Just spell it like it is

So, by the same argument, why not allow students to submit work in txtspk?! <p>Some of the rules of English spelling may seem arbitrary. But using correct spellings shows attention to detail. It is a hallmark of professionalism. And we are judged on it: in CVs, cover letters, research papers, grant proposals, tenders for work. Not encouraging students to develop in this area, if they need to, hamstrings their employability. <p>I notice that the author of the article is a criminologist. How would someone feel if a criminologist took a lax attitude to attention to detail in their work, resulting in a miscarriage of justice? <p>As I tell my students (often shocked to have to work on their English when taking a science degree), language is a tool of the mind and sloppy use betrays sloppy thinking.

Here are a few answers to be going on with. <p>1. February. You should pronounce the r that's immediately after the b. Not to do so is sloppy pronunciation. <p>2. Occurred. Two rs so the second syllable doesn't look like cured. For comparison, there aren't two ts in bat, but we write batted, so you're not tempted to pronounce it bated (which is another word). <p>3. Opportunity. In any Latin dictionary, you'll find "obp-: see opp-". <p>4. Queue. From the Latin cauda, giving the French queue, meaning a tail. <p>5. Their. The i before e rule applies only when the vowel sound is ee. The vowel in their isn't that sound. <p>6. Twelfth. Because it comes from twelve. The th is unvoiced, so the voiced v becomes an unvoiced f in sympathy (or assimilation, as the phoneticists would say). Not to pronounce the f is sloppy.

According to Dr Smith here, "it does not make any difference to the meaning of a sentence if you spell 'their' as 'thier' or 'there'." <p>Oh really? How about "Let's shoot there son" versus "Let's shoot their son"?

i fink thiss iz an xsellant ideer. But sum mite say Dokter Smiff iz a daffed arrrss.

Interesting. With his relaxed attitude to spelling, perhaps Dr Smith is one of the architects of Bucks New University's new website called "Be Coz U Can" (www.becozucan.org.uk), which aims to attract 11-16 year-olds into Higher Education? <p>With a website that advocates "be coz u can" as acceptable English among 11-16 year-olds, it's pretty clear which end of the pond Bucks New Uni is fishing in!

"ignor" makes no sense. It would be pronounced something like " 'ignur". "Ignoro" has a long o, which the "e" denotes. Even the stress would be wrong (on the first instead of the second syllable). English spelling is actually not that irrational, it's just complicated from the different languages it borrows from. <p>I have no patience with accepting bad spelling. We have spell checks now. Just spell check! A student who can't even spell check is a sloppy student indeed. As for correcting the spelling, don't, just lop off points. They will soon get the message.

Criminologists should teach coppers about crime. <br>English teachers should teach coppers to spell.

It's widely accepted that, as Jon C says, "using correct spellings shows attention to detail". The truth of this would seem to be borne out by the content of Mr. Smith's article and the standard of attention to detail it displays: <p>'The spelling of the word "judgement", for example, is now widely accepted as a variant of "judgment"' <p> - "Judgement" is the standard British English spelling, it isn't "widely accepted as a variant". "Judgment" is standard in American English and (I believe) some legalistic contexts. <p>'The word "ignore" comes from the Latin ignorare meaning "to know"'' <p> - The Latin "ignorare" in fact means "NOT to know", rather obviously. <p>I could go on, to borrow a phrase, but I think I have made my point. Correct spelling may be only one aspect of attention to detail, but dismissing it is symptomatic of a potentially more significant lack of care.

The barbarians are well and truly inside the gate, I see.

Rob, As a graduate of Bucks New Uni (or BCUC as it was known as when I graduated) I find your 'fishing' comment to be a bit elitist. <p>I can only assume that Bucks New Uni is showing 11 to 16 year old that higher education is within their grasp and if using their own language or slang gets their message through then good for them! <p>However I do agree that when it comes to writing an assignment that correctly spelling words shows that the student has taken their time to check every detail of their work.

