| Pages in topic: < [1 2] | Was there English spelling reform in the past? to-day => today etc. ? Thread poster: Olaf (X)
|
|---|
Sheila Wilson 
Spain
Local time: 16:33
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
| Not the North | Aug 24, 2010 |
Oliver Walter wrote: Sheila Wilson wrote:
My husband remembers his grandfather using the informal 2nd person for family use (i.e. the equivalent of "you" and "your")
I think that may have been in the North of England, where I was brought up (Sheffield). There it was fairly common to use words sounding like "thee" and tha" for "you" and "your" - familiar form, mainly by "working class" people.
It was actually in Dorset, so a long way from Sheffield, but I believe this had been widespread practice all over the UK and I believe "thee", "thy" and "thou" are still used in some American religious communities.
| | | | Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 16:33
Member (2008)
Italian to English
| I have noticed | Aug 24, 2010 |
I have noticed that the past participle "gotten" (as in "I have gotten"), which emigrated from England to America sometime around the 17th century, and which subsequently vanished from British English, has very recently begun to reappear in British English. Curiouser and curiouser !
[Edited at 2010-08-24 08:26 GMT]
| | | | | George Bernard Shaw | Aug 24, 2010 |
In the 1920s or 1930s, George Bernard Shaw promoted a system for simplifying English spelling, hoping to make it reflect the way words were actually pronounced and, I believe, introduced some new letters and eliminated others which, in his view, were pointless. However, it never caught on.
Jenny
| | | | Oliver Walter
United Kingdom
Local time: 16:33
German to English
+ ...
| Rules but no official authority | Aug 24, 2010 |
As John and Jeff wrote in March, there is no official recognised body that declares how to spell English words. I have an implied confirmation of this in the form of the "Penguin Spelling Dictionary" (1999, no named authors). The preface states "English is a difficult language to spell correctly. ... While the only safe way to be sure of a spelling is to look it up in this dictionary, the basic rules are given on the following pages."
Among these "basic rules" I was slightly surprised to s... See more As John and Jeff wrote in March, there is no official recognised body that declares how to spell English words. I have an implied confirmation of this in the form of the "Penguin Spelling Dictionary" (1999, no named authors). The preface states "English is a difficult language to spell correctly. ... While the only safe way to be sure of a spelling is to look it up in this dictionary, the basic rules are given on the following pages."
Among these "basic rules" I was slightly surprised to see (pace Michael, 22 March):
Suffixes
1. -ize and -ise
Most of these verbs have the preferred ending -ize with -ise as an acceptable variant in British English ...
and hadn't realized that
2. -yse and -yze
-yse is the only acceptable form in British English; -yze is the US spelling (e.g. catalyse/US catalyze; paralyse/US paralyze).
Oliver ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Sheila Wilson
Spain
Local time: 16:33
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
| Not reform, just evolution | Aug 25, 2010 |
Tom in London wrote:
I have noticed that the past participle "gotten" (as in "I have gotten"), which emigrated from England to America sometime around the 17th century, and which subsequently vanished from British English, has very recently begun to reappear in British English. Curiouser and curiouser !
[Edited at 2010-08-24 08:26 GMT]
I don't really think it's odd.
The language that emigrated from Britain to America was the version spoken at that time. The two communities had little contact from then until the fairly recent widespread use of new technology such as the telephone, radio, television, air travel and the internet. The language in each country evolved, as language always does, and naturally enough the evolution was not identical.
Now, with instantaneous communication between Brits and Americans, we are hearing and seeing the other variant all the time. Some of this rubs off on us and makes words and spellings that once were "odd" seem less strange, then we get to the point where we use them ourselves quite happily. It's natural for the two variants to come back together somewhat.
The massive number of non-native speakers adds to this "confusion": often they speak a mix of British and American English, without knowing it!
To get back to the original question, I'm not sure there have been any formalised spelling reforms, in England anyway. English doesn't work that way. Who would reform the language? On the other hand, it evolves in just the same way as any other living thing evolves. Why keep putting a hyphen in "today" when it's such a common word? There must have been a time when a few (possibly lazy, possibly uneducated) writers left it out, others read it, copied it, ...
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Was there English spelling reform in the past? to-day => today etc. ? | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
| | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
