THE BRITISH DONT KNOW HOW TO SPELL

(Comments/discussion articles for publication to: Tony.Papard@btinternet.com )

People who know me and those reading the political articles on this site know I am no great fan of the current political stance of the USA. However our American cousins have gotten some things right. They have an excellent written Constitution for a start, something we have never had in the UK. The Americans have given us some of the best popular music the world has ever known  Blues, Country, RhythmnBlues, Soul and RocknRoll to name just some of the main varieties, many of which can be sub-divided to include Rockabilly, Cajun, Bluegrass, etc..

When it comes to the English language the Americans have invented some monstrosities like 'human resources for personnel, restructuring for reorganization and downsizing for sacking much of the workforce. Unfortunately, it is these often grammatically incorrect phrases which have been adopted by the British and English speakers all over the world. Take restructuring for instance  in my Oxford English Dictionary (admittedly a very old one) structure is always a noun. The verb is to construct, so restructuring is just bad grammar. The correct terms are reconstruction, particularly when referring to buildings, or reorganization when referring to the administrative structure of an organization.

As far as spelling is concerned the Americans are usually not only more logical and more phonetic, they are usually more correct. The Websters dictionary used in the USA, however, is not that different from the Oxford English Dictionary. In fact in many cases the publishers of the Oxford English Dictionary admit that where there is a difference between normal English and American spelling, the American version is usually preferable or more correct.

Take the or/-our endings of words like color/colour, favor/favour, endeavor/endeavour for instance. Fowlers Modern English Usage, published by the Oxford University Press, makes it quite clear that the British our endings have no validity; it is simply national prejudice which prevents us approaching the subject with an open mind. Fowlers then goes on to point out that the or endings are much more common than the our ones even in UK, and that the differently spelled suffixes do not serve any useful purpose. Words like horror, pallor, governor and even pavior are given, some of which were once spelt with our endings. Fowlers speculates that in any future spelling reform reduction of our to or will be one of the least disputed items, or that, failing general reform we shall see word after word in our go the way of governour.

Fowlers then refers the reader to the Oxford English Dictionary or entry to satisfy themselves that it is right to deny any value to the -our spelling. There you have it: the Oxford English Dictionary itself admits the Americans are being quite correct to favor -or in place of -our. The fact that even in quaint British spelling derivatives of -our words are, as Fowlers points out, usually spelt with -or just shows what nonsense the British spelling is (e.g. humorous, coloration, deodorant, 'laborious'.) And if you look at old English spelling you will see that Shakespeare and his contempories always spelt words like labour what some now consider the American way, i.e. labor. (The American spelling 'plow' for 'plough' is also Old English - check the King James version of The Bible and you'll find this more phonetic spelling, which would have stopped my Greek-Cypriot father, having learnt the pronunciation of 'coughing', from describing the cattle in his native Cypriot village as 'ploffing cows'!)

In actual fact most of these words come from the Latin, which was always spelt -or. The -our corruption is due to French influence, and has no phonetic value whatsoever. The actual vowel sound is neutral, so endeavor, endever or even endevr would represent the phonetics much better than the British endeavour spelling which is unnecessarily cumbersome. The Australians have progressed a little way towards the more correct American spelling, and at least the Australian Labor Party has adopted the shorter -or spelling. Increasing use of the Internet has spread the more correct and phonetic American spelling, and indeed more precise American English like the grammatically correct gotten, thruout the English-speaking world.

Some other quotes from Fowlers: cheque  merely a variant of check. The -ise/-ize choice of endings in words like organize: the Oxford University Press, the Cambridge University Press, The Times and American usage, in all of which ize is the accepted form, carry authority. Fowlers points out that -ise is a French corruption, as is -re in words like centre and metre (the Americans, of course, sensibly spell these endings 'er' - 'center', 'meter', etc..)

In words which take a double l in UK and one in the USA, such as traveller/traveler, it is quite obvious the US version is more correct. The British spelling implies the stress is on the second syllable, i.e. traVELLer, as the double consonant tends to come after the syllable which is stressed. The Americans, however, reverse the double l rule when it comes to words like enrol and instalment. The preceding are the British spellings, the USA use enroll and installment. I always prefer the shorter spellings, so use the British versions in these two cases and words like them. I see no reason why I shouldnt adopt a pick and mix attitude to spelling, since the whole of English spelling is long overdue for radical reform.