Not such a daft idea if it applies to a very few words which really are buggers to get right. I always have to look up "practice" and "practise", for example, even though I've looked them up dozens of times before. <p>Or a reader might just conclude that I'm educated, but not perfect!

I am a chartered surveyor and once had an argument with a colleague regarding both spelling and grammar. <p>He could not see a problem with poor grammar or spelling. My retort was that if a client is paying for our technical advice, and can see a report littered with both spelling errors and grammatical solecisms, then why should they feel able to rely on the technical content of the report?

Ken Smith is good at the rhetorical question (or should that be 'retorikle kweschn'?) His questions are by no means as rhetorical as he thinks, though - because there are very valid answers to all of them. Take his dismissive query as to why we should bother paying homage to people and civilisations because they are long dead. The answer is terrifyingly simple. Another twenty years of atrophy and unguarded dissipation of the English language will almost certainly guarantee that words are used without anyone alive having the least idea why they're used. It won't be a simple matter of misinformation - that, for example, people commonly believe there was once a Roman festival called 'febua' - but it will rather be a general absence of any correlation between the shape and form of words and some decipherable derivation. Dr. Smith's brave new world is not one where I would want to draw breath and I fervently hope people will tend to have more sense than he asks of them.

Several of these suggestions betray an ignorance of the underlying principles that shape English spelling. For example, "thier" would be pronounced more like 'veer' than 'there' (the 'i before e' rule doesn't apply otherwise), and "opertunity" would be pronounced with a long 'o', as in 'overtly'. Allowing "ignor" would be out of line with 'bore', 'core', 'whore', 'deplore', 'store', and every other word pronounced that way -- but it would resemble 'advisor', 'Bangor' and 'educator', which would be downright confusing. He should not make suggestions to modify the language until he understands it properly.

Why not simplify further, removing unnecessary words? For example, why say spelling errors are bad, when they could be described as "ungood"? Down this road lies the "newspeak" of George Orwell's 1984 - a language intentionally designed to diminish the range of thought of the populace. <p>But Dr Smith does have a point. The issue is not whether bad spelling should be ignored at university level. The real issue is that it has already been ignored at school level in the UK, for many years. And those of us teaching at universities are having to deal with it.

Regarding the "becozucan" website, Dave commented: <p>"I can only assume that Bucks New Uni is showing 11 to 16 year old that higher education is within their grasp...." <p>I'm afraid that it seems to me, and, I am sure, to many others, that Bucks New Uni is trying to show 11-16 year old that higher education is within their grasp, no matter how illiterate they are. The site includes the following entry: <p>"Master Classes are for any students who are interested in and studying a particular subject area..." excluding, presumably, basic literacy. <p>If saying that is elitist, if expecting basic standards of those who are supposed to be the more able students is elitist, then so be it. Better that than the way UK degrees are being almost completely devalued.

I agree wif evyfink ken smiff sez, spelin is bunk an so liekwys gramer r 2. ps can I has yr cheezburger? Srsly.

Here is a suggestion for Mr Smith: Given how many people ignore many of those rules of behaviour which we call Laws, why not draw up of a list of those which are most often disregarded, and repeal them? <p>Carry this further, and we might even, eventually, be able to do without the profession of Criminologist altogether, because when nothing is defined as a crime, there can be no criminals. <p>On a marginally less cynical note, would Mr Smith regard it as equally sensible to ignore the top ten Factual mistakes made by his students? It would certainly improve the average gradings of students, which appears to be one of the primary aims of the modern higher education system, with the added advantage that it would attract more students to the University.

Some years ago I was at the bakery counter of my local Sainsbury's. A very young child (probably about three) asked the assistant for two gingerbread mans. I said "It's gingerbread MEN". She replied "It dont matter". She was right. It don't (sorry doesn't). The assistant understood her - she had communicated. That's what counts. <p>Language is changing all the time and the younger generations WILL change language as they always have done. Purists and academics simply have to accept that.

