the Restoration of the Monarchy, gaining spurious French letters as if in recognition of Charles II's long exile in France - and Oxford, the inescapable base of the inescapable dictionary, was historically the cavalier stronghold and temporary capital of the forces of his ill-fated father, Charles I.--86.31.105.33 (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  The meaning of "Spelling Reform" when no central language regulator exists 

message: 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)
thread_title: Worldwide

message: Nick C. Ellis and A. Mari Hooper, "Why learning to read is easier in Welsh than in English: Orthgraphic transparency effects evinced with frequency-matched tests", Applied Psycholinguistics 22: 571-599, 2001. 
This study compared the rate of literacy acquisition in orthographically transparent Welsh and orthographically opaque English using reading tests that were equated for frequency of written exposure. Year 2 English-educated monolingual children were compared with Welsh-educated bilingual children, matched for reading instruction, background, locale, and math ability. Welsh children were able to read aloud accurately significantly more of their language (61% of tokens, 1821 types) than were English children (52% tokens, 716 types), allowing them to read aloud beyond their comprehension levels (168 vs. 116%, respectively). Various observations suggested that Welsh readers were more reliant on an alphabetic decoding strategy: word length determined 70% of reading latency in Welsh but only 22% in English, and Welsh reading errors tended to be nonword mispronunciations, whereas English children made more real word substitutions and null attempts. These findings demonstrate that the orthographic transparency of a language can have a profound effect on the rate of acquisition and style of reading adopted by its speakers.
Would be interesting to include something on this. - Francis Tyers · 13:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.168.245 (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And why would reading aloud beyond their comprehension levels be something that should be valued? It seems that that is likely to mislead teachers as to what the children do and don't understand. Salopian (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: At Salopian: That is a good point. As a teacher of learning disabilities in English (with 25 years of experience), there are many students who are excellent decoders, but do not understand what they read too. A reformed system that would improve decoding would require less time spent on decoding and more time on checking if comprehension has been attained. Let's not forget the cumulative aspect of a reform. New learners will be able to connect written words with spoken words. An innocent mention of a new word in a conversation will be more likely linked to its use in a written text, improving the chances of being understood in one additional context.Pierrejcd (talk) --Pierrejcd (talk) 07:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Another article

message: Most of the content of "criticism" is repeated from the "obstacles" section.  Also obviously any obstacle represents a valid criticism, though the reverse may not be true.  Any dissent?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.224.163 (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this should definitely be done. People should also not make wild unsupported assertions attempting to undermine each obstacle/criticism within those sections ("Most people..."). Salopian (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Merging some of the Obstacles with some of the Criticism section is a good idea, and would improve the article. I have already done this with some of the obstacles, which were just straight criticism. Some of the remaining obstacles should be moved elsewhere in the article, and some of it should be deleted unless supporting references can be found. --<SPAN STYLE="font-family:monospace; color:#008800; background-color:#ffffcc; border:1px solid #ff4444;"> B.D.Mills </SPAN> (T, C) 08:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combine obstacles and criticism 

message: The article English spelling reform lists 10 proposals, while the article List of English spelling reform proposals adds only 3 proposals more; the latter could easily be added to the former article (which incidentally is not exceedingly long). Apcbg (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger 

message: The article false etymology has a stale link here:
:"Over time, many words have been altered in order to better reflect false Latin or Greek etymologies. Island (previously iland) and ptarmigan (previously tarmigan) are two such words. See English spelling reform—successes in spelling complication."
Since this discussion has been deleted, where is a more appropriate replace to redirect? Or should the link just be deleted? Dcoetzee 01:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The best approach here is to delete the stale link, then for each listed word provide a reference to its etymology. --<SPAN STYLE="font-family:monospace; color:#008800; background-color:#ffffcc; border:1px solid #ff4444;"> B.D.Mills </SPAN> (T, C) 04:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complication 

message: New Spelling came very close to being accepted as the standard. It was presented to the British parliament in 1949 and rejected by only 87 votes to 84. Another bill actually passed its first stage reading in 1953, but was withdrawn after opposition by the Minister for Education. http://www.e-speec.com/new.htm --Espoo (talk) 07:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The History section of the article needs some expansion on the history of English-language spelling reform post-1920. In general, such history would (probably) show a waning interest on the matter with occasional attempts by legislatures to impose remedies. Your reference above would be useful if it is supported by print references. Australia in the 1970's actually succeeded with a legislated spelling reform for a few years. This reform spelt all /e/ with "e" so "health" became "helth" (see SR1). This reform was subsequently repealed by a conservative government. --<SPAN STYLE="font-family:monospace; color:#008800; background-color:#ffffcc; border:1px solid #ff4444;"> B.D.Mills </SPAN> (T, C) 04:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  no mention of nearly accepted UK standard New Spelling 