Whilst a completely phonetic English spelling system would be cumbersome and unwieldy (George Bernard Shaw tried to design a whole new phonetic alphabet for the English language but it never caught on), I do feel we should leap ahead of the Americans and simplify or standardize the rules of English spelling. For instance, why not spell labour and neighbour similarly, i.e. labor and nabor. (The fact that 'neighbor/neighbour' originates from the almost obsolete word 'nigh' seems largely irrelevant to me.) But USA spells the latter neighbor. Unofficial American spellings, used by shops and some newspapers, have pushed spelling reform further with sox for socks, thru for through, and even 'hi' and 'lo' for 'high' and 'low' and cigaret for cigarette. I am all in favor of these, and would take it much further  chex for the ridiculous British cheques, vu for view, etc.

Amnesty International, whose head office is based in London, adopted program instead of the very eccentric and weird British programme. Incidentally, in computer language program is already used in British spelling, but why not abandon the ridiculous mme ending completely? The Oxford English Dictionary says: the earlier program is preferable as conforming to the usual English representation of Greek 'gramma', in anagram, cryptogram, diagram, telegram, etc. Once again the OED says the Americans are right and it is the British who have corrupted the English language with the newer, inconsistent and incorrect mme endings. I am all for more phonetic spelling so never use the equally ridiculous gue endings either but always catalog, analog, etc. used widely in the USA.

An older English spelling, which for some reason is never used in the USA, is connexion for connection. I always use the former, and this x for ct should be widely adopted for similar words with a ks or kz sound.

English is inconsistent enough without making it harder for children, dyslexics and foreigners by retaining our ridiculous spelling. I end with just a sample of British spellings and the way I think they could be spelt in any future spelling reform. Some of the latter are already in use in the USA:

cough/coff, manoeuvre/manuver*, plough/plow+, infection/infexion, through/thru+, analyse/analize*, thought/thort, colour/color+, high/ hi+, theatre/theater+, low/lo+, epilogue/epilog+, new/nu, stacks/stax, draught/draft+, sulphur/sulfur+, photo/ foto+, eczema/ exema

*Spellings in USA usage: maneuver, analyze. +These are spellings in USA usage, either official or unofficial.

*****

John Connell comments:

There is something quite Orwellian about your suggestions for alternative

spellings. It may be more practical to spell words phonetically, but it

isn't very aesthetically pleasing. I think words like `photo', for example,

which are Greek in origin, should preserve the 'ph'. It indicates their

origin and it looks better too.

Derek Jensen comments:

Don't be discouraged by the reaction of John Connell. His sort of backward thinking is what got us into the spelling mess we're in. Traditional spelling is definitely not esthetically pleasing. And calling practical, grass-roots reforms "Orwellian" is ridiculous. On the other hand, I would quibble over the use of X in "connexion" and extending it to other words. It is much more logical to maintain the derivational connection with the root word "connect" and maintain parallels with other "-tion" words. It is this importance of derivation (rather than origin, which Connell wants to preserve) that makes me suggest that "analize" is poor choice for respelling "analyse/analyze." The "-ise/-ize" ending means "to make (into)", which would suggest a meaning of "to make anal." "Analyze" is derived from a different root. Now, I don't care about preserving the indication of the origin of "analyze" or "photo" any more than I care to recreate the indication of the "fish" from "piscus" by spelling it "phisc." But derivations within the language should remain clear. So count me strongly in favor of "thru," "tho," "laff," and "fotograf," but against "chex," "sexion," and "analize." =Derek Jensen= Bremen, Indiana, USA

*****

Hello from Rockport Publishers I saw the article, The British Don't Know How to Spell on Google, and I wondered if you know of an actual list of all the words Americans "misspell". We create UK editions of many of our books and would like to be on top of the changes we need to make in text so as not to insult our British audience any more than necessary. Thanks in advance for your reply, BG Well as I said in the article, it is actually the British who misspell a lot of words, not the Americans. This is according to the Oxford English Dictionary and Fowler's Modern English Usage. The complete edition of the OED would give you all the alternative spellings, both British and American, of words. Latest divergencies include the British 'tonne' for 'ton' (though originally 'tonne' was a metric weight I believe), and the now almost universal British use of 's' instead of 'z' in words like 'recognize'. Amnesty International, who's International Secretariat is based in London, has recently and inexplicably dropped the American spelling of 'program' for the unwieldy British 'programme'. Presumably this is to distinguish the word from 'computer program' which is spelt the American way in UK. I think the OED is your best bet, unless you can locate a British edition of spell-check on your PC. Thank you for getting back to me. For years I've been led to believe that it was us who were fracturing the language. Thanks for your reply and for assuaging my guilt. I will share this with my colleagues. Best, BG

*****

The following correspondence is also posted on the Webpage with the article about the New Tory Party www.btinternet.com/~tony.papard/TheNewTories.htm

Let me take this opportunity to improve your spelling. Labour is spelt thus:’ Labour’, not as you have spelt it ‘Labor’.

