Why Americans can't spell!

"SOCIETY for the PROTECTION of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE."

Huh? If there is one language on the face of the earth that surely does NOT need any protection it must be English.

By the way, "showed" is a perfectly acceptable past participle. Both "showed" and "shown" co-exist; the fact that the latter is more widespread does not make the former "wrong."

***If there is one language on the face of the earth that surely does NOT need any protection it must be English.***

But it does!..it does!...it does!! need protection.....from the people who profess to speak it and who profess to "improve" it and who profess to simplify it! It needs strong protection from the spelling reformists ...some of those substitute words look ugly let alone weird.

The English Language is a delicate animal and vulnerable to attack from all the simplicists (I think I've just coined this word! I haven't checked it out and haven't the time to do so now as I'm off out to the pub) who want to make it easier for learners! Why should they have it easy? We natives had to learn all the vicissitudes of English the hard way.....at our mothers' bosoms... and later in the school playgrounds where we first learned some very interesting words.....

>>"SOCIETY for the PROTECTION of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE."

Huh? If there is one language on the face of the earth that surely does NOT need any protection it must be English.

By the way, "showed" is a perfectly acceptable past participle. Both "showed" and "shown" co-exist; the fact that the latter is more widespread does not make the former "wrong."<<

Agreed most definitely, with respect to both parts.

<<It's a bit of a shame that the OED still insists on the archaic "-ize" endings; but at least they've got the past participle of "get" sorted.>>

<It's not archaic in Britain

Oh yes it is; cf OED and Fowler.

>><<It's a bit of a shame that the OED still insists on the archaic "-ize" endings; but at least they've got the past participle of "get" sorted.>>

<It's not archaic in Britain

Oh yes it is; cf OED and Fowler.<<

One way or another, you cannot say that -"ize" is an "Americanism", though.

How can it ["-ize"] be archaic in Britain if it is still in common use there?

<<It's a bit of a shame that the OED still insists on the archaic "-ize" endings>>

My definition of "archaic spellings" are words such as "governour" and "musique", I'm really not sure how a spelling that in 2005 is used in the majority of British books, nearly all software and all forms of American publishing can possibly be described as "archaic".

In spite of your assertions that English needs no protection I still maintain that it does! I speak from a British point of view. As I said earlier, what the rest of the world thinks or does is their business when it comes to the use of the English Language...you may fcuk it up as much as you like.....but in it's home base it should remain intact and unsullied....inconsistent and irregular when it comes to spelling.

Simplification of the spelling seems to downgrade the Language and words like "nite" and "lite" for "night" and "light" etc etc look stupid and should only remain in the names of commercial products. Like the rapacious grey squirrel, they came from America......where else.

It's true that Languages are living things and they change and evolve constantly, but reducing the spelling of English to what seems to be childish basic forms just for the sake of conveniece is just not on.

Just about the most archaic forms was the funny use of an "f" for "s" in written English several centuries ago. Music was written as "mufick". You can see it on some really old graveftones or on ancient ftone tablets in churches and cathedrals. It feemed that only the initial "s" letters or those in the middle of words appeared as an "f". Ftrange.

conveniece = convenience

The ftupid "n" on my keyboard is getting lazy

<<"SOCIETY for the PROTECTION of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE."

Huh? If there is one language on the face of the earth that surely does NOT need any protection it must be English.

By the way, "showed" is a perfectly acceptable past participle. Both "showed" and "shown" co-exist; the fact that the latter is more widespread does not make the former "wrong.">>

I agree 100% with all that. No languages need "protection." Language change is capricious and can't be reined in by prescriptivist notions that would have otherwise (they don't and won't work). Damian, you're equating language with orthography, and the two are very separate things. The spoken language (the actual, real language) is not in the same domain as the abstract written form that is orthography. Changing spelling isn't changing the language--it's completely separate.

On the subject of shown and showed it depends how you use them:

"They showed that they were the best in the world"
"They have shown that they are the best in the world"

but the following sound wrong to me:

"They shown that they were the best in the world"
"They have showed that they are the best in the world"

So I tend to agree with the original statement that "have showed" at the very least sounds odd.

>>Changing spelling isn't changing the language--it's completely separate.<<

Sunday, Munday, Tuesday, Wensday, ...

<<As a lerner, I welcome spelling re-unification. >>

You ain't the only one, eito! English spelling is crazy enough without having to learn two alternative systems....

I don't think we've done a whole lot to "simplify" English spelling on this side of the Atlantic -- if we had, there'd be a LOT more changes!

By the way, not to quibble, but it's "learner".

It would not be spelling *re*unification, just spelling unification; one must remember that in many places where US and Commonwealth (and in particular British) spelling differ, the various differing forms were historically used in the UK, and it just happened that different forms were standardized upon in different places. The main exceptions to this are many cases of -"re" and -"our", which are more pseudo-Frenchisms (except in actual word which are identical in writing to such words written with -"re", such as "metre" and "litre", which are just Frenchisms then) that were added to British spelling due to such being historically fashionable, and many (but not all) cases of -"ise", which are a more recent innovation in British spelling which still has not managed to completely dominate writing in the UK, as shown by the OED still favoring -"ize".

If anything, the big thing that one must remember here is that US spelling is not necessarily innovative and UK spelling is not necessarily conservative, contrary to the preconceived notions that many seem to have about the whole subject. Furthermore, uniting English spelling is easier said than done, considering the politics of the matter, and in particular how many British people seem to strongly oppose *perceived* "Americanisms" (the -"ize" matters shows how the "perceived" part is what matters here) combined with how many Americans do not really see the UK in quite the same light as many people from various parts of the Commonwealth, despite how they might like Hugh Grant's accent, and probably are not ready to change how they spellings to Commonwealth spellings, pretentious usages like "theatre" aside.

*to change how they spell things to Commonwealth spellings