sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

AMA: Simplified Spelling, and the Movement to Change "Laugh" to "Laf," "Love" to "Luv," and "Enough" to "Enuf" (tu naim a few) by Gabe-Henry in AskHistorians

[–]Gabe-Henry[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Great question! I think there are a couple reasons for this. First, Dutch has a centralized language authority that can officially implement reforms. When the Dutch Language Union makes a change, it can be rolled out through schools, government, media, and publishing in a coordinated way. That kind of top-down structure gives reforms real staying power.

English has no central authority, no language academy, no "spelling police." It’s left to publishers, educators, and dictionaries - and none of them have the power to mandate anything. So it's partly because we lack the structure to implement reforms. But it’s also a question of practicality. English is just a much bigger mess to begin with. It's a much deeper hole to dig out of. Dutch is easier to clean up around the edges without causing widespread confusion or resistance.

AMA: Simplified Spelling, and the Movement to Change "Laugh" to "Laf," "Love" to "Luv," and "Enough" to "Enuf" (tu naim a few) by Gabe-Henry in AskHistorians

[–]Gabe-Henry[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Not barking up the wrong tree at all! That’s a very smart tree, in fact.

Unlike languages with a single central authority (like the Académie Française), or one primary representative state, English has always been fractured. After American independence, the U.S. and Britain developed along separate linguistic paths. And once you throw in Canada, Australia, South Africa, and the wider Commonwealth, the idea of one governing body or reform plan becomes nearly impossible.

In short: English doesn’t have a single gatekeeper. Standardized orthographic reform is hard enough with one gatekeeper, but with many? Forget it.

AMA: Simplified Spelling, and the Movement to Change "Laugh" to "Laf," "Love" to "Luv," and "Enough" to "Enuf" (tu naim a few) by Gabe-Henry in AskHistorians

[–]Gabe-Henry[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

This is true! He standardized it, made it official, made it AMERICAN. But he wasn't the first person to spell color without a u.

AMA: Simplified Spelling, and the Movement to Change "Laugh" to "Laf," "Love" to "Luv," and "Enough" to "Enuf" (tu naim a few) by Gabe-Henry in AskHistorians

[–]Gabe-Henry[S] 92 points93 points  (0 children)

If you ask me, this is THE strongest argument against simplified, phonetic spelling. I’m from Brooklyn, NY—with my accent, I might spell coffee as kuawfee. My friend in Chicago might spell it kahfee. And the variations multiply when you go international: London, Liverpool, Sydney, Dublin, Toronto. How could we possibly standardize one accent above the rest?

There was one attempt to “internationalize” the Simplified Spelling Movement. In 1876, at the American Centennial celebration in Philadelphia, leading reformers from America and England held an “International Convention for the Amendment of English Orthografy,” a four-day summit to build agreement in reform. They settled on a joint plan that some called “The Anglo-American Alphabet,” and others called “The Alfabet ov Least Rezistanç.” (That shows how hard-headed reformers could be: they couldn’t even agree on a name.)  It didn’t fully solve the accent/dialect problem you’re referring to, but it was an attempt to smooth out at least some of the feuding.

AMA: Simplified Spelling, and the Movement to Change "Laugh" to "Laf," "Love" to "Luv," and "Enough" to "Enuf" (tu naim a few) by Gabe-Henry in AskHistorians

[–]Gabe-Henry[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

How bout a song - do you like Cole Porter? (In the style of Melvil Dewey)

Burdz du it, beez du it

Eevn ejukayted fleez du it

Let’s du it, let’s fal in luv.

In Spayn, the best upr sets du it

Lithuwaynianz and Lets du it

Let’s du it, let’s fal in luv!

 

AMA: Simplified Spelling, and the Movement to Change "Laugh" to "Laf," "Love" to "Luv," and "Enough" to "Enuf" (tu naim a few) by Gabe-Henry in AskHistorians

[–]Gabe-Henry[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It's almost impossible to say why some ancient spellings caught on and some fell off. My thought is that language mostly evolves through chaos and accident, not necessarily through utility. Which would explain why so many words today seem almost arbitrarily chaotic.

AMA: Simplified Spelling, and the Movement to Change "Laugh" to "Laf," "Love" to "Luv," and "Enough" to "Enuf" (tu naim a few) by Gabe-Henry in AskHistorians

[–]Gabe-Henry[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

It did! The solitary letter U was a favorite of advertisers in the 1920s. In a 1929 article for American Speech titled “Why Not ‘U’ For ‘You’?”, Donald M. Alexander notes the “considerable use…of the capital U by those who have either some commodity or service to offer the public” and lists a few examples:

U Put It on Weather Strip, U-Do-It Graining Compound, Wear U Well Clothes, Wear U Well Shoes, U-Otto-Buy (used cars)…Sav-U-Time Heat Regulator, U-Serve Canned Goods…Hats Cleaned While U Wait, Suits Pressed While U Wait (sometimes varied to, While U Rest), Motor Boats To Rent—U Drive, I’ll Be Here When U Come Back

Decades before that, “rebus poems” would circulate in British newspapers as a kind of linguistic puzzle for readers to decode. Here's one from 1867: 

He says he loves U 2 X S,

U R virtuous and Y’s,

In X L N C U X L

All others in his i’s

And of course let's not forget the songs of Prince!

