dilipbarad

Spellings in English Language: To spell or not to spell correctly.


Language grows. It has accreting quality. It flows like river. It goes on changing its shape and flow in harmony with its levee. Change is the only permanent feature of language. Language which does not change with flux of time, give up the ghost.


The Spelling is one of the vital components of a language. From time and again, like language, spellings of the language also undergo a change. From Geoffrey Chaucer – the father of English language – down the line, if you read writings of Shakespeare, Edmund Spencer, Milton, Dryden or any of the 18th, 19th century English literary hulks, you will find how modern English spellings were 'misspelled' by these great man of English letters.


If the history of English language tells us that language and its spellings can't be static; it must constantly evolve to keep up with changing times and remain relevant; then why should Pundits of the language cling steadfastly to the correctness of spelling?


Ken Smith, lecturer at the Bucks New University in Britain has added fuel to the debate over 'to spell or not to spell correctly'. "Don't let students' howlers drive you mad, says Ken Smith. Accept their most common mistakes as variant spellings ... and relax." He further argues that "…instead of complaining about the state of the education system as we correct the same mistakes year after year, I've got a better idea. University teachers should simply accept as variant spelling those words our students most commonly misspell". Several of British English spellings are already accepted as American variants and people have easily assimilated them in their daily usage. Thanks to Bill Gates and MS Office. 'U' is omitted from 'colour', 'favour', 'endeavour' etc. This software programme has changed 'programme' to 'program', 'judgement' to 'judgment'. Ken Smith asks, "The spelling of the word "judgement", for example, is now widely accepted as a variant of "judgment", so why can't "truely" be accepted as a variant spelling of "truly"?" To begin with, he listed top 10 spellings of simple words which are commonly misspelled by the students.


Of course, such proposals have been made in the past. The dawn of SMS-text messaging turned many students into spelling Neanderthals as phrases such as "wot r u doin 2nite?" became socially, if not academically, acceptable.


Despite Smith's suggestion, language pundits are unconvinced. John Simpson, the chief editor of the Oxford English Dictionary, says rules are rules and they are there for good reason. "There are enormous advantages in having a coherent system of spelling," he told the Times newspaper. He added, "It makes it easier to communicate. Maybe during a learning phase there is some scope for error, but I would hope that by the time people get to university they have learnt to spell correctly."


But still the point is: Is it really necessary to spell correctly to fulfill basic function of language – which is to 'communicate'? If we can communicate without correct spellings, is it essential to learn how to spell correctly? If you have a million dolor (check meaning of this word) doubt regarding how to communicate without spelling correctly, read following paragraph:


Cna yuo raed tihs? Suteids sohw taht olny aoubt 55 prcenet of plepoe can (atculley trheer is no scuh sudty). I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. Tihs sohws us the phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid. Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are in, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pclae. The rset of the txet can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but isntaed raeds the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? Yaeh and we awlyas tghuhot slpelnig was ipmorantt!


Yet even some of Britain's greatest wordsmiths have acknowledged it's a language with irritating quirkiness. Playwright George Bernard Shaw was fond of pointing out that the word "ghoti" could just as well be pronounced "fish" if you followed common pronunciation: 'gh' as in "tough," 'o' as in "women" and 'ti' as in "nation."


Isn't Ken Smith's idea worth accepting? Isn't it the time to adopt humanistic approach and free students from the atrocities of spellings? Technology has changed the way we live and think. It has initiated change in the way we spell our spellings. Isn't it a good idea to simplify obsolete and confusing spellings? Isn't it an idea whose time has come?