Perhaps I overstated the matter somewhat but given the significant variability in vowel pronunciation across the English speaking world, I simply cannot see any way around the vowel mess no matter what we do. It might be better to suggest concentration on consonant reform rather than vowel reform for this reason alone.

Regarding foreign loan words, I am certainly advocating respelling any that vary significantly from the usual regular spelling rules. However, doing so wholesale would be less than helpful, especially for words that have become very common. For instance, it is not clear that respelling “tsunami” as “tsoonommee” or some such would be terribly helpful. Still, it seems that many of the older load words have already been respelled since they came before spelling standardization. Certainly any new borrowings should be respelled rather than brought across unmodified; it would, at the very least, lessen the confusion. I would certainly not object to correction of some of the more egregious departures from English phonetics like “gila” or “jalapeno” which contain consonants that do not follow anything resembling standard English practice.

It is interesting that you bring up etymological links as that is, in my opinion, the primary driving force against respelling loan words. It is not clear to me, however, that there is any particular benefit to maintaining lexical representations of etymological links when doing so introduces confusion for spelling. Indeed, there are counter arguments to such as well, including the fact that many words acquired incorrect etymologies over the years due to coincidental similarities to other words.

I do fully agree that a wholesale overhaul of English would not be helpful. One of the nice things about Modern English is that it has stayed relatively stable for so long. Any spelling reform must occur in a manner that does not completely render older texts undecipherable and this is the biggest problem most proposals have. The proposals make such sweeping changes that it is nearly impossible to transfer between current spelling and the proposed respelling.

As you say, if spelling reform is going to happen, it will happen naturally as part of the normal evolution of English writing, driven by those doing the writing, much the same way the spoken language changes over time. And that is very probably for the best.

As for the spelling of foreign loanwords, are you advocating changing the spelling of new ones only or also those that have already entered the English language. If the latter, how far do you go back? Actually I have recently written a post on The Spelling Blog ( http://thespellingblog.blogspot.com )about this.

My personal take on speling reform is that it’ll either happen naturally, as for example ‘alright’ is certainly gaining ground on ‘all right’ (though I suppose then it’s not called ‘reform’) or it won’t happen at all. The spelling systems of English are so complex that if you mess with one bit you can lose etymological and lexical links with other words. You could argue for a complete overhaul of the language, but then say goodbye to literature in its original language. No thanks!

Johanna

Tyler

I can honestly say that I agree with the Governor General’s decision to allow the prorogation. After all, the opposition will still get their confidence vote over the budget, we will not have an election campaign or government change over Christmas, and the Conservatives have more than two weeks to figure out what to do about the economy.

I still maintain my prediction. Prorogation will only delay the fall of Mr. Harper’s government.

————-
They would not suddenly go on rampages just because their drug of choice became legally available.
————-

That made me laugh. Very true. Whether or not we agree with the morality behind the activity is beside the point. Which is the better way to control it? Make it illegal and hope it doesn’t happen, or legalize it and regulate it. Good argument…although it makes me wonder if you smoke it