“Tony Blair is the worst Labor leader of all time, and has committed more crimes against the labor movement than all previous Labor Prime Ministers and leaders put together.”

This is not true either he has much improved the Labour party. I have taken the liberty of underlining your spelling mistakes in the quote.

Dear 9104,

Thanks for your email. I refer you to my Webpage article 'The British Don't Know How To Spell' at URL www.btinternet.com/~tony.papard/Spelling.htm

By the way I'm British, but I stopped using our stupid spelling when I was at college and realized Shakespeare spelt 'labour' ' l-a-b-o-r', and in the King James version of The Bible 'plough' is spelt 'p-l-o-w'. So 'American' spelling is closer to the traditional English spelling. The article above also quotes what the Oxford English Dictionary and Fowler's Modern English Usage (also published by the Oxford University Press) say about the '-or/-our' endings, and it is not favORable to the British tradition.

We may disagree about this, you are perfectly entitled to spell the British way if you prefer it. I'm glad the Australian Labor Party has learnt the correct spelling. We will also have to agree to disagree about Tony Blair. I want a Socialist Labor Party, not a Tory one.

Tony

***** A meter. In that short phrase, what was I referring to? Was I referring the a unit of distance, or a device used for measuring? Here in Canada, that would be made clear by the fact that we use the words metre and meter, as I believe the British also use. Metre for a unit of distance (centimetre, kilometre, etc...), and meter for a device that measures (amp meter, voltmeter, water meter, etc..). There is some use still for -re endings after all. Also, -our endings are, in my opinion, more phonetically correct. The other option would be to spell colour as :culler if one is North America, or culla if one is from Great Britain. I would like to suggest that Canadian English is preferable to either British or American English. Also, we have only benefited from have such a large French influence on our version of English. French influence on the English language helps to ensure that our language isn't hard and abrasive like German. Cheers, P. Low

Yes, but you don't get that distinction in the spoken word - meter/metre sound exactly the same. You know which word is meant by its context in the sentence. Also there are many words which are spelt the same but have different meanings, but we rarely confuse them for the same reason - context. Take just one example - table. Do you mean one you sit at and have a meal, or one on your computer which displays figures? But we don't spell one table and the other tabel.

There have been various attempts at spelling reform. One I heard about dropped the neutral vowel at the end of words altogether, so colour/color would be spelt kulr. Bernard Shaw devised a whole new alphabet, but Webster's reforms in USA were the only ones which took off since they often reverted to a traditional English/Latin spelling, and they didn't make English look too unwieldy or existing books unreadable.

You are right, Canada largely uses British spelling, as does Australia (except for their Labor Party). But increasingly with the Internet Webster's spelling is becoming more widespread.

I think people should have a choice. Alternative spellings are fine by me, but in Britain you get criticized if you use Webster's spelling or, as I do, a pick and mix of US/UK spellings.

You hit the nail on the head with your point about French influence. That's where a lot of the -our/-re endings originate. Personally I like French, but I actually prefer German. Each to his/her own I guess.

Thanks for your contribution to the debate. I'll put it on the Website.

