English spelling can make your head spin...

jujube

jujube

SF VIP
Location
I think I'm in Florida, but I'm not sure any more.
If:
GH can sound like P in hiccough
and
OUGH can sound like O in dough
and
PHTH can sound like T in phthisis
and
EIGH can sound like A in neighbor
and
TTE can sound like T in gazette
and
EAU can sound like O in plateau,

then, I'm going to have a baked GHOUGHPHTHEIGHTTEEAU for dinner tonight.

Ain't English great?
 

off,uff,oh yu ow..............We taught our kids to read with a cute little comic book. It was phonics. DH and I learned that way too. I learned at home before I went to school, 2 of our 3 kids learned at home before they went to school, the other one went to our church's school, so I knew she would also learn phonics.
 
I’m Aussie and when I first joined This and another forum in about 2014 I often got “pulled up” on my (incorrect ) spelling

for words like Tyres / Colour / centre /Favourite

Now days I still get a giggle or two from the game section how I spell, or dropping the very odd slang word Aussies use at times
 
Last edited:
Kadee said:
I often got “pulled up” on my (incorrect ) spelling
Click to expand...

The English-speaking world doesn't know what correct spelling is. In fact, if English were written as phonetically and consistently as Finnish, schoolchildren in English-speaking countries wouldn’t be lagging two years behind their peers in Finland.
 
oslooskar said:
The English-speaking world doesn't know what correct spelling is. In fact, if English were written as phonetically and consistently as Finnish, schoolchildren in English-speaking countries wouldn’t be lagging two years behind their peers in Finland.
Click to expand...

True, but I suppose the complexity of English comes from its history, borrowing words from many different languages, which has led to irregularities in spelling. Then we have words where the pronunciation has changed over time, but the spelling remains. And then the reverse where the spelling has changed but the pronunciation remains the same or at least very similar. Then, I think, we have grammar rules taken mostly from Latin that don't quite work when applied to English?

No doubt phonetic spelling makes learning to read and write easier, but I think it would also take away some of the quirks and charm that make English unique. That said, I agree that it can make the process much more challenging for schoolchildren, it certainly did when I was a child, and still does with me on occasion.

English is a mix of Old Norse; Latin; French; Germanic; Greek; Dutch; Celtic; Italian; Arabic; Portuguese; Hindi, and more, and not necessarily influenced in that order. It's going to bring up some strange and inconsistent spellings. A legacy of England being invaded many times in its history, then later England invading other nations.
 
Last edited:
Magna-Carta said:
No doubt phonetic spelling makes learning to read and write easier, but I think it would also take away some of the quirks and charm that make English unique. That said, I agree that it can make the process much more challenging for schoolchildren, it certainly did when I was a child, and still does with me on occasion.
Click to expand...

Clinging to an irrational, outdated system of writing that fails to represent the spoken language is a classic example of conformity favored over reason and logic.
 
oslooskar said:
Clinging to an irrational, outdated system of writing that fails to represent the spoken language is a classic example of conformity favored over reason and logic.
Click to expand...


The likes of Noah Webster, Theodore Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw, the Spelling Reform Association in the U.S., and others, including an education movement in the UK in the seventies all making efforts to make English spelling more phonetic. So I don’t think it’s fair to say that clinging to traditional spelling is purely about favouring conformity over reason and logic. The reforms introduced by some of these figures ended up making things more complicated on an international level.

English has always been evolving, and it will continue to do so. There’s never going to be a moment where a stake is driven into the ground then someone declaring, “Right, that’s it, English stops here.” With the number of English speakers globally -- including many in non-English-speaking countries -- there’s a constant push and pull in shaping the language. Culture, usage, and perhaps necessity, all influence that evolution, just as much as any desire for consistency or tradition. Many people around the world take the English language and turn it into something of their own, layering in their own quirks and conventions.

Then throw into the mix international slang, dialects, and localised spellings, and you end up with a language that resists any tidy, global logic. Anyone trying to impose a unified international standard is, frankly, flogging a dead horse.

English isn’t the language of a single nation anymore, it’s international, spoken and shaped by people all over the world. No single country owns it, and no single set of rules will contain it in a form of logic that satisfies everyone. It now has very little to do with clinging on to something irrational -- it now has a life of its own. Its quirks will remain, and if anything, they’ll only grow as it continues to evolve in the hands of millions of different speakers.

You spell it your way, I’ll spell it mine, and internationally, everyone else will spell it thairs. It’s not a language confined to some backwater where a small number of people decide how it’s going to be.
 
Last edited:
Magna-Carta said:
The likes of Noah Webster, Theodore Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw, the Spelling Reform Association in the U.S., and others, including an education movement in the UK in the seventies all making efforts to make English spelling more phonetic. So I don’t think it’s fair to say that clinging to traditional spelling is purely about favouring conformity over reason and logic. The reforms introduced by some of these figures ended up making things more complicated on an international level.

