R: Re: Language changes, spelling reform (was Conlangea Dreaming)

Robert Hailman wrote:

> Nik Taylor wrote:
> >
> > Robert Hailman wrote:
> > > The odd thing is that the language that could (arguably) have the most
> > > use for a spelling reform is the one where it's least likely to
happen.
> >
> > That's exactly why!  Any spelling reform of English, no matter how
> > logically designed, or how minimalistic, if it made pronunciation 100%
> > predictable from spelling would require quite a few changes.  A language
> > that has a pretty good spelling system would require only a few small
> > changes.
>
> Very True, Very True. Of course, one Reason that a Spelling Reform would
> have to be so drastic is that English Spelling has not been reformed in
> the past as the language changes. If they had, only a very minimal of
> Spelling Reform would be needed now.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, Old English was spelled more or less phonetically.
>
The problem here is that English evolved far too quickly. Italian has
preserved its original spelling from about 1250 and, with very few minor
changes, most of whom already steady at Dante's times (around 1300), it
perfectly works today as it used to work then. English, on the other hand,
has undergone so many changes from the OE times: the weakening of the word
ending (a destructive phenomenon which caused the loss of declension
patterns, genders and personal conjugation of the verbs) and the infamous
Great Vowel Shift are the most famous. The Middle English spelling system,
which, AFAIK, was quite phonetically even in Chaucer's times ('Whan that
Aprill with his shoures sote...' - darnit, I'm studying that now at
school!),  has been preserved because of tradition, even if overwhelmed by
sound changes.

Luca