Tony ***** Dear Mr. Papard, Although I comletely agree with your assessment of -our and -ll spellings, I disagree completely with your feelings on neighbor, etc. The -gh reflects English's Germanic roots, and should (or wud you prefer shud, speaking of Germanic roots?) be retained. In fact, beyond being simply a living history of our language, a consequent understanding of these spellings helps one immeasurably in the study of Dutch, German, and the like. Also, although I agree with most of your assessments of the value of American spelling, I abhor the idea of spelling reform. The beauty of English is that it has largely allowed its words to follow the spelling in circulation, and has avoided the awful continental use of language academies. I have now just lived through the aftermath of the second Dutch new-spelling diktat of the last decade, and believe me, nobody likes it when an official body tells you to change your ways. Words are our oldest habits - let's keep them organic. cheers, john Hi there John! I tend to agree with you that spelling shouldn't be by 'diktat'. That's really why I wrote the article. I have always used the spelling of words I like, whether British or American. So I use the British 'instalment/connexion' but the American version of most other spellings. I don't insist everyone else uses the same spellings I choose. I never spell 'neighbour/neighbor' as 'nabor', but it is another alternative spelling I'd like to be able to use. I am not personally interested in the roots of words. In short, I think there should be a lot more flexibility in spelling. I think there is now anyway - the Internet has meant alternative spellings amongst English-speaking peoples are now much more widespread. I'll add this little discussion to the website article. Tony ***** Dear Mr. Papard In principle, I can understand your outrage about the absurdity of British spelling - English is a magpie language, and it shows. My own personal response to your article was a mournful, nostalgic regard for this endearing magpie quality, which I admit is no ground to oppose a spelling reform. However, you claim not to be interested in the roots of words - and with that you dismiss an entire branch of academics. Even that is perhaps not enough to justify keeping the current language. But imagine if future generations adopted your phonetic spelling - if ever they read anything in the current standard English, a historical text (imagine if they read your article), their own phonetic system would make it one hundred times harder to understand.The English language has not changed enough since Shakespeare's day to render his works entirely incomprehensible to us, but that is exactly what this kind of system would do. Imagine 10 centuries of literature lost to what is very rightly described as an Orwellian kind of reform.

S.G. Many thanks for your comment, which I'll add to the Website article on Spelling. Reformers such as George Bernard Shaw proposed a much more radical reformation of our spelling, complete with a new alphabet. I state in the article I am not in favor of that for precisely the reason you mention - it would make present books unreadable. My proposed spelling reforms are very modest. Webster's American spelling merely reflects older English standard spellings in most cases, and I'd be content to let people adopt Webster's spelling with a few modest additions. All present books would be perfectly readable, as would older ones. In any case I don't want to dictate how anybody spells - my argument is that we should be able to be allowed to spell how we like within limits. There should be various alternative spellings which people can choose from. There are many already - organisation/organization, dispatch/despatch, connection/connexion, labour/labor, centre/center, programme/program, etc., etc.. Tony ***** Interesting article.

It ties right in with my web page about the differences between UK English and American English

Some of the regionalisms in both countries are MOST amusing...

As for claiming that it is the BRITISH who "always mis- spell everything" - that is the most cocked up complaint I have ever read! WEBSTER made the yanks change the spelling of tons of English words to try to distance themselves from ye Olde Countrye . The British and the Amerricans can't decide WHO is going to stay closest to the FRENCH spelling on words that they ripped off from the French! One changes the spelling, and the other doesn't. Usually the British stay more like the original French in their spelling, but sometimes the Americans do! Both botch the pronunciations pretty terribly though!

There is NOTHING wrong with spelling "PROGRAMME" properly!

On the other hand it is the most bastardized language on earth. We have words from almost EVERY other language often preferring the more strange-sounding words like "EYE" - oh yes... all of those "SILENT-E" endings, like EYE... and LIKE for example. We got most of that from the Spanish I think. Personally I love all of those TOUGH sounding Nordic words, he he!

