Press BACK on the tule bahr tue retern tue Pahrt I
Compaari·sun: The foloeing paaragrafs pro·vied a di·rect compaarisun uv the saem tecst riten euzing thee Inglish and English spelings. The tecsts inclued aded infermaeshun on the Inglish spelings. Faur the benefit uv thoez hue miet stil cweschun the de·sishun tue euz diegrafs, the saem paaragrafs ahr euzd agen foloeing the Inglish/English compaari·sun faur a compaariun be·tween uezing the 'magic-e' versus euzing diegrafs. [A branch past the diegraf/majic-e compaari·sun iz pro·vieded if yue'r not interested.]
An Inglish/English speling compaari·sun
| Inglish | English | |
|---|---|---|
| Faur an insiet intue sum uv the problems creeaeted bie thee English spelings, consider wut the reder hue seez the speling "eight" faur the ferst tiem faesez. Ferst, hee aur shee haz tue de·sied wether the ferst tue letters ahr thee e and i, aur wether it's thee ei diegraf? The liecleehood iz that it's the diegraf, but then duz it repre·zent thee /ee/, /ie/, /ae/, aur /ea/ speech sound? And then, duz the gh repre·zent an /f/ aur a /g/ speech sound, aur iz it silent (maur lieclee), and duz the t repre·zent a /t/ aur a /ch/ speech sound (unlieclee in a werd ending)? If hee aur shee haz herd the werd be·faur, verbuliezing the posi·bili·tees wil e·venchueulee striec a responsiv caurd, but wie shood hee aur shee hav tue due this? Woodn't it bee simpler and maur straetfaurwood tue spel the werd the wae it sounds in the ferst plase? Uv caurs it wood. | For an insight into some of the problems created by the English spellings, consider what the reader who sees the spelling "eight" for the first time faces. First, he or she has to decide whether the first two letters are the e and i, or whether it's the ei digraph? The likelihood is that it's the digraph, but then does it represent the /ee/, /ie/, /ay/, or /ea/ speech soeund? And then, does the gh represent an /f/ or a /g/ speech soeund, or is it silent (more likely), and does the t represent a /t/ or a /ch/ speech soeund (unlikely in a word ending)? If he or she has heard the word before, verbalizing the possibilities will eventually strike a responsive chord, but why should he or she have to do this? Wouldn't it be simpler and more straightforward to spell the word the way it soeunds in the first place? Of course it would. | |
| Wen simbuls repre·zent maur than wun speech sound, az the English ei, gh, and t due, aur wen wun simbul repre·zents the saem speech sound az a·nuther, authers and reeders ahr faursd tue re·member spelings bie roet, the leest e·fectiv wae tue re·member eneething. It wood maec reeding and rieting eezeeer faur evreewun if the alfa·bet wuz re·duesd tue thoez simbuls that best repre·zent the English speech sounds, if the uther simbuls wur e·liminated, and if the speech valeus uv individeuul simbuls wur limited tue a singul valeu tue thee ecstent posi·bul. This iz the goel uv the Inglish spelings. | When symbols represent more than one speech soeund, as the English ei, gh, and t do, or when one symbol represents the same speech sound as another, authors and readers are forced to remember spellings by rote, the least effective way to remember anything. It would make reading and writing easier for everyone if the alphabet was reduced to those symbols that best represent the English speech soeunds, if the other symbols were eliminated, and if the speech values of individual symbols were limited to a single value to the extent possible. This iz the goal of the Inglish spellings. | |
