# an English language 'authority' like the RAE or Académie Française



## Silvia

Esistono delle autorità linguistiche nei vari paesi di lingua inglese, o un organo super partes che si occupi di tutto quanto è inerente alla lingua inglese?

Un po' come l'_Accademia_ _della Crusca_ per la lingua italiana.


----------



## carrickp

I don't think so. The closest thing is the Oxford English Dictionary, but English, like Britain and America, is pretty much a matter of individual opinion.


----------



## Silvia

Well, it's really odd that it doesn't exist... being the English language the second most spoken language in the world. It would be about time it existed


----------



## lsp

The only thing that has ever come close in my experience is Strunk & White (Elements of Style) which has been given biblical deference on points of grammar in every office I have ever worked. But it is still not what you're looking for, I'm afraid.


----------



## carrickp

The British/Australian/American personality would resist strongly any kind of language "academy" and rulings on how we are to speak, I believe. The lack of any kind of final authority on the language was bemoaned by George Bernard Shaw in "Pygmalion" and became the song "Why Don't the English Teach Their Children How to Speak?" in the musical play "My Fair Lady."


----------



## Silvia

I know the movie  It's lovely.

Of course, I think each big area (BE, AE, AuE?) should have its own authority, isn't it called "par condicio"? 

Thank lsp, for the useful piece of information.


----------



## ElaineG

This is surely a cultural discussion, which is where it's going right about now.

But for my 2 cents, the idea of such an authority is antithetical to American culture. How can and why should a language, which is the property of every speaker equally, be "regulated"? The existence of such authorities in Italy and France, etc. has always seemed emblematic of a bureaucratic, top-down approach to much of life that characterizes European society. We take a much for free-for-all approach to everything, including language. In my humble opinion, this diversity and penchant for growth and change is a strength of English -- an "authority" could never keep up, but even if it could, it would be a figure of ridicule and dissension.

As far as reference books go, you can't go wrong with Strunk and White, as LSP said, and the OED as Carrick said.


----------



## TimeHP

C'è comunque il vecchio, buon Cambridge International Corpus, al quale si fa riferimento quando si deve preparare il famigerato Proficiency...
 
Ciao


----------



## Shakazulu

ElaineG said:
			
		

> But for my 2 cents, the idea of such an authority is antithetical to American culture.


Scusatemi per intermettersi. May I add: such an authority would also be objectionable in Irish and  English culture. The idea of having a central and centralising authority in cultural matters, along the lines of an Academy  (à la Napoleon, and wherever he placed his boot)  would be rejected by all the islanders as well as the Ozzies (Australians) etc. It is indeed a cultural matter, as ElaineG says, but it has consequences for language usage, pronunciation, etc. (This may be irrelevant, perhaps.) Here in the rather small country of Ireland, we have at least four dialects of Irish and the relatively few speakers will never accept that any central authority has the right to rationalise their idiosyncrasies. But maybe it is not irrelevant: the same is true of regional variations in English. Several decades ago, the BBC tried to standardise accent, pronunciation, etc., but gave up. First Scots, then Northern (Liverpool, Manchester) English became acceptable, and finally (?) London ... Even American and Australian English is acceptable!!! arrow:  Sorry, ElaineG, sono cattivo!) The result is that English is very flexible, and speakers are very tolerant of variations, even of "errors", unlike (e.g.) the French. So really Italian users of English are welcome to bring their own idiosyncrasies to the language: they will enrich it and make it even more colourful, flexible, resonant. You are all welcome to the feast. Corragio!!!


----------



## moodywop

ElaineG said:
			
		

> the idea of such an authority is antithetical to American culture. How can and why should a language, which is the property of every speaker equally, be "regulated"? The existence of such authorities in Italy and France, etc. has always seemed emblematic of a bureaucratic, top-down approach to much of life that characterizes European society. We take a much for free-for-all approach to everything, including language


 
Actually this thread is giving the false impression that we have an official body regulating language usage in Italy. I would argue that such a body is just as antithetical to Italian culture and that we also have a "free-for-all" approach. 

Although the Italian one and the French one share the name "academy" they couldn't be more different.