English has always been evolving, and it will continue to do so. There’s never going to be a moment where a stake is driven into the ground then someone declaring, “Right, that’s it, English stops here.” With the number of English speakers globally -- including many in non-English-speaking countries -- there’s a constant push and pull in shaping the language. Culture, usage, and perhaps necessity, all influence that evolution, just as much as any desire for consistency or tradition. Many people around the world take the English language and turn it into something of their own, layering in their own quirks and conventions.

Then throw into the mix international slang, dialects, and localised spellings, and you end up with a language that resists any tidy, global logic. Anyone trying to impose a unified international standard is, frankly, flogging a dead horse.

English isn’t the language of a single nation anymore, it’s international, spoken and shaped by people all over the world. No single country owns it, and no single set of rules will contain it in a form of logic that satisfies everyone. It now has very little to do with clinging on to something irrational -- it now has a life of its own. Its quirks will remain, and if anything, they’ll only grow as it continues to evolve in the hands of millions of different speakers.

You spell it your way, I’ll spell it mine, and internationally, everyone else will spell it thairs. It’s not a language confined to some backwater where a small number of people decide how it’s going to be.
Click to expand...
well said - just sink into it guys - it's the largest used language in the world (-isn't it?]
 
smiley said:
well said - just sink into it guys - it's the largest used language in the world (-isn't it?]
Click to expand...

I think of the previous spellings of, Anglisc; Englisc; Englisc; Englische; Englisc; Englische, and now, English. It’s all the same to me. What might the spelling be in two or three hundred years’ time. Will we ever "cling" to anything?

I think of the widely respected David Crystal, he's a wonderful 'edumacator' when it comes to the English language. I have a number of his books. I've not yet read his thoughts on what he describes as, "Global Englishes". But no doubt it will be something along the lines of how over time, and with international influences, how fluid it is, and how the future might change it.
 
Last edited:
Magna-Carta said:
The likes of Noah Webster, Theodore Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw, the Spelling Reform Association in the U.S., and others, including an education movement in the UK in the seventies all making efforts to make English spelling more phonetic. So I don’t think it’s fair to say that clinging to traditional spelling is purely about favouring conformity over reason and logic. The reforms introduced by some of these figures ended up making things more complicated on an international level.

English has always been evolving, and it will continue to do so. There’s never going to be a moment where a stake is driven into the ground then someone declaring, “Right, that’s it, English stops here.” With the number of English speakers globally -- including many in non-English-speaking countries -- there’s a constant push and pull in shaping the language. Culture, usage, and perhaps necessity, all influence that evolution, just as much as any desire for consistency or tradition. Many people around the world take the English language and turn it into something of their own, layering in their own quirks and conventions.

Then throw into the mix international slang, dialects, and localised spellings, and you end up with a language that resists any tidy, global logic. Anyone trying to impose a unified international standard is, frankly, flogging a dead horse.

English isn’t the language of a single nation anymore, it’s international, spoken and shaped by people all over the world. No single country owns it, and no single set of rules will contain it in a form of logic that satisfies everyone. It now has very little to do with clinging on to something irrational -- it now has a life of its own. Its quirks will remain, and if anything, they’ll only grow as it continues to evolve in the hands of millions of different speakers.

You spell it your way, I’ll spell it mine, and internationally, everyone else will spell it thairs. It’s not a language confined to some backwater where a small number of people decide how it’s going to be.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the historical references, but they actually strengthen my point. The very fact that figures like Webster, Roosevelt, Shaw, and entire reform movements pushed for a more phonetic spelling system underscores that the status quo was—and still is—irrational. They recognized that the spelling system doesn't reflect the spoken language and tried to fix it. The fact that those efforts were either watered down or abandoned says less about their merit and more about the cultural resistance to change—resistance rooted in tradition, nationalism, and yes, conformity. Just because English has become a global language doesn't mean the flaws in its written form are somehow now virtues. If anything, its international reach makes the inconsistencies more burdensome, especially for learners. Saying that English “has a life of its own” sounds poetic, but sidesteps the practical issue: a writing system that fails to represent speech clearly is inefficient and needlessly difficult. Evolution is one thing, but clinging to complexity simply because it's widespread isn’t evolution—it’s inertia. I'm not suggesting that reform would be easy or that total standardization is realistic. But defending the current system as logical simply because it’s widespread misses the point. A thing can be global and still irrational.
 