| Consider a·nuther problem--Saem-sounding werds speld difrentlee: The English werd /soe/ can be speld "so," "sow," aur "sew," de·pending on contecst. Authers hav tue consid·er the contecst in wich the werd iz tue bee uzed tue noe hou it iz tue bee speld. Faur the reder, the speling "so" iz not a problem, sins in English the o repre·zents the laung vouul speech sound in werd ending. But, in "sow," the ow cood repre·zent iether an /oe/ aur an /ou/ speech sound, soe the reder haz tue chec contecst tue see wether seed iz beeing soen, aur a pig iz the subject uv conversaeshun. Then, in "sew" the ew cood reprezent en·ee wun uv three speech soeunds, /oe/, /ue/, aur /eu/, ecsept that roet memo·ree tels the reeder that the speling "sew" iz aulwaez pronounsd /soe/. It wood be soe much ezeeer tue simplee spel the werd "soe," and let the reeder chec contecst faur the a·proepreeet meening. This iz the Inglish wae. | Consider another problem--Same-sounding words speld differently: The English word /so/ can be spelled "so," "sow," or "sew," depending on context. Authors have to recall the context in which it's being used to know how it is to be spelled. For the reader, the spelling "soe" is unlikely to be a problem, since in English the o represents the long vowel speech soeund in word endings. In "soew," however, the ow could represent either an /oe/ or an /ou/ speech soeund, so the reader has to check context to see whether seed is being sown, or a female pig is the subject of conversation. Then, in "sew," the ew symbol could represent any one of three speech soeunds, /oe/, /ue/, or /eu/, except that rote memory tells the reader recalls that the spelling "sew" is always pronounced "soe." It would be soe much easier to simply spell the word "soe," and let the reader check context for the appropriate meaning. This iz the Inglish way. | |
| In the faurgoeing discushun, wee'v a·suemd that the reeder iz fa·milyer with thee English simbul set, and can maec the distingcshun be·tween the speech sounds repre·zented bie eech uv the caaricters and diegrafs. That wil be a lot eezeeer tue due in Inglish than in English, be·cuz, 1) thair ahr feuer simbuls tue deel with, 2) feuer simbuls repre·zent maur then wun speech soeund, 3) noe tue simbuls repre·zent the same speech soeund az a·nuther simbul, and 4) thair ahr noe sielent leters tue deel with. | In the foregoing discussion, we've assumed that the reader is familiar with the English symbol set, and can make the distinction between the speech soeunds represented by each of the characters and digraphs. That will be a lot easier to do in Inglish than in English, because, 1) there are fewer symbols to deal with, 2) fewer symbols reprezent more than one speech soeund, 3) no two symbols represent the same speech soeund as another symbol, and 4) there are no silent letters to deal with. |
| MAJIC-E | DIEGRAFS | |
|---|---|---|
| Faur an insite intue sum uv the problems creeated bie the English spelings, consider wut the reder hue seez the speling "eight" faur the ferst time fasez. Hee aur shee mae wunder, "Ahr the ferst tue letters the e and i, aur ahr thae the ei diegraf? If thae ahr the diegraf, due thae repre·zent the /ae/, /ee/, aur /ie/ speech sound? Then, duz the gh repre·zent an /f/ aur a /g/ speech sound, aur iz it silent, and duz the t repre·zent a /t/ aur a /ch/ speech sound?" If hee aur shee haz herd the werd be·faur, verbulizeing the posi·bili·tees wood e·venchueulee strice a responsiv caurd, but wie shood hee aur shee hav tue due this? Woodn't it bee simpler and maur stratefaurwod tue spel the werd the wae it sounds in the ferst plase? Uv caurs it wood. | Faur an insiet intue sum uv the problems creeaeted bie the English spelings, consider wut the reeder hue seez the speling "eight" faur the ferst tiem faesez. Hee aur shee mae wunder, "Ahr the ferst tue leters the e and i, aur ahr thae the ei diegraf? If thae ahr the diegraf, due thae repre·zent the /ae/, /ee/, aur /ie/, aur /ea/ speech sound? Then, duz the gh repre·zent an /f/ aur a /g/ speech sound, aur iz it sielent, and duz the t repre·zent a /t/ aur a /ch/ speech sound?" If hee aur shee haz herd the werd be·faur, verbuliezing the posi·bilitees wood e·venchueulee striec a responsiv caurd, but wie shood hee aur shee hav tue due this? Woodn't it bee simpler and maur straetfaurwood tue spel the werd the wae it sounds in the ferst plaes? Uv caurs it wood. | |