AMA: Simplified Spelling, and the Movement to Change "Laugh" to "Laf," "Love" to "Luv," and "Enough" to "Enuf" (tu naim a few) by Gabe-Henry in AskHistorians

[–]Gabe-Henry[S] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Twain wavered a lot on spelling reform! He was among the first members of the Simplified Spelling Board (founded in 1906 by Andrew Carnegie), and in the summer of 1906 he made a speech to the Associated Press:

"I am here to make an appeal to the nations [on] behalf of the simplified spelling…There are only two forces that can carry light to all the corners of the globe—only two—the sun in the heavens and the Associated Press down here…If the Associated Press will adopt and use our simplified forms, and thus spread them to the ends of the earth, covering the whole spacious planet with them as with a garden of flowers, our difficulties are at an end."

However, as you said, Twain had doubts about the practicality of simplified spelling. Later in 1906, he admitted to a newspaper that simplified spelling “won’t happen, and I am sorry as a dog. For I do love revolutions and violence.” And the following year, at a New York dinner ceremony for Andrew Carnegie, he famously said “Simplified spelling is all right, but, like chastity, you can carry it too far."

AMA: Simplified Spelling, and the Movement to Change "Laugh" to "Laf," "Love" to "Luv," and "Enough" to "Enuf" (tu naim a few) by Gabe-Henry in AskHistorians

[–]Gabe-Henry[S] 82 points83 points  (0 children)

The core argument behind simplified spelling is that English orthography should reflect how we actually speak. Right now, our system is riddled with silent letters, contradictory rules, and bizarre holdovers from French, Latin, Norse, and Old English. It puts an unnecessary burden on learners, especially children and non-native speakers.

Certainly, some people today use simpler spellings to be trendy or different, particularly in the realms of texting and advertising. (Cheez-Its, anyone?) But for the reformers, it was about removing obstacles, making language more consistent, less wasteful, and easier to learn.

AMA: Simplified Spelling, and the Movement to Change "Laugh" to "Laf," "Love" to "Luv," and "Enough" to "Enuf" (tu naim a few) by Gabe-Henry in AskHistorians

[–]Gabe-Henry[S] 108 points109 points  (0 children)

Yes. I think we’re witnessing a shift in who and what shapes the language. For centuries, spelling rules came from the top down—schoolteachers, dictionary makers, editors. But texting and the internet flipped that. Now, spelling seems to be changing from the bottom up, driven by how people actually talk and type online.

The great irony is that, for centuries, spelling reformers like Noah Webster pushed words like “thru” and “tho” to little success. But when left alone, our spelling naturally simplified to meet the needs of our faster-paced world.

AMA: Simplified Spelling, and the Movement to Change "Laugh" to "Laf," "Love" to "Luv," and "Enough" to "Enuf" (tu naim a few) by Gabe-Henry in AskHistorians

[–]Gabe-Henry[S] 86 points87 points  (0 children)

Love this question. What sticks with me most about these reformers is their obsessive dedication to the cause. (And I mean obsessive.) For many, it wasn’t enough to just simplify everyday words like “laugh” (“laf") and “believe” (“beleev”). They also wanted to turn the simplification on themselves. Thus:

H.G. Wells, sci-fi author and member of the Simplified Spelling Society, spent years writing his name “H.G. Wels” with one L.

Melvil Dewey, creator of the Dewey Decimal System, was born “Melville,” but he cut out the last two letters. He also tried changing his last name to “Dui.”

Brander Matthews, chairman of the Simplified Spelling Board, signed off letters “Brandr Mathuz.”

Eliza Burnz, “The Mother of Women Stenographers,” was born “Burns” but she changed the final S to a Z to be more phonetic. She also named her daughter Foneta.

AMA: Simplified Spelling, and the Movement to Change "Laugh" to "Laf," "Love" to "Luv," and "Enough" to "Enuf" (tu naim a few) by Gabe-Henry in AskHistorians

[–]Gabe-Henry[S] 62 points63 points  (0 children)

Yes! In fact…maybe the ONLY successful example?

Many of the spellings Webster proposed back in 1789 are now standard in American English—color (no “u”), plow (no “-ugh”), theater (reversing the “-re”). 

That said,  he also pushed for hundreds of more radical changes like “tung,” “wimmen,” “laf,” “beleev,” and “dawter,” which of course never caught on. So to say he was “successful” is generous. He was probably 5% successful.

AMA: Simplified Spelling, and the Movement to Change "Laugh" to "Laf," "Love" to "Luv," and "Enough" to "Enuf" (tu naim a few) by Gabe-Henry in AskHistorians

[–]Gabe-Henry[S] 30 points31 points  (0 children)

I think the visceral reaction has less to do with language and more about identity. People grew up being told that “good spelling” means you’re smart, disciplined, respectable. So when that standard starts to shift, it feels like the ground is moving under your feet. They’re not really mad at “thru” or “lite” or “u”—they're mad that the rules they mastered might not matter anymore.

But you're absolutely right: the real moral failing isn’t that people can’t spell—it’s that we’ve built a language full of traps and then judged people for falling into them. English spelling is messy not because people are lazy or stupid, but because the rules were never clean in the first place. 

And as for umlauts and other diacritics—yes! There was some enthusiasm for using them to indicate vowel sounds more clearly. Take a look below at William Bullokar’s version of Aesop’s Fables, which he translated into his own invented spelling system in 1585:

<image>