The Académie Française has a normative role and specifically states that one of its purposes is to keep the French language "pure":

_« La principale fonction de l’Académie sera de travailler, avec tout le soin et toute la diligence possibles, à donner des règles certaines à notre langue et à la rendre *pure*» (Article 24 des statuts.)_

_Le rayonnement de la langue française est menacé par l’expansion de l’anglais, plus précisément de l’américain, qui tend à envahir les esprits, les écrits, le monde de l’audiovisuel._

_L’Académie poursuit son œuvre régulatrice de la langue _

The Italian _Accademia della Crusca _was founded by a group of "letterati" at the end of the 16th century. It did indeed at the time attempt to preserve the purity of the literary language based on Florentine usage(Italian was only spoken by a tiny minority).

Nowadays the _Accademia _is a voluntary organization whose members are some of the top Italian language scholars. Not only it isn't an "official" body but the grant it receives from the government is pitifully inadequate and it has to rely on private donations. A few years ago a group of Italian writers begged our President to save the Academy from closure.

Its purposes are a far cry from those of the French academy:

1. To encourage research in Italian linguistics in cooperation with universities
2. To encourage greater awareness of the history and current trends of the Italian language - within society at large and especially in schools
3. To cooperate with other European research institutes and with government and EU bodies to encourage "plurilinguismo" in Europe
4. To publish research studies on the history and current state of the Italian language

Nowhere is a normative role mentioned. Quite the opposite! A recent essay in the Academy's journal opens with a quote by the Swiss scholar de Saussure which echoes Elaine's words: "Language exists in the community of speakers - not in grammar books used in schools". The author clearly states that "the function of an academy should be to monitor and record language change, thus providing an archive of material for language researchers". She goes on to dismiss fears based on the influence of the English language and argues that a language that does not evolve is doomed. She labels the fascist regime's policy of imposing "italianized" equivalents for foreign loanwords(and replacing "lei" with "voi" as a polite form of address, since "lei" didn't go with the macho image ) as "interventi politici dittatoriali e nazionalisti". And finally she jokes about Italian "litigiosità", saying that even if one wanted to impose a standard "Italian scholars would argue endlessly and never reach an agreement".

On its website the Accademia researchers reply to usage queries. The replies are often at odds with the more conservative ones provided by some of my fellow members in the IE forum


----------



## ElaineG

Thanks Carlo, that's very helpful. I wrongly assumed based on the word "autorità" that the Accademia was like the French Academy with which I'm more familiar. I suppose we have similar bands of people, although none of the prominence and fame of the Accademia della Crusca (at least I don't think so, as none spring to mind).

You've made them into a much more sympathetic cast of characters!


----------



## Residente Calle 13

moodywop said:
			
		

> Actually this thread is giving the false impression that we have an official body regulating language usage in Italy. I would argue that such a body is just as antithetical to Italian culture and that we also have a "free-for-all" approach.
> 
> Although the Italian one and the French one share the name "academy" they couldn't be more different.
> 
> The Académie Française has a normative role and specifically states that one of its purposes is to keep the French language "pure":
> 
> _« La principale fonction de l’Académie sera de travailler, avec tout le soin et toute la diligence possibles, à donner des règles certaines à notre langue et à la rendre *pure*» (Article 24 des statuts.)_
> 
> _Le rayonnement de la langue française est menacé par l’expansion de l’anglais, plus précisément de l’américain, qui tend à envahir les esprits, les écrits, le monde de l’audiovisuel._
> 
> _L’Académie poursuit son œuvre régulatrice de la langue _
> 
> The Italian _Accademia della Crusca _was founded by a group of "letterati" at the end of the 16th century. It did indeed at the time attempt to preserve the purity of the literary language based on Florentine usage(Italian was only spoken by a tiny minority).
> 
> Nowadays the _Accademia _is a voluntary organization whose members are some of the top Italian language scholars. Not only it isn't an "official" body but the grant it receives from the government is pitifully inadequate and it has to rely on private donations. A few years ago a group of Italian writers begged our President to save the Academy from closure.
> 
> Its purposes are a far cry from those of the French academy:
> 
> 1. To encourage research in Italian linguistics in cooperation with universities
> 2. To encourage greater awareness of the history and current trends of the Italian language - within society at large and especially in schools
> 3. To cooperate with other European research institutes and with government and EU bodies to encourage "plurilinguismo" in Europe
> 4. To publish research studies on the history and current state of the Italian language
> 
> Nowhere is a normative role mentioned. Quite the opposite! A recent essay in the Academy's journal opens with a quote by the Swiss scholar de Saussure which echoes Elaine's words: "Language exists in the community of speakers - not in grammar books used in schools". The author clearly states that "the function of an academy should be to monitor and record language change, thus providing an archive of material for language researchers". She goes on to dismiss fears based on the influence of the English language and argues that a language that does not evolve is doomed. She labels the fascist regime's policy of imposing "italianized" equivalents for foreign loanwords(and replacing "lei" with "voi" as a polite form of address, since "lei" didn't go with the macho image ) as "interventi politici dittatoriali e nazionalisti". And finally she jokes about Italian "litigiosità", saying that even if one wanted to impose a standard "Italian scholars would argue endlessly and never reach an agreement".
> 
> On its website the Accademia researchers reply to usage queries. The replies are often at odds with the more conservative ones provided by some of my fellow members in the IE forum