Have a butcher's at this: http://www.af4k.com/english.htm

All the best - Brian Many thanks for your comments on my Spelling article. I do like to provoke an argument, hence the title. The truth is I myself get annoyed when in the States and they don't understand plain English. In a diner/cafe, for example, they offer you a 'biscuit' and a bread roll turns up on your plate! They offer you a 'zuccini' and a 'courgette' turns up. And they insist, and we all seem to have accepted, that something dramatic happened on 9/11 in New York City. I am not aware of anything special happening on 9th November 2001, are you? I also keep getting bombarded every year with Internet ads telling me to remember Mothers' Day two months after the event, sometime in May, when apparently the USA and other countries celebrate it. I invariably write back saying they have missed the date by two months. However, I do tend to prefer the shorter or more phonetic spellings, which are often regarded as being 'American' but which I try to explain in my article are often, in fact, approved by the Oxford English Dictionary and Fowler's Modern English Usage. I am in favor/favour of spelling reform, but nothing so drastic as to make existing books unreadable. What I am really saying is our spelling should be more flexible, and we should be allowed more alternate spellings. So you can spell it 'programme' if you wish, and I can spell it 'program' without having someone tell me I have mis-spelt it. One of my favorites/favourites is 'kerb/curb'. The Americans use the 'curb' spelling for the edge of the pavement, which makes sense to me since it 'curbs' cars/automobiles from mounting the pavement/sidewalk and knocking down pedestrians! I'd never realized where the word 'kerb' came from before I saw the spelling more commonly used in the States. We really speak a different language from our American cousins. The other day an American on a Yahoo group had to ask what 'daft' meant. I was tempted to reply that it is a word used to describe all Americans, and instead explained it just meant 'stupid'. Thanks for the link to your amusing/informative Website. I don't really take these things too seriously, but I do get pissed off with people telling me I've spelt things wrong or used 'American' spellings when Shakespeare himself spelt 'labour' L-A-B-O-R, and when the OED says such 'or' endings are perfectly valid, as are many other spellings considered to be American. Let's all loosen up and use whichever spellings we like of the variations in use. So I'm quite happy for you to write 'programme' while I write 'program' even when we're both talking about a TV show, not something to do with a computer. However language/dialect/slang will always be different, not just from country to country, but from city to city. Wi' ye nae tak a wee piece'n' ham, hen? I'm away oot fer messages. Gi's a pinta heavy. The weans are greetin'. He's on the brew. I'm away oop the factor the noo aboot the middens on the scheme. This last paragraph is all fiction/nonsense, but it is the sort of thing my (deceased) partner's Glasgwegian relatives say all the time. Translation: Would you like a bacon sandwich, love? I'm going shopping. A pint of bitter please. The kids are crying. He's on the dole. I'm going up the council offices now to complain about the dustbins on the estate not being emptied. My aim, as expressed on the rear cover of every issue of the quarterly Words' Worth, seeks 'to share my love of the English language's many idiosyncrasies with like-minded people worldwide.' In searching the Web for material to support a current article entitled 'Spelling', I discovered several postings * devoted to attempts to apportion blame, between the U.K. and U.S.A in particular, for the vagarious nature of the spellings of words in the English language. Its idiosyncrasies are the mainstay of wordplay in English; I and many others addicted to word puzzles would rue the day that an advocated 'pick and mix' attitude to spelling became generally adopted! Having been the victim of detractors of my choice of OED-accredited words, my further research has been to seek support for undisputed words in dictionaries of the English language; though formists unable to find them seem to have had no trouble in accepting abstruse, obsolete or even far-flung foreign encyclopaedic words. There are, apparently, no generally-agreed rules governing the use of words acceptable in word puzzles, though the widespread pastime of solving crosswords, for example, would be jeopardis(z)ed if standards of spelling are relaxed too readily! Rules for certain wordplay genres have, however, now been drafted. The spelling blame-apportioners seem to be more concerned with the relationship between the spellings of words and the way they are pronounced. They opt for 'thru' instead of 'through'; what about 'threw'? How soon before the correct spelling of 'separate' is replaced by the common misspelling 'seperate'? -- which the spellchecker has just uncovered! The fault is not with the correct spelling of English words; it lies mainly with those who can't spell. But the lexicographers are not blameless; they can't lay it all at the feet of the meeja(h)! I would like to see the OED, at least, give the correct English spelling for all and every word in their dictionaries. The American language can have its own jeopardization! No sweat! 'Nobby' ***** As an antipodean construction sector professional I can tell you that the written distinction between meter and metre is of regular benefit as grammar cannot be relied upon to make it clear which is meant. Regardless of whether it makes sense, historically or otherwise I am thankful for this distinction! It is interesting also that we still call workers labour, even if the party founded by the labour unions is the Australian Labor Party. I’ve never understood the origin of “our”, the French is different: « quelle couleur est le vélo ? » , although you can see quotation marks are also frequently different. And our older texts, one Sydney planning competition map of 1909 comes to mind, favours “harbour” over “harbour”. Sincerely, Adin Pilcer Oh you came across my old website and spelling article. Well no doubt what you say is true, but in speech we have to get by without such distinctions, and go only by context or grammar. And Americans manage quite well with one spelling for meter/metre. Sounds as if Australia is just inconsistent, or the Labor Party is streets ahead of the rest of the country. I don't see any distinction between the two versions of 'harbour' you wrote. I'd always spell it 'harbor', but that's personal preference. All spellings used anywhere in the English-speaking world are valid spellings as far as I'm concerned, should be included in English dictionaries, and people should have a choice of which spelling they use. ***** The yanks have done two outstanding things,(a) put a man on the moon (b)John Deere tractors.Other than that there is nothing to really brag about.If they're so worried about a little bit of printers ink when it comes to u in colour and u in neighbours, why not cut out some of the s's Mississippi River. Misisipi Rivr comes across the same way. Australia went metric in the 1960'sand we still have to put up with the stupid yanks inch tyre measurement. It's ironic that a so called great nation like the USA just can't measure up. John the Aussie bloke Thanks for your comments, which I'll add to the webpage. p.s. Presumably the Australian Labor Party also need to save printers' ink! :-) **** Hello, I have read your webpage entitled 'The British don't know how to spell' and thought I would give you my slant on this. I am quite passionate about the English language and more so about the English