Practice/practise is tricky - but advice/advise is easy because we pronounce the noun (advice) and the verb (advise) differently. However, they follow the same spelling pattern. That's how I work out whether I'm going to a choir practice or to practise my singing.

Ken Smith must an agent of Nu-labour. He is fixing to give our wonderful government yet another excuse to dumb down our education system, in the hope that not having to spell words correctly will improve results. <p>I had to learn correct spelling and, I might add, correct pronunciation - bough and cough spring to mind as an immediate example. I suffered no hardship from that, so why should present day students be allowed to mangle our language, both written and spoken?

I think that this is absolutely the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard! Basically what he is saying is, "let's lower our standards instead of raising our students'". Bull shit. I have to say it. I cannot believe that any teacher, who went through school, graduated, and began teaching students could say that. Did we not have to learn to correct these? Are we next going to say that since some kids don't understand algebra that we will accept any answer as long as they try? No. This is why we (I am including U.S. and Europe) are not as intelligent as the Asians. They work HARD all their youth to be the best at what they do, to learn all that they can, and to force students to know their stuff in and out. Dumbing down the system is a FAILURE on a large scale, and it would be on our part; as adults, as teachers. Perhaps if he is having trouble with students not learning how to spell, then it is his problem for not properly teaching them; or at least the school systems that they come from. These kids are our future, and if we allow this one thing to slide, what else will we let slide? If we let this go, who do you think will ever lead the next generations? A bunch of "well-educated" idiots, is who.

This man has a post awaiting him at the Department of Education. Targets will be no problem to him ... he can join the people who decided that 18 per cent is the pass grade in Mathematics at GCSE!

Having been teaching children and adults with reading and spelling difficulties for 35 years, I agree with some of the points made but most of the reasoning is unsound. <p>When a word appears to be an anomaly, then there is an argument for change, but not if it is just one of a word family. Even more confusion would result. <p>1. Yes, I think argument should keep the ‘e’, as should truly and judgement. Rule: keep final ‘e’ before a consonant suffix. Also keep ‘e’ after ‘g’ (as in management) to keep the ‘g’ soft. (My computer isn’t allowing me to type misspellings). <p>2. If you take the ‘r’ out of February, will you also take it out of library? <p>3. All the days of the week come from the sun, moon and the gods, so why pick on Wednesday. <p>4. Abhor (L. abhorrere) may be the only comparable word to ignore without the ‘e’ – otherwise there are just the short words, e.g. for, nor, tor, cor!, Thor, while there is a large word family of –ore words, e.g. before, adore, more, implore, explore and dozens more. A tiresome smaller word family contains: poor, floor, moor, boor, spoor. <p>5. ‘occurred’. The rule is: when the stress is on the last syllable double before a vowel suffix, e.g: referred, preferring, omitted, regretting, but don’t double if the stress is on the first syllable, e.g. limiting, altered, profited, galloping, benefited. It would certainly be easier if there was one rule for all, as there is with words ending in ‘l’, e.g. travelling, expelled, cancelled, appalling - where you double the ‘l’ regardless of stress. <p>6. ‘opportunity’. Will you then change ‘opposite’ to ‘operzit,’ ‘opposition’ to ‘operzishen’ etc.? As for ‘obportus’, (not a Latin word) think about the hundreds of words where the prefixes change (as they changed in Latin) to make the words easier to pronounce, resulting in a double letter. E.g. ‘ad’: account, attract, assist; or ‘con’: corrupt, commit , collect; ‘ob’: occur, oppose, offend; ‘in’: immigration, illegal, irregular. Etc. etc. <p>7. ‘queue’ is a tiresome word, but as a ‘one off’ is fairly easily taught, and is of course French for tail. I wouldn’t mind a new spelling ‘cue’, but for heaven’s sake not ‘que’. It’s hard enough for students to read and spell words like unique, antique, when all their experience of words with ‘que’ reinforce their knowledge of the /kw/ sound of that letter combination. <p>8. ‘speech’: I wouldn’t mind having an ‘a ‘ in that one. I think it would make more sense. <p>9. ‘their’ : Rule: ‘I before E, except after C, when the sound in the word rhymes with ME’. E before I when you can say … the sound in the word rhymes with A.’ This copes with most of the problems, but odd words and exceptions have to be taught. I wouldn’t mind changing the spelling of ‘seize’ to ‘sieze’, though. <p>10. Fairly easy to remember ‘twelve – twelfth’ if taught, as is ‘five – fifth’. <p>I think it would be quite a good thing to change the spelling of ‘all right’ back to ‘alright’, meaning either o.k, (yes), or o.k. ( but could be better), so that it joins the word family of already, almighty, always , altogether, etc. Then ‘all right’ could be used ,e.g. for ‘his answers to the questions were all right – he didn’t get any wrong’ – in the same way as we can say ‘all together now – three cheers’.