message: I attepted to remove some of the article′s bias and streamline it with an edit.  Tell me if I am way off.  Stephen Lee Williamson (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Redo 

message: Someone has placed a 'Citation needed' tab in the bit in the intro which refers to commercial interests in opposition to English spelling reform. There is an ambiguity here: is the editor questioning whether those who sell English dictionaries and materials propounding shorthand, synthetic phonics, Sayspel and remedial literacy texts benefit from the complexities of traditional English spelling, or whether that is their intention? If the latter, it is something they would scarcely ever admit to; if the former, the commercial conflict of interests is surely self-evident, on examination?--86.31.105.33 (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Citation needed' to prove the existence of vested interests opposed to reform? 

message: I just noticed that in the "History" section someone has spelled "Although" "Altho" (within parentheses). In fact, the sentence beginning with "Oxford" seems to make little sense, and should at least be written with more clarity. Also, given that someone spelled "Whether" "Wether" in the discussion forum, I'm beginning to think there's a bit of reform going on in this article. Please someone clean it up if you have the time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aer9998 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Reformist Article?

message: User:Joefromrandb has twice switcht all instances of "spelt" to "spelled", insisting that "spelt" is "archaic". That may be true in your part of the US, but here in Ireland, and in Britain, the word is commonly written "spelt" and spoken as such. As far as I can see, "spelt" (rather than "spelled") was the original spelling used in this article. Per WP:RETAIN, the spelling in an article shouldn't be switcht from one kind to another without good reason. Thus, "spelt" should be kept. ~Asarlaí 18:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it shouldn't. This isn't an WP:ENGVAR situation. Your original research notwithstanding, the several dictonaries I've checked list "spelt" as a second pronounciation in the UK. If an article said "thrice", should we not change it to "three times" because "thrice is a real word and that was the original spelling used in the article"? BTW, is "uzed" another spelling variation with which I'm not familiar? How about "switcht"? Do people really say and write "switcht" instead of "switched" in Ireland and Britain? I realize that you enjoy using obsolete speech. I actually think that is a good thing; just not in Wikipedia articles. Articles should be written in simple, everyday prose rather than Elizabethan English. I'm not the first editor to make this change. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

text: BTW, as another editor noted above, using spellings such as "altho" for "although" and "wether" for "whether" make it seem like there is some attempt at reform taking place within the article. This article is to explain proposed spelling-reforms to our readers, rather than soapbox for it. --Joefromrandb (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Spelt" might be Elizabethan English to you, but here and in Britain it's modern, everyday English. Just because you (seemingly) don't see it in your part of the US doesn't mean it's non-existent or wrong. I don't know how "altho" and "wether" got into the article but I agree that we should use standard spellings. Also, we're here to talk about the article, not to poke fun at others for the way they write (whether it be wilfull or not). I could do likewise for your writing "you're" and "diictionaries" but I think that would be bad form.  ~Asarlaí 19:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't bad form at all. Thank you for pointing out that I wrote "diictionaries". Because you pointed it out, I was able to correct it. Your statement that "spelt is moodern, everyday English" is original research. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Also, I never said "spelt" was "non-existant or wrong". It certainly exists, and it isn't wrong. Just like "switcht" exists and isn't wrong. It's still obsolete, just as "spelt" is still not listed as a UK-first-prononuciation in any dictionary I've checked. I realize that you and your friends may use it; that doesn't make it ideal to use in an article. And you really should AGF. I was not poking fun at you. --Joefromrandb (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Spelt" and "Spelled" 

message: The article states: "Reformers point-out [and by the way, why is there a hyphen there?] that current English spelling sometimes favors one dialect or pronunciation over others. For example, the first syllable in simultaneously can be pronounced like the first syllable in simple (/sɪ/) or like the first syllable in cycle (/saɪ/), but current spelling favors the former."
This is simply untrue. Other words beginning with si- are pronounced /saɪ/: siphon, size, Simon, silo... Thus the current spelling of "simultaneous/ly" is ideal, as it allows both pronunciations and favours neither. The only possible complaint about it is that it is ambiguous, which is a different problem. This section should therefore be replaced with a real example.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.60.75 (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Simultaneous" as example of "Whose accent?" 