spelling of words as opposed to the American spelling. On the subject of some of the words in common use in America, like; faucet, diaper, elevator, etc. these words are still in use because of the fact they were used by the original settlers on the continent and the population has not moved on as the English language has. It is, after all, a live language and constantly changing. You make the comments "... the British ‘–our’ endings have no validity; it is simply national prejudice which prevents us approaching the subject with an open mind." and that "...the differently spelled suffixes do not ‘serve any useful purpose.". These are from the Oxford University Press, but you quite obviously agree, so my slant... The word 'color' & 'colour'. The first 'o' in the word is pronounced as in the 'u' in cut. The word is spelt with the 'u' in the last syllable so as to indicate that. The American way of pronouncing this word is to pronounce it with the first 'o' as in pot, so our spelling is valid on the basis that the English way of pronouncing it is different. They may both be correctly spelt for the pronunciation and are therefore as valid as each other. The deciding factor though, is the fact that the American spellings are from a language being used 400 years ago and the English we use in Britain has evolved and moved on from then, whereas the American language has evolved in a different way and some of the words have remain valid in that continent. The thing one has to remember is that the language comes originally from this small country and that, although it may evolve differently in many different parts of the world where it is used in isolation from the British English, the British English should always be the master. One cannot take the language of another country, like Italian and say that we are going to use it and then spell the words differently from the country of origin and then assert that our version uses the correct spelling. The use of the 'z' in some American words is also an archaic spelling from the first settler on the north American continent. You go on the try to explain the difference in the word traveller. you state the the use of the double 'l' is intended to indicate the stressing of the previous syllable. 'Vell' is not the previous syllable it is the syllable that contain the double 'l', the previous one is 'tra', which is, correctly, the stressed syllable. I hope this is not too controversial for you and that you take my comments as light-hearted and constructive. I am passionate about the English language and wish more people would use it more correctly, perhaps then we would have a language that would evolve in a good way and not include mobile text-speak phrases, which I fear are to become more apparent in our language in the future. Thank you. Best Wishes. Steve Edgington. (Trainer - Oxford) Hi Steve, Thanks for your comments on my old article about Spelling on my old website. I'll add them to the page, with my observations below: First, I find it hard to believe 'elevator' was in use by the original settlers in America as the 'lift'/'elevator' hadn't been invented. I'm not sure about 'faucets' and 'diapers', probably they had in some form or other. Anyway I was talking about spelling not different words for the same thing. Second, your remark about 'color'/'colour' I can't accept at all. For a start it is the first syllable we pronounce 'cul', the second syllable is a neutral sound and can be represented perfectly well by 'lor', 'ler', 'lur' or indeed 'lr' omitting the vowel all together, as another proposed Spelling reform proposes. And what about 'favor'/'favour', 'flavor'/'flavour', 'labor'/'labour', 'odor'/'odour'. You don't mention why the 'u' is in these, or why it is omitted in the British spellings of 'deodorant', 'coloration', 'colorific', 'humorous', 'humorist', etc. No consistency in the British spellings at all, especially when taken alongside 'governor', 'donor', 'pallor', etc. I agree that 'z' instead of 's' for words like 'organize'/'organise' is considered old-fashioned in Britain, but both spellings are perfectly valid even in UK, and as I said The Times, OED, etc. prefer the 'z' spellings, as do the Americans. When I mentioned the double 'll' in words like 'traveller' suggests the previous syllable be emphasized or stressed, I meant the syllable which ends in 'll' or 'l', which in that case would be 'vell'/'vel' not 'trav'. This is the normal rule in English spelling when adding a suffix, as in 'forgetting' (double 'tt') and conversely 'banqueting', 'banqueter', etc. which only take a single 't' because the stress is on the first syllable. This rule is sometimes broken, though, to indicate the preceding letter is a dipthong, for example words like 'deciding' where the stress is on the middle syllable but only one 'd' is used to indicate the 'i' is pronounced as the dipthong 'ei'. Altho' (like that abbreviation?) I like the more phonetic or consistent spelling of German, for instance, I am not advocating complete reform of the English language. What I do advocate is, particularly in this era of instant global communication via the Internet, etc., all recognized English spelling forms in use around the world should be allowed and individuals should be able to choose which spellings they use, without being accused of being 'wrong' or using 'American' spelling (or 'British' spelling if they live in USA). As you say, it is a living language (don't we know it with words like 'chav' etc. coming into use?) and so we shouldn't be afraid of bringing in new words and new spellings. But what I can't understand is why we'd want to alter spellings to make them more unwieldy or less phonetic. 'Labor', 'plow', 'organize', 'ton' are just a few older British spellings which have been dropped in favor of 'labour', 'plough', 'organise', 'tonne' etc. (I don't buy the argument that 'tonne' indicates a metric ton, or that 'programme' indicates a concert or TV program, whilst 'program' indicates a computer program. We don't have such distinctions in speech, or in lots of other written words - they are unnecessary. The context makes the meanings clear.) All the best, Tony ***** From Brandon Tuck, September 24th, 2010 The reason that the British have changed the language in this way is because colour is more aesthetically pleasing than color. In the same way, litre looks nicer than liter, and organise, whilst not looking any better than organize, uses the more common and fitting s rather than the rather more rare and confusing z. Omelette looks more pleasing than omelet. The Australian labor party is spelt this way because of a typo, not because they prefer American spelling. As to your spelling of thru and nabor, they look even worse than the current American spellings. Yes the American spellings are more phonetic, but if being phonetic means making our language look ugly and harsh, then i much prefer the British spelling. And anyway, the British have the master language, and that's why it changes more and in better ways. GO ENGLAND!! **** Reply from Tony: I think people should be allowed to choose which spelling they use from the variations available in the English-speaking world. So I've no objection if you find 'colour', 'litre', 'omelette', etc. more esthetic/aesthetic than the alternative versions. What I object to is people telling me I've misspelt words when I've used a perfectly valid one used widely in USA and elsewhere, and legitimized in the Oxford English Dictionary. I do think, however, that spellings people are used to always look more esthetically pleasing. Would 'governour', 'entre', 'toilette' look more pleasing than the current British spellings? Perhaps the last two would if you were a French speaker. ****