So, we seem to accept that because either the teachers (i.e.i f we have these recurring words misspelt why aren't teachers concentrating on teaching those particular words correctlly?) or the students are not up to the job, we should accept (or except Mr.Smith?) defeat and start modifying the language. <p>All very well to say that he is not suggesting changing all spelling, but once you start where will you stop? To pick up on his exampoles, let's get rid of the "dg" in judgement and replace it with a "j". The atrocius spelling must be "atroshus", let's get rid of all those "c" letters before the "k", so "check" becomes "chek". And looking at his proposal, I suppose we could logically, if logic has any part to play, spell it "Rgument". If ever there was a thin end of the wedge proposal this must be it. <p>Why beat our students & ourselves up over it? he asks. Because it's learning, that's why. Language is language, teach (sorry teech) it properly, don't bow to the students who can't be bothered. Give us a brake (deliberate !).

The mistakes I see all the time are <p>1) definate <p>2) geneology <p>The second one strikes me as hilarious, especially since many of the people who create websites on that subject are experienced researchers in the field. You'd think they could spell the word which describes what they do.

I sympathize with Ken Smith's frustration, but not the solution he proposes. <p>There's a good case to be made for being flexible with language. Text-message abbreviations and chat-room shortcuts are not simply degraded forms of idealized English. They are a set of conventions that serve a purpose, such as improving the efficiency of two-thumb typists, or letting members of a group focus on the free flow of ideas (or gossip, or vitriol, or whatever) rather than on the more rigid and time-consuming conventions of standard prose. Professionals and educators have little to gain by belittling or ignoring the accomplishments of youngsters who are skilled in these kinds of communication, just as today's college students have much to lose if they don't take advantage of their time at university to develop the intellectual habits that are necessary for the reading and writing of complex, well-organized, authoritative texts. <p>Ken, I'd suggest that you let students know that certain assignments, such as in-class essays or overnight reflection papers, will be evaluated only on creativity, or the student's ability to apply a key concept or to spot the methodological error in a case study. <p>But for an assignment in which the student has access to a spell-checker, or where the point of the assignment is to model professional behavior (writing reports that could be used to determine a defendant’s guilt or innocence, for example), to encourage this kind of compositional sloppiness would be a crime.

The Westminster Masters of Chancery in the late Middle Ages arbitrarily decided on the spelling of many English words to achieve all the obvious advantages of a common written language. <p>We know that many highly intelligent people lack literacy skills - think of all those self-made millionaires who left school prematurely and with no qualifications. <p>It is likely that many of those who deviate from standard spelling are not simply idle, feckless or dull, but rather that they have the language area of the brain wired in a fashion different to those original arbiters and their successors. <p>Hence we should allow variations in spelling when a significant minority of intelligent, educated people consistently follow an 'alternative' version.