| Wen simbuls repre·zent maur than wun speech sound, aur wen wun simbul repre·zents the same speech sound az a·nuther, az thae due in the English spelings, authers and reders ahr faursd tue re·member spelings bie rote, the leest e·fectiv wae tue re·member en·eething. It wood mace redeing and riteing ezeeer faur evreewun if thee alfabet wuz re·dused tue thoze simbuls that best repre·zent thee English speech sounds, if thee uther simbuls wur e·liminated, and if the speech val·eus uv individueul simbuls wur limit·ed tue a singul val·eu tue the ecstent posi·bul. This iz the gole uv the Inglish spelings. | Wen simbuls repre·zent maur than wun speech sound, aur wen wun simbul repre·zents the saem speech sound az a·nuther, az thae due in the English spelings, authers and reeders ahr faursd tue re·member spelings bie roet, the leest e·fectiv wae tue re·member eneething. It wood maec reeding and rieting eezeeer faur evreewun if thee alfabet wuz re·duesd tue thoez simbuls that best repre·zent the English speech sounds, if the uther simbuls wur e·liminaeted, and if the speech valeus uv individueul simbuls wur limited tue a singul valeu to the ecstent posi·bul. This iz the goel uv the Inglish spelings. | |
| Consider a·nuther problem: The auther riting the English werd /soe/, wich can bee speld "so," "sow," aur "sew," de·pending on contecst, haz tue re·caul hou it iz speld in the contecst in wich it's beeing uzed. The reder must aulsoe get it rite, lest hee aur shee misundertand the mes·ej. The speling "so" iz unlicelee tue bee a problem faur the reder, sins the o repre·zents the laung vouul speech sound in an English werd ending. In "sow," houev·er, the ow cood repre·zent iether an /oe/ aur an /ou/ speech sound, soe the reder haz tue chec contecst tue see wether sede iz beeing sone, aur a feemale pig iz the subject uv conversaeshun. Then, in "sew" the ew simbul cood reprezent en·ee wun uv three speech sounds, /oe/, /ue/, aur /eu/, ecsept that checing rote memree tels the reder that the speling "sew" iz aulwaze pro·nounsd /soe/. It wood bee soe much ezeeer tue simplee spel the werd "soe," and let the reder chec contecst faur thee a·proepreeet meneing. This iz the Inglish wae. | Consider a·nuther problem: The auther rieting the English werd /soe/, wich can be speled "so," "sow," aur "sew," de·pending on contecst, haz tue re·caul hou it is speld in the contecst in wich it's beeing euzd. The reeder must aulsoe get it riet, lest hee aur shee misundertand the mesej. The speling "so" is unlieclee tue bee a problem faur the reeder, sins the o repre·zents the laung vouul speech sound in an English werd ending. In "sow," houever, the ow cood repre·zent iether an /oe/ aur an /ou/ speech sound, so the reeder haz tue chec contecst tue see wether seed iz beeing soen, aur a feemael pig iz the subject of conversaeshun. Then, in "sew," the ew simbul cood repre·zent enee wun uv three speech sounds, /oe/, /ue/, aur /eu/, ecsept that checing roet memree tels the reeder that the speling "sew" iz aulways pro·nounsd /soe/. It wood bee soe much eezeeer tue simplee spel the werd "soe," and let the reeder chec contecst faur thee a·proepreeet meening. This iz the Inglish wae. | |
| In the faurgoeing discushun, wee'v a·sumed that the reder iz fa·milyer with the English simbul set, and can mace the distingcshun be·twene the speech sounds repre·zented bie eech uv the caaricters and diegrafs. That wil bee a lot ezeeer tue due in Inglish than in English, be·cuz, 1) thair ahr feuer simbuls tue dele with, 2) feuer simbuls repre·zent maur than wun speech sound, 3) vairee feu simbuls repre·zent the same speech sound az a·nuther simbul, and (4) thair ar noe silent let·ers tue dele with. | In the faurgoeing discushun, we've a·suemd that the reeder iz fa·milyer with the English simbul set, and can maec the distingcshun be·tween the speech sounds repre·zented bie eech uv the caaricters and diegrafs. That wil bee a lot eezeeer tue due in Inglish than in English, be·cuz, 1) thair ahr feuer simbuls tue deel with, 2) feuer simbuls repre·zent maur than wun speech sound, 3) vairee feu simbuls repre·zent the same speech sound az a·nuther simbul, and (4) thair ar noe sielent leters tue deel with. |