oslooskar said:
I appreciate the historical references, but they actually strengthen my point. The very fact that figures like Webster, Roosevelt, Shaw, and entire reform movements pushed for a more phonetic spelling system underscores that the status quo was—and still is—irrational. They recognized that the spelling system doesn't reflect the spoken language and tried to fix it. The fact that those efforts were either watered down or abandoned says less about their merit and more about the cultural resistance to change—resistance rooted in tradition, nationalism, and yes, conformity. Just because English has become a global language doesn't mean the flaws in its written form are somehow now virtues. If anything, its international reach makes the inconsistencies more burdensome, especially for learners. Saying that English “has a life of its own” sounds poetic, but sidesteps the practical issue: a writing system that fails to represent speech clearly is inefficient and needlessly difficult. Evolution is one thing, but clinging to complexity simply because it's widespread isn’t evolution—it’s inertia. I'm not suggesting that reform would be easy or that total standardization is realistic. But defending the current system as logical simply because it’s widespread misses the point. A thing can be global and still irrational.
Click to expand...

I take your point, and I think you’ve framed it well. And mostly I already agree with what you are saying. You are absolutely right that the efforts of reformers must point to genuine frustrations with the inconsistencies of English spelling. My point wasn’t to hold it up as a model of logic, but to highlight how attempts to 'fix' it, especially through phonetic reform, run into practical, cultural, and international barriers that make the notion of one logical system to fit all users of the language a bit optimistic.

Some type of reform might make things easier for learners -- I would certainly like to think so. Most of the point I was trying to make is getting widespread agreement from all cultures, dialects and no doubt all education systems around the world seems like an impossible task. And, ironically, any large-scale reform effort risks introducing a whole new layer of complexity and resistance in the process. It's not about trying to convince the pompous traditionalists who would like it to remain as is. It's about bringing along the 450 million or so native English speakers around the world, and perhaps 1.5 billion other users who use it as a second language.

So perhaps it’s less a defense of the current system and more an observation that language doesn’t always bend to reason. It’s messy, democratic, and very human. And maybe that’s part of what gives English its strange resilience and reach. Language is shaped by history. Trying to then reshape it with a modern sense of logic will probably never happen. Who might the almost 2 billion users collectively put their trust in to reform it in a way that everyone agrees with and is prepared to use it.
 
Where I was born raised in New South Wales ( Australia ) the area had a population of around 40.000

It is a very isolated area being about 500 km from the closest major city ~ being Adelaide S.A .

The only other areas close by was Mildura ( Victoria ) about 300 km away .

So the residents that made up the population were a mix of Cornish and bush men ~ who moved there after the mining ran out in
South Australia ( it was also a mining area where I lived )

Anyway many who came to the town had trouble understanding the way we spoke~even spelt some words.


I’ve never studied why as I moved to SA in 1971 while in my early 20’s but it was likely and combination of the Cornish language
and busman’s way of taking / spelling

My ancestors are from Cornwall ….and for the past 20 years I’ve lived in a town where my grandmother was born , her grandparents settled here after immigrating from Cornwall in 1860 .

I had no idea my grandmother was born / schooled here before I volunteered in the huge museum dedicated to Cornish history .
 
Magna-Carta said:
I take your point, and I think you’ve framed it well. And mostly I already agree with what you are saying. You are absolutely right that the efforts of reformers must point to genuine frustrations with the inconsistencies of English spelling. My point wasn’t to hold it up as a model of logic, but to highlight how attempts to 'fix' it, especially through phonetic reform, run into practical, cultural, and international barriers that make the notion of one logical system to fit all users of the language a bit optimistic.

Some type of reform might make things easier for learners -- I would certainly like to think so. Most of the point I was trying to make is getting widespread agreement from all cultures, dialects and no doubt all education systems around the world seems like an impossible task. And, ironically, any large-scale reform effort risks introducing a whole new layer of complexity and resistance in the process. It's not about trying to convince the pompous traditionalists who would like it to remain as is. It's about bringing along the 450 million or so native English speakers around the world, and perhaps 1.5 billion other users who use it as a second language.

So perhaps it’s less a defense of the current system and more an observation that language doesn’t always bend to reason. It’s messy, democratic, and very human. And maybe that’s part of what gives English its strange resilience and reach. Language is shaped by history. Trying to then reshape it with a modern sense of logic will probably never happen. Who might the almost 2 billion users collectively put their trust in to reform it in a way that everyone agrees with and is prepared to use it.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the thoughtful tone of your response. But I think you may have missed the central thrust of my argument, if only by a wee bit.
I'm not suggesting we could—or should—reform English spelling overnight or impose a universal system that overrides cultural or dialectal differences. I fully recognize the practical and political challenges. My point was more fundamental: English orthography, as it stands, is wildly inconsistent, unnecessarily complex, and needlessly burdensome—especially for learners, both native and non-native. That should be a source of concern, not resignation. Yes, language is messy and organic, shaped by history. But the idea that we can’t improve it because “it’s always been this way” doesn’t hold water. That same reasoning could be (and historically was) used to defend all sorts of outdated systems. To me, advocating for phonetic reform isn't about creating a utopia or ignoring cultural nuance. It’s about acknowledging that clarity, logic, and accessibility do matter—and that millions of people struggle unnecessarily because the current system clings to irregularity for tradition’s sake.
So no, I don’t expect a global consensus. But I do think it’s worth pointing out that the current system is broken, and that reform—if not wholesale, then at least in spirit—is a conversation worth having.
 
