|
The Times March 22, 2002
«Inglish is a strange language but we should be wary of rashonalising our spelling»
philip howard
It’s a pitty that Shakspier, who had jeneyus, was so unedicated. He’s the wust speller I no ov. Down with Skool.
The latest attempt to modernise and rationalise English spelling is being launched on the Internet. It is called Freespeling. Its launcher is Richard Wade. His argument is that in our new world of mobile phones, e-mails and text messaging, we are experiencing a psychological change for technological reasons. Mobiles have very small buttons. It is slow and fiddly to write with them. Redundant letters are a nuisance in a word that you are tapping on to a mobile phone. He wants us to free spell in the way that Shakespeare did before spelling got set in concrete by dictionaries, dominies and the dreaded spellcheck. We accept accents different from our own without difficulty. We even accept odd grammar like, “Don’t we, innit?” But if you spell a word wrong you are regarded as ignorant or stupid. Mr Wade wants to break down the stigma to what is considered bad spelling. Why do we have to spell words such as f-u-c-h-s-i-a or y-a-c-h-t like that in the 21st century? So Mr Wade is launching a global referendum on the Internet to find every month 15 words that deserve better spelling.
His call for reform of English spelling is not new. It was expressed during the Second World War by a Dutchman whose knowledge of English was extensive and witty. His prolonged mockery of English pronunciation was published in London in the newspaper Vrij Nederland, the temporary organ of the Free Netherlands community in exile. After 12 stanzas comparing and contrasting the spelling of “worm” and “storm”, Job and job, and so on, his diatribe ends: “Finally, what rhymes with tough —/ Though, through, plough or cough? Enough!/ Hiccough has the sound of ‘cup’/ My advice is — ‘Give it up!’” The urge to reform the notorious difficulty of English spelling is bold as well as old. It is logical. It would be welcomed by everyone from Molesworth to students of English as a second language. It is radical and modern. And it is wrong-headed.
For English spelling is the archaeology of our old and complex language. The words stick out from the page like menhirs left there by Asterix and thousands of other invaders. Take Mr Wade’s example of “yacht”. That little word contains a long and fascinating history. That “ch-” sound in the middle shouts “Dutch”. The origin of yacht is the Dutch “jacht”, short for “jaghtschip”, a ship for chasing. The present pronunciation is shown by the 17th-century spelling “yott”. A former pronunciation is shown by the spelling “yatch”, 17th to 19th century. Similarly, it would be a pity to lose the orthographic memorial to Leonhard Fuchs (1501-66). He was Professor at Tübingen University and a pioneer of German botany. He wrote Historia Stirpium. The genus Fuchsia was named after him by Charles Plumier, the French botanist. The roots of the frilly seaside hedge plant are declared by its spelling.
Some of our words came into English from Latin before Hengist and Horsa arrived as early package tourists from the mainland. So our words “wine” (Latin “vinum”), “wall” (Latin “vallum”), and “pillow” (Latin “pulvinus”) show that the Latin “v”, at the time when the words were adopted into Anglo-Saxon, was pronounced more like the Anglo-Saxon “w” than any other Anglo-Saxon sound existing at the time. But pronunciations change. So do spellings. Once the English had arrived in England, they invented the letter F. Later borrowings from Latin show the later pronunciation. Hence our “fan” from Latin “vannus” and “fiddle” from vulgar Latin “vitula”.
O kum on purleese, Filip. We cannot spell the English language for the antiquarian pleasure of pedants. Like the Tory party, we must modernise or die. Well, up to a point Lawd Koppa. You underestimate the evils of root and branch change. Whose pronunciation of English shall our spelling follow? There are more people pronouncing English in American or Indian ways than in the diverse pronunciations of the United Kingdom. Changing our spelling would cut us off from our literature as well as our etymology. Shakespeare, Jane Austen and Roald Dahl would have to be reprinted in your new spelling. Libraries would become impenetrable jungles.
English words are a mighty army, grouped into brigades, regiments and little platoons. Free spelling would reduce them to a promiscuous and barbarous horde. The English way is not revolution but evolution. Our spelling does gradually change to reflect new styles and pronunciations. It is changing in the great pond of the Internet, and the little puddles of text msging. But free-for-all spelling would deface and barbarise the English tongue. It would empty it of the hoarded wit, wisdom, poetry and history which it contains. And it ain’t going to happen.
__________________
Walter Lachenmann
|
Jemandem diese Seite senden! 
Druckvoransicht zeigen