Thank you for posting this.


----------



## moodywop

It would be interesting to hear from other foreros in order to find out whether there are similar bodies in other countries and whether they have a normative approach to language matters.

For those who are interested in finding out more about the _Accademia della Crusca: http://www.accademiadellacrusca.it/index.php_


----------



## Residente Calle 13

moodywop said:
			
		

> It would be interesting to hear from other foreros in order to find out whether there are similar bodies in other countries and whether they have a normative approach to language matters.
> 
> For those who are interested in finding out more about the _Accademia della Crusca: http://www.accademiadellacrusca.it/index.php_



There is a Spanish Royal Academy. Its purpose was to "fix" the language but today its aim is to maintain linguistic unity.

Basically, they base what is_ "correct" _on what educated speakers from Central Spain talk. There are national academies in about 20 Spanish-speaking countries but they basically go along with whatever the one in Madrid says.

It has the repuation of being biased towards Spain but it has very recently taken steps to be more tolerant towards American usage. It's a prescriptive authority. For example, no matter how often a word is used, if they don't like it, it won't be in their dictionary. The Oxford, in contrast, would put it in their and mark it as "colloquial", "slang", regional or whatever.


----------



## se16teddy

ElaineG said:
			
		

> This is surely a cultural discussion, which is where it's going right about now.
> 
> But for my 2 cents, the idea of such an authority is antithetical to American culture. How can and why should a language, which is the property of every speaker equally, be "regulated"? The existence of such authorities in Italy and France, etc. has always seemed emblematic of a bureaucratic, top-down approach to much of life that characterizes European society. We take a much for free-for-all approach to everything, including language. In my humble opinion, this diversity and penchant for growth and change is a strength of English -- an "authority" could never keep up, but even if it could, it would be a figure of ridicule and dissension.
> 
> As far as reference books go, you can't go wrong with Strunk and White, as LSP said, and the OED as Carrick said.


 

I agree.  English is too diverse to allow for a regulatory authority.  

If you are looking for an authority to follow, pick an author or speaker whose output you admire and imitate him or her.


----------



## Outsider

This is an interesting question, which makes me feel woefully ignorant about my own country and language. 

As far as I know, there is no permanent linguistic authority for Portuguese. However, we have had spelling reforms, for example. I think the government of each country nominates a comittee of scholars in those occasions, and then the reform is published as a law. But don't take this as gospel. I may be mistaken.


----------



## cuchuflete

Silvia said:
			
		

> Well, it's really odd that it doesn't exist... being the English language the second most spoken language in the world. It would be about time it existed



Is it really so odd?  Might the broad diffusion of English worldwide have some correlation with its unregimented flexibility?  Of course the economic/political stuff is the main reason, but once English takes root in a community, it is free to evolve, incorporating many local locutions that may eventually become part of the internationally understood English.

As to whether it would be about time it existed, I can only ask you who would be the beneficiaries of standarization?  Canadians, Indians, New Zealanders all seem to be doing quite well with unregulated English.


----------



## Outsider

I would put it in another way: English is strong enough to survive without standardization.


----------



## ceci '79

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Is it really so odd? Might the broad diffusion of English worldwide have some correlation with its unregimented flexibility? Of course the economic/political stuff is the main reason, but once English takes root in a community, it is free to evolve, incorporating many local locutions that may eventually become part of the internationally understood English.
> 
> As to whether it would be about time it existed, I can only ask you who would be the beneficiaries of standarization? Canadians, Indians, New Zealanders all seem to be doing quite well with unregulated English.


