Should the English language undergo a spelling reform?

It would hav been an even bigger pain if we hadnt changed from Roman numerals!

As well as that, we moved from hieroglyfs and cuneiform to an alfabet. U mite hav not been so competent in ritten language if we hadnt.

Lets continue the change, to help the less literat.

i did not shirk at school; as a result i am able to communicate clearly and effectively. if only today's young people would follow my example.

So we change something until everyone can manage it? Like I said before, we don't dumb down computers until all 60 year olds can use them with ease. Also it's not exactly practical to simply change language. It changes over time on its own, but forcing change is pretty difficult.

So we change something until everyone can manage it? Like I said before, we don't dumb down computers until all 60 year olds can use them with ease. Also it's not exactly practical to simply change language. It changes over time on its own, but forcing change is pretty difficult.

So we change something until everyone can manage it? Like I said before, we don't dumb down computers until all 60 year olds can use them with ease. Also it's not exactly practical to simply change language. It changes over time on its own, but forcing change is pretty difficult.

So we change something until everyone can manage it? Like I said before, we don't dumb down computers until all 60 year olds can use them with ease. Also it's not exactly practical to simply change language. It changes over time on its own, but forcing change is pretty difficult.

PS Computers were made much easier to use with the introduction of Windows and led the current widespread use of them. The old DOS system was much too difficult for most people and very few used them before the arrival of Windows.

i did not shirk at school; as a result i am able to communicate clearly and effectively. if only today's young people would follow my example.

And who said I was opposed to it? I haven't said whether I oppose it or support it.... You don't need to support or oppose something to tell whether they have made a crappy point. And that is what I did, i exposed them.

Simpler spelling would remove this from being an issue for many people, who would simply find it easier to communicate with the world. If someone struggles with spelling and reading then they will find it harder to educate themselves on other subjects, for instance. Many children find that problems with literacy affects all their other subjects, and some kids just give up out of frustration.

You're putting too much emphasis on perfect spelling recall. Mine is appalling. It's ridiculous and kind of offensive to suggest that those without perfect spelling recall are incapable of reading the words they misspell and of understanding their meaning. Or because of this issue they can't use these words to form a coherent written sentence themselves.

The English language contains many irregularities and inconsistencies in respect to phonetics and its relation to spelling, consider the letters 'ough' and how they can be pronounced in so many different ways: (oʊ/ as in “though”, /uː/ as in “through”, /ʌf/ as in “rough”, /ɒf/ as in “cough”, /ɔː/ as in “thought”, /aʊ/ as in “bough”, /ə/ as in “thorough). We only have 26 letters in the alphabet and yet we have to use these to represent more sounds.

For instance, why do we need silent letters? Consider how many words that stem from other languages, such as the word honour differ from phonetics. The American version of the word honour is honor which removes the French influence from the language and thus making it more consistent with phonetics.

The problems in the language derive from its historical context, Old English was pronounced very much as it is written but due to influence from many invaders (Scandinavian, Norman, etc...) and of course the great vowel shift the language began to lose its consistency, it not longer adhered to a strict set of phonetical rules and became much more ambiguous.

The problem with the inconsistencies in the orthography of the language means it is much more difficult to learn (for native people this means we spend much more time in the classroom teaching literacy skills), indeed even literate people often display difficulty spelling words that they are unfamiliar with because of so many variations in the rules. Spelling has become so ambiguous that its lack of adherence to any strict rules means it is nothing more than a memorisation game.

A spelling reform would focus on the consistency between phonetics and spelling, focusing on the orthography of the language to make sure it can meet a strict set of rules rather than having wide variation and ambiguity would increase people's ability to spell and make it easier to spell words we're unfamiliar with.

So, to repeat the question in the title: should the English language undergo a spelling reform?

English has always been spoken with a great diversity of accents. English spelling was initially standardised, and hence decoupled from pronunciation, so that one English speaker could read the writing of any other English speaker, regardless of their respective accents. This was neccessary in Early Modern England, when the process began--how much more neccessary is it now, when English is a global language! English spoken by someone in Calcutta may be extremely difficult to understand for someone in Houston, and vice versa, but they will have no trouble at all understanding what the other one has written. If each spelled phonetically, their writing would look very different indeed and might even be mutually unintelligible. Nor would any new, standardised phonetic update manage to capture the pronunciation of all English speakers. A new standard spelling system based, for example, on the pronunciation of BBC English would be just as disconnected from pronunciation for the majority of English speakers throughout the world as is the current system, and would have the unfortunate effect of erasing the centuries of linguistic history which are preserved in the current standardised spelling of English words. Working as an English teacher to speakers of a very phonetic language,Hebrew, I found that once students understood that English spelling was not arbitrary, but actually preserved an earlier pronunciation, or showed what language it entered English from, or any number of other interesting etymological notes, it actually sparked more interest and let to deeper comprehension.

You're putting too much emphasis on perfect spelling recall.
Spelling is actually a small part of literacy.
What you are talking about are people with low IQs. How do you know that simpler spelling is going to help them at all, or to enough of a degree to justify bastardising the entire language? They're still going to have a limited capacity for learning and understanding after reform.

Making English spelling phonically perfect would be challenging, but learning to read it could easily be made much less baffling, by reducing the inconsistencies which impede it most.

i hope that you did not have to teach them the word NECESSARY

You're putting too much emphasis on perfect spelling recall. Mine is appalling. It's ridiculous and kind of offensive to suggest that those without perfect spelling recall are incapable of reading the words they misspell and of understanding their meaning. Or because of this issue they can't use these words to form a coherent written sentence themselves.
Spelling is actually a small part of literacy. If you saw my posts pre spell checker you'd wince, but to suggest I am illiterate or unable to understand the world or communicate because of this problem is ridiculous and overblown. I struggled with spelling throughout school, yet I was able to achieve high grades in all subjects, including English. You assume this issue is some kind of stumbling block for people, and that if they can't master it or don't find it easy, they never move past square 1.
What you are talking about are people with low IQs. How do you know that simpler spelling is going to help them at all, or to enough of a degree to justify bastardising the entire language? They're still going to have a limited capacity for learning and understanding after reform.