message: Two of the table's three examples are from Japanese, but Japanese is not written in Latin script and thus is invalid as a source of examples demonstrating the orthographies of other languages that use the Latin script.  Striking these two entries leaves only one, which wouldn't really qualify as a table.  I'm removing it altogether.  Anyone who wants to try to resurrect this table will need valid examples.  (In truth the entire argument needs a source, but I'm just removing the table.)  108.206.152.174 (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing "cognates in other languages" table 

message: In the article English-language spelling reform, it says that "Spelling reformers seek to make English spelling more consistent and more phonetic." whereas in the article Spelling reform, it says that spelling reform is "where a deliberate...change to spelling takes place."
Neither definition includes a citation. I'm in favour of the 2nd definition, because it seems to follow directly from the definitions of spelling and reform. The 1st definition would not include people who wish to allow more inconsistency in English spelling (such as Simon Horobin) and people who wish to revise spelling based on morphological considerations over phonetic considerations. Throughme (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Spelling reform means deliberately switching from one spelling system to another, usually to make things more consistent. Simon Horobin isn't proposing this. He's saying that people should be given more leeway when it comes to spelling, that "English spelling is evolving and English speakers should let it". It's a hands-off rather than a hands-on approach. ~Asarlaí 20:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Horobin is proposing that we deliberately switch from a system of spelling each word in one way to a system of spelling words in multiple ways. It's a hands-off reform, allowing more choice, in the same sense that education reforms can allow more choice for how students learn, market reforms can allow more choice for what people produce and consume, and feminist reforms can allow more choice for how women live their lives. Throughme (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose there's no harm in mentioning it in the article. However, I'm not sure we shud be treating it as an English spelling reform proposal, because it goes agenst the usual meaning of "English spelling reform". Merriam-Webster defines "spelling reform" as "a movement to modify conventional spelling so as to lessen or remove the differences between the orthography and the pronunciation of words". Likewize, Random House Dictionary defines it as "an attempt to change the spelling of English words to make it conform more closely to pronunciation". ~Asarlaí 14:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for showing me those definitions. I've added Horobin's proposal back in, and included a caveat that mentions Random House and Merriam-Webster. Throughme (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of spelling reform 

message: Robin Randall - The Kleer English Dictionary, 2012 Available via Lulu Press explores rules leading to Spelling Reform
RLRandallx 19:21, 9 Dec 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Reference Available 

message: To https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-language_spelling_reform#Cognates_in_other_languages. You might be interested to know that the "nationalisation" of English loanwords in German are frequent sources of spelling mistakes. Hobby is taken from English and its plural often as well: Hobbies. German spelling is Hobbys however. Similarly with the pseuso loanword Handy for mobile phone, with a false plural Handies instead of Handys. A similar case is the wrong but frequent German usage of the English genitive apostrophe. – Fritz Jörn (talk) 08:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Loanwords in German 

message: "Australian Ministry of Helth" was only used informally, see Minister_for_Health_(Australia) (as of 3 January 2014), the statement that under the Whitlam government The Department of Health was known as the "Ministry of Helth" is incorrect. "Ministry" in Australia is never used to describe a government Department, it is only used to describe a tenure of a Minister (e.g. "During So-and-so's ministry ...")  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunswicknic (talk • contribs) 11:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Australian Ministry of Helth" only used informally 

message: Those who want a reform should check Turkish alphabet out. It is already what you are looking for.--95.12.116.99 (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: English has many more vowels than Turkish, the Turkish alphabet would not fit English phonology well at all. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish Aphabet 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on English-language spelling reform. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j25/feynman.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901063613/http://newark.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/preface.html to http://newark.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/preface.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on English-language spelling reform. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901063613/http://newark.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/preface.html to http://newark.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/preface.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090217173652/http://www.rightingthemothertongue.com/ to http://www.rightingthemothertongue.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect English reform. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  signed, Rosguill talk 18:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "English reform" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Phonetic spelling of any variety of English would be extraordinarily complex, and applying that complexity to all varieties would generate a plethora of differentiated orthographies. Surely what's intended is phonemic spelling. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "some attempt genuine phonetic spelling" -- Can this be true??? 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :English language reform. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 8#English language reform until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 08:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "English language reform" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: this isnt a fricking izzzyzzz video, this is wikipedia. the beginning should be something like "an english-language spelling reform is [blah, blah, blah]"
we don't need to hook the readers or whatever, its not uniform with other wikipedia articles STIK2009 (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  change the opening line 

message: The Merriam Webster entry for "ache" supports the explanation that it was changed from "ake" due to a misunderstanding about it being related to a Greek word. Does anything else need to happen to verify this and cite it?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ache Xybreus (talk) 08:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification of Ache Respelling 

message: The redirect Nooalf has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Jalen Folf (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Nooalf]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]