Surely the spelling of words purely phonetically would have denied Shakespeare some of his best puns: <p>"And so from hour to hour we ripe and ripe, And then from hour to hour we rot and rot.."

Correct the spelling and reduce the grades on papers accordingly. You aren't helping anyone by giving them a pass on bad spelling. It will hurt them later in life. Resumes that are filled with misspellings get tossed. Business letters, emails and reports that are filled with misspellings make a company look bad and the employee who generated them look like an uneducated dolt. <p>Here's a novel idea: if your students can't spell then FLUNK them for crying out loud. Both individuals and society as a whole benefit more from being held to high standards than being allowed to pass despite mediocrity.

It's not just students. Plenty of people hang on to habits that are 'incorrect', and that includes captains of industry. Particular irritations for me include confusing 'ie' and 'eg', and Gratuitous Capitalisations which make me see the subject matter as part of Winnie the Pooh; usually not the desired effect. <p>Spell checkers, although useful, are not the complete solution. Many years ago, an inexperienced PR person at CERN managed to replace all instances of 'hadron' (a heavy particle) with 'hardon', as suggested by the spell checker. This also diminished the general effect.

This is a great idea. Why not apply it to all subjects? Let's accept 3 X 3 = 6, 5 X 5 =10, and symbol for water 2HO, HO2, HtO, ---just whatever the students write. If they play music, and blow a horn, give them A, if they beat on drum, that deserves an A. If they say USA got independence in 1876, that should be taken as correct answer. While we are there, consider Ronald Reagan as the commander-in-chief who won WW II or was it WW I, let's accept the answer Civil War also.

I fear that a problem that would arise if we adopted this approach might well be that we would make a difficult language even harder. One of the most common errors I come across is 'definate'. But, if we were to accept this as a legitimate alternate spelling, would we then end up with the logical follow-ons of 'defination' and 'finate' (which, incidentally, are not mis-spelt very often at present)? <p>Many problems with English spelling arise because our language is not phonetic in its pronunciation (hence the problem with 'definite' but not with 'definition', and also problems with 'February' and 'twelfth') and there seems to be no solution to that problem ...

A more phonetic style of spelling English may well gradually become the norm in the future; at present, however, a word incorrectly spelled is always a jarring distraction from the flow of a text. Whatever the (usually minor) inconvenience of our current spellings, they remain a demonstration of the history and versatility of our beautiful (if mongrel) tongue.

Evelyn: many thanks!

Why not learn to spell the (accepted) right way from the start... <br>....it's as easy to do it that way as any other. <br>That is, unless you can't be bothered to learn right from wrong. <br>And that is what bad spellers say about themselves when they write anything: I cant be bovvered. <br>So don't be surprised if the reader can't be bovvered to read on...

A simpler solution, just mark the paper as failed.

I'd like to know a couple of things. What makes a crimonologist think he's qualified to render an opinion on the proper use and function of written language? And perhaps even more germane, why did THE publish this nonsense?

Why has no one cited 'ghoti' as an alternative spelling of 'fish'? gh as in laugh, o as in women, and ti as in nation? (Credit to G.B. Shaw.)

Surely these students are using computers, rather than handwriting their essays? How difficult is it to run the spellchecker before printing it off? There's absolutely no excuse for bad spelling from people at Uni - or shouldn't be!

Ken <br>If you, as a university professor, really wrote this, I can see only two motives on your part: <br>-You intended this as a wind-up. Unfortunately, many readers these days, including your students, may take it as a serious proposal. <br>-You genuinely mean what you say. Although you are a professor of a subject which needs an excellent command of English, and you appear to have a good grasp of etymology, you see good English as an eccentric, optional extra. <br>I hope your motive was the former, not the latter. Otherwise, in the world of "1984" you would be a prime choice as a contributor to the Dictionary of Newspeak - someone who uses his own knowledge to help "dumb down" the intelligence of future generations.