oslooskar said:
I appreciate the thoughtful tone of your response. But I think you may have missed the central thrust of my argument, if only by a wee bit.
I'm not suggesting we could—or should—reform English spelling overnight or impose a universal system that overrides cultural or dialectal differences. I fully recognize the practical and political challenges. My point was more fundamental: English orthography, as it stands, is wildly inconsistent, unnecessarily complex, and needlessly burdensome—especially for learners, both native and non-native. That should be a source of concern, not resignation. Yes, language is messy and organic, shaped by history. But the idea that we can’t improve it because “it’s always been this way” doesn’t hold water. That same reasoning could be (and historically was) used to defend all sorts of outdated systems. To me, advocating for phonetic reform isn't about creating a utopia or ignoring cultural nuance. It’s about acknowledging that clarity, logic, and accessibility do matter—and that millions of people struggle unnecessarily because the current system clings to irregularity for tradition’s sake.
So no, I don’t expect a global consensus. But I do think it’s worth pointing out that the current system is broken, and that reform—if not wholesale, then at least in spirit—is a conversation worth having.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the conversation we’ve been having and I think we both agree on many of the points about the complexity and inconsistency of English spelling. I do understand your concerns about how challenging the current system can be, especially for learners, and I agree that the system has its flaws. But at the same time, I don't want to fall into a mode of this part of the conversation/thread looking a bit cyclical, where we both just reinforce our points without making much progress.

While I don’t disagree with the idea that English spelling could be improved, especially in terms of phonetic consistency, it seems that the question is whether reforms are realistically achievable.

I think we can all acknowledge that English is messy and constantly evolving. So perhaps the more productive conversation is about how we can make the system more practical without expecting a complete overhaul.

I’m all for improving clarity and accessibility, but I think it’s important to recognise that the very nature of English, with all its regional quirks, makes sweeping reforms a significant challenge. Do you have any thoughts on what, if any, some small scale solutions might have in creating an immediate impact?

Would you see the solution as moving more spellings toward phonetic consistency? Or might it also be worth considering whether some pronunciations could shift slightly back toward their older forms, where every letter was spoken? For example, when a child first sees the word knight, they might pronounce it something like “k-nicht,” or "k-nite", both of which are closer to how knight used to sound. That sort of intuitive reading might be the simplest way forward—because any fix that requires complex rules probably won’t catch on in practice.
 
Magna-Carta said:
Do you have any thoughts on what, if any, some small scale solutions might have in creating an immediate impact?
Click to expand...


That’s a thought-provoking question, but I have to admit—it feels a bit like a trick question. By nature, small-scale reforms tend to have gradual effects, not immediate impact. So asking whether any could yield quick, tangible results might set an unrealistic expectation from the outset.
Real change in orthography doesn’t typically happen overnight—unless it’s during a period of profound upheaval. One striking example is Turkey after World War One, when Atatürk replaced the Arabic script with a Romanized alphabet for Turkish. That reform made literacy far more accessible and was part of a larger national transformation. But it required a unique historical moment—and a bold, centralized decision.
The truth is, the present 26-letter alphabet used throughout the English-speaking world is not suitable for the writing of modern English. It lacks the necessary symbols to represent all the sounds of the language with consistency and clarity. The solution, however, is available: Torskript—a phonetic writing system developed specifically for modern English—is ready for anyone who wishes to use it. It offers a logical, accessible alternative for those who see value in clarity over tradition.
 
mrstime said:
off,uff,oh yu ow..............We taught our kids to read with a cute little comic book. It was phonics. DH and I learned that way too. I learned at home before I went to school, 2 of our 3 kids learned at home before they went to school, the other one went to our church's school, so I knew she would also learn phonics.
Click to expand...

It’s great that you taught your kids using phonics—it’s certainly a better method than whole-word memorization. But I’d gently suggest that what you and your children were doing wasn’t actually reading in the purest sense—it was decoding. If we were truly reading English as it's written—pronouncing every word exactly as it's spelled—no one would understand us. The fact that we have to teach children complex decoding strategies just to navigate everyday text is a pretty clear sign that the system itself is flawed.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top