I used to think English spelling was absurd, and tried to reform it - only
to find that such is a harder task than one might think.
English might be difficult to learn, but it has a certain logic to it, in
spite of a deficiency in vowel symbols and quite a number of exceptions to
rules.
To understand English it is necessary to understand its history, from its
basic Germanic origin (Angles, Saxons, Jutes), and invasion by Romans, then
Normans. Such accretions, from Latin and French, were supplemented by words
from an Imperial past, as the British Empire rose, then declined.
The Simplified Spelling Society (UK) is now 99 years old, according to
article in "The Age" today (19/4), and what success has it had against an
obstinate foe? Only a decline in membership from 35,000 to 500?
Some reform of English spelling has occurred over the years, though
whether American-English is necessarily superior to its Anglo-English
equivalent is a moot point.
The main difficulty in reform is lack of vowel symbols. With only
A,E,I,O,U and Y, to cope with about 19 vowel sounds, the use of digraphs and
spelling rules finds it tricky to cope - but not impossible. Any invented
symbols would have to be free of diacritics (undesirable), and capable of a
cursive style in writing.
There are three superfluous consonant symbols (C,Q,X) but these are no
real problem.
Too radical a change from existing text might turn all past literature
into "a foreign language".
Insofar as dictionaries reflect usage rather than orthodoxy, they would
adapt accordingly.
"Texting" on cell phones is an extreme, and uses a phonetic system of
abbreviated nature. But then you must first know conventional, full,
spelling to make sense of it all.
================================
Favouring Phonics over Whole Word, in primary teaching, is not to claim
learning English is easy - but why make a difficult task almost impossible?

Archived from group: aus>education