This is social engineering at its most blatant. Behind his excuse of 'making essays easier to write AND mark’, I fear is an apathy towards this generation many teachers would share. They simply don't care enough about the future of these kids. <br>In only a few years time, students from China or India or even Africa, will be better at speaking and writing English than the equivalent student here. <br>Something is sadly wrong somewhere where a ‘respected lecturer’ has neither the sense nor wherewithal to see what he has stated is a monumental step backwards in the educational aims we have for our children. How bloody dare he! Lazy bugger himself! <br>A question; if this article appeared in the Times 50 years ago, what would be the reaction? Surprise certainly, tinged with a smattering of anger I expect. He would then probably lose his job (a lecturer actively encouraging his students to be lazy and not bother to spell?!) I think so. <br>Bucks Uni, I hope you've got to my comment and absorbed the other concerned commenter’s above me, as it illustrates just how many people in this country care about our language, culture and character. <br>Have a good think if this lecturer really is bringing value to your students. He seems like a flaky academic who's trying too hard to be mates with his students.

Why bother with the D and G? Just spell it "JUJMENT" As for IRAQ - it should be, at least in the USA, "EYERACK"

Instead of striving to increase standards, Mr Smith seems to want to take an easier route. <p>A university education is presumably about learning to think and reflect on issues connected with the subject in question. I doubt that Mr Smith would be so lax if his students showed a complete disregard to the criminological information they were studying. <p>Rigour is important, in thinking, presenting, and writing.

I am from the U.S. I put a high value on good spelling and good grammar as being good indicators of disciplined thought (unless inability in those areas is caused by some sort of actual physio-chemical abnormality). <p>One of the members of a language forum I participate in submitted the article in question to the forum. Nearly all of the comments agree with the one I am quoting below: <p><<JBM 8 August, 2008 <br>I'd like to know a couple of things. What makes a crimonologist think he's qualified to render an opinion on the proper use and function of written language? And perhaps even more germane, why did THE publish this nonsense? >> <p>One of our members wonders why the criminologists don't just avoid all the trouble of instructing juries and following rules of jurisprudence, and let the jury render their verdice in the easiest way possible.

Ken who? Ken Smiff?

As I wrote on another forum: Here's a cool idea about criminology from a retired English teacher: Instead of complaining about the state of the judicial system, why don't we let juries just go ahead and vote on the accused's guilt or innocence without having to listen to a lot of boring testimony that often puts them to sleep? <p>And I'm afraid if I saw "ignor" I'd think it was not a variant spelling of "ignore" but rather a misspelling of that fellow who collects brains for Dr. Frankenstein.

In the long run some of these changes will take place because no language is static. In the past it has been the writers or publishing houses of dictionaries who included or excluded variant spellings. Will they continue to have a hold, or a stabilizing influence on the language? That's anybody's guess. <p>On the other hand, judgment and class are alive and well and always will be in some form. Those who "know" will always look askance at those who do not and will most always treat the latter as inferiors -- socially, professionally, or politically -- if not all three. We give up such judgment at the peril of our culture in the broadest sense.

Ken Smith can patronise his students from the secure knowledge that he can spell well enough to be accepted as part of the educated discourse community. If he were to start submitting letters and articles including these more convenient spellings to newspapers and journals, perhaps he would begin to understand what it is like to be dismissed as illiterate (and unintelligent) simply because he cannot conform to arbitrary rules of language.

I think it would be terrible to accept this idea. University graduates should be effective communicators. If the problem is widespread poor spelling and grammar, then it seems counterproductive to look the other way and allow this elephant to remain in the room. <p>How to solve the problem? First, we should reject proposals like the above. Secondly, we should demand that all students study spelling and grammar . . . and beyond age 11. Virtually every American I know who, like me, works in the UK is shocked at how poor British students are at spelling and grammar. I once had a professor in graduate school threaten to deduct 10 marks for a single spelling or grammar mistake --- and fail essays with two or more mistakes. How many students would pass an assessment with this standard here?

