Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic

This is a false dilemma for phonetic spelling because the great variance is itself partly due to the lack of a phonetic standard . . .

No, i'm saying that there is no good reason to assume that phonetic standards play any part at all in regional accents and pronunciations.

The English colonized the North American continent from 1607. They took over the territory which became Canada beginning in 1760. The First Fleet landed in Australia in 1788. The English took over the Cape colony of South Africa in 1795.

I simply do not believe that a lack of a phonetic standard plays any part at all in such a process

The major conclusion is that all phonetic variations from standard American English can be attributed to one of the following sources of variation: (1) reduction in the complexity of segments, which usually decreases with age; (2) differing phonological rules between standard English and a dialect of English; and (3) phonetic interference between a foreign primary language and English.

nor that having had a phonetic standard--especially in times when so much of the population was not literate--would have assured that we all spoke the same.

On that basis, your sarcasm is a complete failure.

Given the content of posts which i have seen at this and other sites, both by the young and by older people, i have my doubts that people are very competently literate these days, which throws into doubt whether or not they would be able to distinguish words by context when if they were identically spelled.

You're just full of sarcasm tonight, aren't you.

A phonetic standard, vis-a-vis orthography, is not at all the same as "differing phonological rules."

Quite apart from that, i don't find passage convincing as a basis for your argument, because it doesn't state or imply that a lack of phonetic standard is a cause of there being dialects of English form which said differences of phonological rules derive.

What you sneer at as date dropping was offered to show that there can be a wide variance of phonetic usage over time, without making the dialects of a language mutually incomprehensible.

Here, let me do it again, since it seems to irritate you.

The French Academy was established in 1635. The French did not lose their North American colony to the English until 1760. The primary aim of the Academy from its inception was the standardization of the French langauge, grammar, syntax, pronunciation, orthography--and yet the French spoken in Canada differs so much that the patois of les habitants is frequently referred to as joual, which is the Québecois version of the word cheval, meaning horse. It doesn't appear that phonetic standardization did much to assure that there would not be a diversion, and a radical diversion at that, in the language--which nevertheless remains mutually comprehensible as between Canadians and the French.

Frankly, i don't think the source you provided supports your claim

As the French example shows, having such a phonetic standard will not assure that there is no divergence

Your expert writes of differing phonological rules as arising in part from dialect--so what explains the existence of dialect?

Do you seriously believe that it would ever be possible to enforce phonetic rectitude?

Do you not see the equal importance of what your expert source points to--" . . . phonetic interference between a foreign primary language and English?"

I've not said that spelling makes any difference to grammar. I'm pointing out that for people whose language skills are poor to begin with, determining which word an allegedly phonetic spelling refers to from the context in which it is encountered might be, and i personally assert very likely would be, difficult at best.

... and very likely would induce a good deal of confusion in native-speaking children trying to figure out from context whether "yor" was the equivalent of what was once either your, you're or yore.

Let’s suppose the majority of people were in favour of a change to phonetic spelling. What authority exists to bring it about?

A change of spelling would not just happen.

Some authority would have to say that from a certain date such and such a spelling would be acceptable would be required and who would give this order and would their authority in the matter be accepted?

Or, is Robert advocating that people can spell however they want to rather than have a structured change in spelling practices.

The change to a new orthography has already raised the question of what will happen to all the books that already exist. Some reprinting will be inevitable, if only of works that are arranged alphabetically. Whatever system of phonetic spelling is used would make it reasonable to assume that words such as know, knight, knot would no longer begin with k and that similarly photograph, physics and phonetics would not begin with ph but with f.

The labour of resetting all volumes of the Oxford English Dictionary or all volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica, to take but two examples, would be immense but would have to be done.

Throughout the world's libraries there are millions of books printed in the current English spelling. They represent a huge capital expenditure. At some point, in the future, these books might even be unreadable by the masses.

Why? Do you already propose reprinting Shakespeare to remove any orthographical inconsistency with modern spelling?

The primary aim of the Academy from its inception was the standardization of the French langauge, grammar, syntax, pronunciation, orthography--and yet the French spoken in Canada differs so much that the patois of les habitants is frequently referred to as joual, which is the Québecois version of the word cheval, meaning horse. It doesn't appear that phonetic standardization did much to assure that there would not be a diversion, and a radical diversion at that, in the language--which nevertheless remains mutually comprehensible as between Canadians and the French.