January 2011 WOW! Just found this article by accident,I was actually looking for something to explain the decline of correct spelling and grammar that seems so rife at the moment and came across this! I may only be a factory worker and my syntax and ,occasionally, my spelling may be off but even I can understand that the word Cheque (written promise to pay the bearer) and Check (to inspect or even 'Tick') are spelled differently to represent different things!.

And, again as I understand it, metre (a measurement of distance) and meter ( a gauge that shows a measured reading) are spelled differently to show different things. Now I do understand that they are pronounced the same way, but doesn't that just show the beauty of the written word? That even a minute (;-) change to the spelling of a word conjures up a completely different meaning?

Anyhoo, I am no academic, I just pack cereal into cartons 12hours a day to support my family, but, when I want to get away from it all I pick up a good book, and go wherever that book takes me. I struggled at school with Written English but got there in the end and it WAS worth it. Making things easier does not necessarily make them better and in the long term can just make them cheap and meaningless.

Much luv Barny.



Sent from Barnaby Toye. ***** August 2012 Tony,



I'm mostly in agreement with you, our British spelling is illogical.

As one who has always been a bad speller I never write anything without

the spell checker turned on.

This has its problems. I have a UK dictionary with MS Office, but my web

browser / mail client (Firefox / Thunderbird) stubbornly insist on using

a US dictionary!

Most of your changes are a good ides, but 'nabor' is a simplification

too far. IMHO it's not a phonetic version of neighbour/neighbor. I

believe most British people would pronounce it with a short 'a' sound as

in 'nab' or 'tab'. Perhaps 'naybor' (a long 'a')?

I suppose that it is what you get used to, after 67 years, I'd find it

difficult to change.



Regards, Peter ***** Doesn't your comment above of ' All spellings used anywhere in the English-speaking world are valid spellings as far as I'm concerned' completely undermine your entire argument in this article, particularly its title?



