Food for thort

PATRICIA Hughos (July 4) argues that we should re-spell words to simplify the language. What she actually advocates is to match pronunciation closely, but without considering the wide variation in pronunciation!

Such words as "thought" becoming "thort" compound the problem of illogical spelling for some folk instead of simplifying it. In Scotland, the "r" in "thort" would be pronounced, and the words "oar", "or" and "awe" sound completely different, whereas in London they— are identical. Changing "mountain" to "mountan" is a poor approxi­mation ("in" would be better), but in any case some people prefer words ending in "-ain" to rhyme with "twain" (many poems spring to mind).

Such changes also might detract from the beauty of the language in print. Language changes in use anyway: fones, nites, catalogs and disks abound. Computers, of course are the main culprits.

— D S Taylor. Uttoxeter, Staffs.

I DO NOT agree with Patricia Hughes' argument (July 4) about the advantages of making speling ecer. The more varid it is the mor interesting it is and also a certan Ics of sutelt results from having everithing mayd to logical.

Nevertheless, I do agree that pedantic pedagogy is something "up with witch we should not put".

— John Thirkil,. Norwich

Dt Elmore

PATRICIA Hughes argues that we should adopt American spelling of English (Guardian Education, July 4).

I should like to present an opposing argument. I am certainly not "subject to the myth that English never changes and never should". A vast number of new words, especially those with a scien­tific or medical origin, have been added to the language in my lifetime. During my career as biochemist/organic chemist, I have been instrumental in adding many new words; every new compound synthesised in my laboratory has required the Invention of a new name.

Ms Hughes recommends dropping -gue and -que at the end of words. This may not be difficult with words that contain a short vowel before -gue and -que, but would the new cabinet minister like to be referred to as Mr William Hag? Would magistrates and judges refer to hardened criminals as rogs? And would Bach's ghost haunt as if we amuse ourselves playing his 48 preludes and fugs?

Next, I can see no advan­tage in reversing -Ie at the end of words such as cycle. A "c" before "e" Is usually soft, as in "celery". Again, the proposal to change -ain at the end of words to -an would be objectionable. Would Patricia Hughes recommend students to read "Plan Words" by Sir Ernest Gowers? Finally, the Royal Society of Chemistry has already replaced "sulphur" with "sulfur". I do not like this change because it suggests that we ought to change "phosphorus" to "fosforus". Now the chemical symbol for phosphorus is P. It could not be changed to F because that is the symbol for fluorine. Such a radical change would cause chaos in chemical literature.

Before we adopt too much of American English, we should remember that the decision by the Americans to differentiate their version of English from ours goes back to the period just after the American War of Independence. Such people as Noah Wehster of dictionary fame did everything possible to bring about such changes. These were not based on logical or grammatical grounds, but were the result of understandable political disenchantment with their former political masters.

While I accept the need for continuing development of the English English language. dramatic and unnecessary changes are to be opposed.