A di·senting vois: Not evreewun iz ceen on e·mending the English spelings. In 'The mother tongue: English and how it got that way (The muther tung; English and hou it got that wae)', 'New York: Avon Books (Nue Yaurc, Aevon Boocs)', 1990, p.132) 'Bill Bryson (Bil Briesun)' raezez objecshuns tue the vairee thaut uv e·mending the English spelings. Wee cwoet:
"... (C)alls for spelling reform inevitably overlook certain intractable problems....Attempts to simplify and regularize English spelling almost always 'hav a sumwut strânj and ineskapubly arbitrary lűk abowt them, and ov cors they kawz most reederz to stumbl.'....What simplified spelling systems gain in terms of consistency they often throw away in terms of clarity. Eight may be a peculiar way of spelling the number that follows seven, but it certainly helps to distinguish it from the past tense of eat. Similarly, the syllable seed can be spelled a variety of ways in English--seed, secede, proceed, supersede--but if in our quest for consistency we were to fix on the single spelling of, say, seed, we wouldn't be able to distinguish between reseed and recede. Fissure would become fisher; sew and sow would be so. There would be no way to distinguish between seas and seize, flees and fleas, aloud and allowed, chance and chants, air and heir, wrest and rest, flu, flue and flew, weather, whether and wether, and countless others. Perplexity and ambiguity would reign (or rain or rein)."
Wen werds a·pir in contecst, meenings ahr seldom az obsceur az Bryson sugjests. The meenings uv werds ahr gleend frum contecst, just az thae ahr in speech. Prosessing tecsts re·cwieers the saem thaut prosessez that prosessing speech re·cwieers, and then sum. Reeserchers beleev that az wee reed wee subvoeculee sound out the werds wee'r reeding, wich iz anuther reeezen tue spel werds the wae thae sound.
Az tue the 'strânj and ineskapubly arbitrary lűk' uv e·mended tecsts, Bryson ignaurs the trueth that aul methods uv repre·zenting speech ar entieerly arbitrairy, and wil thairfaur hav a 'strânj and ineskapubly arbitrary lűk' tue eneewun unfamilyer with them.
The eez with wich wun can interpret tecsts that hav a nue looc hinjez aulsoe on the re·laeshunship thae hav with thair ante·seedents, wich iz in tern a funcshun uv wether the develop·ers maed a deesent efert tue euz familyer simbolo·jee, and tue maentaen congrueensee thrueout the lecsi·con. Fuar egzampul, hou much trubul did yue hav understanding Bryson's "strânj" spelings? Aulthoe thoez passejez wur breef and lacd the suport uv maur ecstended egzampuls, yue and I wur aebul tue translaet the spelings intue speech sounds after the slietest hezi·taeshun, pahrtlee be·cuz the simbuls euzd wer simbuls huez valeus wee wur aulred·ee fa·milyer with, and partlee be·cuz the contecst in wich thae wur beeing euzd maed thair meening clir tue us; boeth, impaurtent atri·beuts uv the Inglish spelings.The dicshunairee advantej: Sumthing els Bryson duzn't menshun, and a·nuther advantej tue having werds speld the wae thae sound, iz that be·cuz thae'l bee listed in alfabeti·cul aurder, thae'l aulsoe bee listed in aurder a·cording tu thair speech sounds. Loocing up the meenings uv werds and checing on thair spelings wil not involv the gessing gaem that wuz soe big a pahrt uv loocing up the meenings uv werds in English dicshunairees.
Fiena·lee, Bryson duzn't sae enything a·bout the sireeus impedi·ments tue lerning and understanding poezd bie the pletho·ra uv conflicting simbuls euzd in the English spelings, wich iz the re elee doun sied uv the cur·ent orthogra·fee. The cognitiv disonans the English simbul set creeaets iz a fahr graeter impedi·ment tue lerning than simplee taecing the tiem tue lern a maur inteli·ji·bul sistem wood ever bee. Wut's maur, thee English speling impediments re·maen a facter thrueout the euzer's entieer lief, wairaz the baesic lerning prosess faur maur inteli·jent sistems iz oever cwiclee, and euzers can muev on aulmoest imeedeeetlee tue euzing the langgwij tue a·cwieer infermaeshun. Thae due not hav tue coep with irashunul spelings thrueout thair lief span.