Unless he or she is a teacher of grammar, it is not strictly the job of the teacher to correct (let alone penalise) the student's faulty spelling (any more than it is to comment on regional accents unless he or she is a teacher of speech or drama) -- PROVIDED (a) the faulty spelling does not extend to the terminology of the subject in question and (b) the student's meaning is clear despite the faulty spelling or regional accent. <p>Nevertheless, it would not be inappropriate for the teacher to discuss with such students how faulty spelling and certain regional accents can be a handicap in seeking employment or advancement and suggest how students might get help in overcoming such handicaps.

I completley agre with Prof Smith. We as society have lost ourselvs in snobish atitude and in the proces harmed the development of our children. If we free the children mentaly, then they will concentrate on what is realy important - NALEJ. (KNOWLEDGE) <p>Everything else is just a distraction. <p>If one thinks about it for a few minutes, one will see that actually spelling is an impeda..impedi...impediment.... fffewww... towards learning sciences and arts.

Oh, please. <p>Some of the commentators on this post seem to believe that the world will end if spelling is not consistent. They seem to forget (or perhaps are ignorant of the fact) that until modern times, it never was! Even beloved old Shakespeare spelled his name about four or five different ways. Until the advent of the dictionary, most English words had several commonly used spellings. The spellings that we use today aren't necessarily "better" than the now defunct spellings, they just became codified by dictionary writers. <p>Furthermore, any good linguist will tell you that the only languages that never change are the dead ones that no one speaks as a mother tongue (like Latin and Ancient Greek). Living languages evolve; that's why we don't speak Anglo Saxon anymore, but modern North American or British English. Our language will continue to change, the only question is whether the academics will allow the written language to follow the evolution of the oral language. <p>Go back and read Shakespeare's plays and notice all the "deviant" spellings (such as "shew" for "show"). Realize that our spelling system has evolved over the years and it should be allowed to continue to evolve. If we don't allow our spelling and writing system to change, eventually it will no longer correspond to our spoken language in any meaningful way, and then we'll be in a real bind. <p>And try learning a little about linguists, while you're at it. A good place to start is Steven Pinker's "The Language Instinct".

Living in France, this story has only just filtered over to us. It smacks of insular lethargy .... <p>How come the French language is never confronted with these issues?

Raymond Queneau said of French orthography that many of its rules had been introduced by printers to ensure that producing "correct" texts required proprietary knowledge. He pointed out that immense quantities of a French schoolchild's time were taken up with mastering rules of spelling which had no connection with the way a word was pronounced. The French really have us trounced when it comes to silent letters: il(s) veul(ent), q(u)'es(t)-c(e) q(u)i s(e) pas(se), le(s) bel(les) dam(es) san(s) merci... Note, at the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, that people SPEAKING the language are not thrown into horrible confusion because all these letters are not pronounced. <p>Queneau raised the question of opportunity cost. Surely, he said mildly, this time might have been spent on something more useful? <p>Commenters on this post would seem to bear out Queneau's point. The time they've spent mastering English spelling might otherwise have been spent on, frinstans, mastering simple logic. The variants in spelling proposed do NOT AFFECT THE SENSE. This is (one might have thought self-evidently) not the case with the rules of arithmetic, or the representation of chemical formulae. <p>In the early 20th century the word we now spell "show" was often spelt "shew", its perfect participle as "shewn" (see for example G. E. L. Anscombe,or the orthographical traditionalist Wittgenstein). Time passed, the older spelling and the one we used now co-existed. Time passed, and the older version would have no chance to get penalised as a spelling mistake because, erm, no one spelling phonetically would ever spell the word that way. Writers of English have moved on to (shock horror) a spelling that is in line with bow, blow, tow, stow, mow... <p>The proposal was not that ALL variant spellings should be accepted. It was merely that the 10 most common should be permitted to join "shew"/"show" - thereby permitting both student and instructor to concentrate on the substance of the written work. We cannot be certain that the generally low standard of response is to be attributed to time squandered on mastering English orthography; if the careless spellers achieve a higher level of intellectual rigour, however, we can only be profoundly thankful.

