Sili nu speling rools set kritiks larfing

Should English spelling be simplified? Campaigners argue that its complicated rules hold too many students back, and the time has come to introduce some fundamental changes. The publisher scratched his head in despair. What was he to do with this young writer? He could not spell for toffee! He had written “chaoticly” for “chaotically”, “yatch” for “yacht” and “ecceptionally” for “exceptionally”. His novel contained hundreds of mistakes like this. The easiest thing might be to reject it right away. Fortunately for us, the publisher decided that the book was worth persevering with. The author was F Scott Fitzgerald and his novel was The Great Gatsby, now considered one of the finest works of 20th-Century fiction. Many people, regardless of their intelligence or literary ability, have struggled with English spelling. Now, campaigners at the International English Spelling Congress have voted for new rules to simplify the language. The proposed Traditional Spelling Revised would eliminate silent letters such as the w in “wrong” and the k in “knight“. Double letters thought to be unnecessary would also disappear, so “committee” would become “comittee” (but not, for complicated reasons, “comitee”). The organisers of the congress, the English Spelling Society (ESC), estimate that up to 18% of words would change as a result. The ESC claims that learning to spell takes three years longer in English than in any other language. Over 200,000 children are expected to leave primary school this year without being able to read and write properly. The proposals have added to controversy in universities. Hull University has announced that it will no longer penalise students for bad spelling in case those from poor or minority backgrounds are discouraged. The University of the Arts London has told staff they should “actively accept spelling, grammar or other language mistakes” for the sake of inclusivity. These developments have been met with widespread ridicule and condemnation. “So, yeah, fine, go on, lower the bar,” wrote Giles Coren in The Times. “If they’re simplifying spelling, then surely they must do the same with maths.” The Mail on Sunday condemned “this insidious culture of low educational expectations” as insulting and patronising. But simplified spelling has had some formidable supporters: George Bernard Shaw left his entire estate to the cause. Should English spelling be simplified? Sound and vision Some say, yes: written words should be a straightforward indication of how they sound. In English, this is often not the case, because spelling has not kept pace with changes in pronunciation. Language exists to help us communicate, so there is no point in rules which just make that more difficult. It is up to us to decide what works best today. Others argue that introducing new spellings beside existing ones, as the ESC suggests, would only cause confusion. Many words would lose their foreign roots, making it harder for those learning English as a second language. Every printed book would become as difficult to read as Chaucer. KeywordsKnight - In the Middle Ages, a soldier dressed in armour who fought on a horse.