De·veloping thee emended orthogra·fee: Sevrul things stand be·tween us and the dae wen wee'r euzing the Inglish spelings on a regeuler baesis. Ferst auf iz the need faur a pruef uv consept. It's fien faur mee tue claem I'v discuverd the 'hoelee grael' uv the English langgwiz, but wee can't proseed on that baesis, eeven if thouzends uv yue agree with mee. Wee need solid evi·dens that thee e·mended spelings ahr eezeeer tue lern and that thae impruev litera·see signifi·centlee. That re·cwieers an ecspiri·mentul demunstraeshun conducted under controeld condishuns; wun in wich the raet uc acwi·zishun uv reeding and rieting scils and thair re·tensun iz compaird tu the reeding and rieting scils acwi·zishun and re·tenshun uv individeuuls taut euzing the English spelings. Such re·serch wil re·cwieer the development uv tecst ma·tir·eeuls, traneing uv moni·ters, acsess tue stuedents, a traening fa·sili·tee, and funding tue supaurt thee efert. I'm unaebul tue bee a pahrt uv such an efert, aulthoe I'l due wutever I can tue help. I erj eneewun hue iz interested tue grab the baul and run with it. I hav copeerieted this websiet tue maetaen controel uv it, not tue ceep yue frum euzing the infermaeshun contaend hirin. Soe, if yue ahr interested, pleez hav at it. I'l contineu ecspanding the lists uv Inglish werds, wil ad practicums az I hav the tiem, and em a·vaela·bul faur consultaeshun enee tiem.
Cloezing thauts:
The English spelings pro·dues maur ilit·er·ets per capita per dae than enee uther majer langgwij. Until that iz no launger the case, thoez hue deem lit·era·see a rite uv pasej intu a·dulthood wil contin·eu tue looc faur a beter wae tue repre·zent speech than the tradishunul English spelings aufer. Tue demunstraet that Inglish iz such a wae, children taut uezing the Inglish spelings must lern tue spel maur rapidly and spel maur aceuretlee than children taut uezing tradishunul English spelings. And, thee advantez thae gaen must last. I oenlee prae that wun uv yue hue haz taecen the tiem tue reed thrue theez paejez wil hav thee opertuenitee tue demunstraet that it duz.
If yue hav enee cweschuns, pleez e-mail mee at jaurjf@earthlink.net.
Selected bibliography and resources (in English for your convenience)
Bodmer, Frederick. The loom of language: An approach to the mystery of many languages. Edited by Lancelot Hogben. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1985.
Bryson, Bill. The mother tongue: English and how it got that way, New York: Avon Books, 1990.
---- Made in America: An informal history of the English language in the United States. New York: Perennial, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 2001.
Comrie,Bernard (ED.) The world's major languages. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Davis, Joel. Mother tongue: How humans create language. Carol Publishing Group), 1994.
Groff, Patrick. Preventing reading failure: An examination of the myths of reading instruction. Portland, Oregon: National Book Company, 1987.
Hoerl, Marguerite Field. Turning back the tide of illiteracy, Portland, Oregon: Halcyon House, 1997.
Kaestle, Carl F., Campbell, Anne, Finn, Jeremy D., Johnson, Sylvia T., and Miculecky, Larry J. Adult literacy and education in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, 2001.
Kirsch, Irwin S., Jungeblut, Ann, Jencins, Lynn, and Kolstad, Andrew. Adult literacy in America: A first look at the results of the National Adult Literacy Survey. U.S. Dept of Education, 1993.
McArther, Tom (Ed.) The concise Oxford companion to the English language. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1996.
McCrum, Robert, Cran, William, and MacNeil, Robert. The story of English. New York: Elisabeth Sifton Books-Viking, Viking Penguin, Inc., 1986.
Stevenson, Victor (Ed.). Words: The evolution of western languages. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1983.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. A nation at risk. Washington. D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Education, 1983.