And you regularly mention the Australian Labor Party; this name change (from the 'Labour Party') came about around one hundred years ago, but this was largely symptomatic of a lack of standardised spelling. In fact, contrary to your article, Australia has gone the other way since; as late at the late 1990s, the Australian newspaper 'The Age' abandoned American spellings in favour of British ones. This is indicative of a wider trend in the country.



Finally, you seem to be under the misbelief that Britain just invented the -our endings sometime in the last few hundred years. In fact, they existed a long time side-by-side with -or endings as there was no standardised spelling. So, you could read one Shakespeare play and see 'labor', but then again read another and see 'labour'.



Also, the American Declaration of Independence has 'honour' in the draft, and 'honor' in the final version. These differences would not have been noticed by the authors, they'd have just spelt it as they fancied that day as either was valid. In the same declaration, 'defence' is the spelling used in the final version, despite America's having adopted 'defense' since it was written.



Which is the main point; these spelling differences existed side-by-side for hundreds of years (though in many cases, such as the -re in 'centre' or the '-ue in 'catalogue', there was only that one, 'British' version) until they were standardised in Johnson's dictionary of 1755; spellings that Americans adopted also.



So your argument that US spellings are correct and British ones are not is based on a misunderstanding. Until Webster arbitrarily changed words he did not like the spelling of, such as centre, or dialogue, they would have been unheard of. This is probably why the majority of your argument rests on -or endings, since they are the spellings that existed side-by-side for the longest. However, the British standardised them first, and went for -our. It's a Romance language development, from the French -eur. If the Latin version you favour is right, why should the French be wrong? They're neither of them English! Signed: JH Just to clarify, I believe, especially in this age of the Internet, that all spellings used in the English-speaking world should be regarded as being correct. True this contradicts the title of my original article above, or does it? If schoolchildren and others are consistently told spellings thought of as American are wrong, then it rather proves the point that 'the British don't know how to spell' doesn't it? Because to know 'how to spell' surely you need to know all variations, and people should not be told certain spellings are wrong if they are legitimate ones in the English language. So all you say above just support this notion that in all English-speaking countries there has at various times been a variety of spellings, and I believe this should continue. the Official Scrabble Dictionary has all variations, and with the exception of unofficial abbreviations like 'za' for 'pizza', I think all proper words with various spellings in the English-speaking world should be listed in all dictionaries so people have a choice, and they should not be told certain spellings are wrong because they are thought of as 'American' or 'British' ***** I'd have to say I disagree with a lot of your arguments.



Firstly, there is great merit to keeping variations of the same word sound but with different spellings (homophones) by being able to distinguish the different written words.



Secondly, you argue for phonetics but appear to miss a lot of key phonetic sounds - 'or' endings would be pronounced very differently to 'our'. Labor would emphasise an OR sound at the end, labour ends with a schwa.



Your replacement for 'view' with 'vu' is horrendous, when I presented the spelling 'vu' to one of my ESL classes they tried to pronounce it with the weak phonetic sounds for both letters 'vʊ' and 'vʌ' which are both completely different to 'vjuː' the same applies to 'nu' pronounced 'nʊ' / 'nʌ' and 'new' that is pronounced 'ˈnuː'.





Simplifying the language holds some weight, but you do not appear to have really thought about the pronunciation with your simplified spellings. Your changes don't follow the English phonetic alphabet and would make no sense to a foreigner as there is no consistency to follow. Some of the endings make no sense with your intended pronunciations, you have just created different problems.





Being able to distinguish different meanings like 'meter' and 'metre', 'check' and 'cheque' plus countless others should not be dumbed down too. Dumbing down the spelling will only serve to dumb down the language and the people with it.

For all the praise you give the Americans on spelling you neglect the countless horrible instances of language they use, take y'all for example as a contraction of a nasty piece of original grammar - you all. Point taken about suggested spellings like 'vu'/'nu' though these are used in product names. Also there's little consistency in present spellings as regards pronunciation so we have 'new', 'few', 'dew' but also 'grew' also 'cue', 'sue', 'due' but also 'blue', 'glue', etc. With any spelling reform you would need new rules to go with them to aid pronunciation. So perhaps drop the 'e' at the end for words like 'blue', 'glue', retain it for the other pronunciation, so it would then be 'nue', 'vue', etc. This at least would be logical, since we have no accents in English to aid pronunciation of individual letters. As to 'y'all' it is, of course, Dixie dialect or slang and such corruptions of English occur in all dialects or slang. ****