I would like to add several points to the criticisms made so far. <p>1. English pronunciation varies tremendously, so adopting spelling based on pronunciation ensures a tower of Babel down the road. Whose pronunciation will be adopted as standard? <p>2. The reason many students can't spell is that they rely on pronunciation rather than deep familiarity with the standard written language which can only be acquired through intensive reading of well-written texts. This used to be common in educated people but obviously is no longer so. <p>3. Once this familiarity is acquired and ingrained, and with some knowledge of Latin and Greek etymological principles, it becomes easy for people to figure out the meaning of words from their spelling, and vice-versa, their spelling from their roots and meaning. <p>4. Dropping such generally accepted standards will only result in a more confusing situation where people with different pronunciations will end up having more difficulty communicating than if they could rely on codified standards based on history, etymology, etc. <p>5. As for French, it has similar problems, which is why the Dictee was traditionally the basis of the school system, and its abandonment in some school systems is now recogjized by many as a mistake. <p>5. The sudden abandonment of traditional spelling will iquickly make the writing of the last few centuries or so, up to now, as inaccessible to young people as Chaucer's English. Is that really a good idea? <p>6. In situations where precision in written language is unnecessary, then standards may not be needed either, but where they are, the adoption of pronunciation-based spelling will be disastrous, I would argue. But one cannot successfully teach both systems, so let's keep the one we have but endeavour to teach it better, mostly by making students read more.

Communication is still at times slow between Mother England and Canada, so I'm just now learning what Ken Smith has wrought (now, there's a spelling mistake waiting to happen, eh?). The arguments against his proposal are the obvious ones that are always raised when someone points out how hard our common language can be to spell faultlessly. They are, in fact, the same arguments that were raised in France and Belgium and in Germany and Austria against their very sensible spelling reforms. The Americans did make some very reasonable efforts at reform, but that was many decades ago and now they are as rooted in their traditional spellings as the rest of us are. We notice it perhaps more in Canada because we are constantly faced with British and American spelling variants, but it doesn't cause us any real problem. I think that Mr. Smith is indeed onto something sensible for reforming the teaching of English to our children or grandchildren. It's too late for us old folks to change our chaotic spelling ways. Three cheers for Ken Smith for raising the issue the way he has.

This whole debate brings another issue... I refuse to lower my standards but it's so difficult to mark students' work whilst taking the role of grammar teacher and highlighting the ridiculous amounts of grammatical errors and mispellings. <p>A colleague argued that it's students' responsibility but at times I think... some students come from uneducated families, have struggled with lack of academic support most of their lives... they're obviously trying to make a change in their lives and by simply ignoring things that will eventually become meaningful when they move on, to what extent do we become accomplices to the perpetuation of the problem. <p>I won't go into the discussion of the level of student detachment nowadays where we barely get to know students enough to care, but I wonder...

Changing the official spelling of words is not as daft as most people seem to think. It's been done in many languages before. For example, in 1928 Turkey changed from the Arabic script to a variant of the Latin alphabet (albeit one with 29 letters) for writing Turkish. Turkish spelling is entirely rule based and regular. Moreover, the official spelling of Dutch has changed TWICE in the last 50 years or so in order to make it correspond more closely to pronunciation. It is actually rather refreshing to write in a language in which you know how to spell a word if you know how to pronounce it.

kow what..why become a teacher anyway if you get fed up by constantly teaching your students the right way to spell? good teachers have passion and patience and by implying this, you certainly are not..

kow what..why become a teacher anyway if you get fed up by constantly teaching your students the right way to spell? good teachers have passion and patience and by implying this, you certainly are not..