 
I thought Elisa was being ironic... For us foreigners it would be easier if the language were more standardized!


----------



## cuchuflete

ceci '79 said:
			
		

> I thought Elisa was being ironic... For us foreigners it would be easier if the language were more standardized!



It was Silvia, not Elisa.  I too suspected a touch of translators' irony, and replied in kind.

Now let's imagine an ideal world in which all languages are standardized for the benefit of non-native learners and translators........  Sounds like the sort of new regulation 17.000
EU burrocrats would love to get paid to enforce.


----------



## ceci '79

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> It was Silvia, not Elisa. I too suspected a touch of translators' irony, and replied in kind.
> 
> Now let's imagine an ideal world in which all languages are standardized for the benefit of non-native learners and translators........ Sounds like the sort of new regulation 17.000
> EU burrocrats would love to get paid to enforce.


 
 It does indeed!


----------



## diegodbs

> The British/Australian/American personality would resist strongly any kind of language "academy" and rulings on how we are to speak, I believe.


 


> But for my 2 cents, the idea of such an authority is antithetical to American culture. How can and why should a language, which is the property of every speaker equally, be "regulated"?


 
I am sorry to disagree with that point of view. I don't even think there is something like a Spanish/British/American or Australian personality or that a language authority can be antithetical to American culture or to Indonesian culture. The main reason why there was no English Academy may be perhaps the political rivalry between France and England in the eighteenth century, so no institutions coming from France during that period (and even less during Napoleon's) could be well received in England. 

This is what the RAE states:


> La institución ha ido adaptando sus funciones a los tiempos que le ha tocado vivir. Actualmente, y según lo establecido por el artículo primero de sus Estatutos, la Academia «tiene como misión principal velar porque los cambios que experimente la Lengua Española en su constante adaptación a *las necesidades de sus hablantes no quiebren la esencial unidad que mantiene en todo el ámbito hispánico*».


 
Residente13:



> Basically, they base what is_ "correct" _on what educated speakers from Central Spain talk. There are national academies in about 20 Spanish-speaking countries but they basically go along with whatever the one in Madrid says.


 
I agree with you up to a certain point. Although it may have been traditionally so, I would say "not only on what educated speakers from Central Spain talk" but "on what educated speakers from both Spain and America talk". Any way, American academics are not certainly bribed by the RAE to comply with Madrid. I was never taught how to speak Spanish and I was never taught how or when should I use the subjunctive or if "me se cae" instead of "se me cae" is correct or not depending on what the RAE said. I learned my native language because the people around me talked that way and because of the influence of the books (I mean literature, not grammar) I read. If both influences were "educated speakers from......wherever", that was just a coincidence and I'm glad of it.

Languages change and Spanish will change. Does anybody know if a Mexican, an Argentinian, a Cuban and a Spaniard will be able to understand each other in 400 years from now? I won't be there to see the change which will certainly happen (may the RAE want it or not) but in the meantime I can enjoy the possibility of visiting 20 countries and being able to talk to people in 20 different countries in my own/their language and being able to read authors from those 20 different countries in their own/my native language to boot. Did the RAE have something to do with that linguistic unity? I don't think so. In the best case it may have helped a little or nothing at all but it is not the enemy of the people as non prescriptive grammarians tend to think. Neither has it been an institution ruling againt the supposed "personality" of Spaniards, Chileans or Nicaraguans if such "personalities" have ever existed


----------



## dec-sev

Hello.


Kevin Beach said:


> The reason why the single "they" has not been legitimised is that there is no legitimising body for the use of English. And the reason for _that_ is that English is too widely spoken and too varied for there to be any agreement on how one would start to create an authority. If there were to be, say, an "English Academy", then as a Briton I would say that it should be based in England, the language's birthplace. However, Americans would probably lay claim to it too, because the USA contains the largest number of native English speakers. Yet India, with a much larger propluation than the USA and where English is widely spoken as an official language, might say that hers is the better claim. Just comparing the way that English is used in those three countries shows how it could take generations even to agree on siting the Academy.


Source

Spanish is spoken not only in Spain. Still people who live in the Spanish speaking countries cite RAE (Royal Academy of the Spanish Language) in the forum. And if they do it, I guess they consider the body to be the ultimate authority as far as the rules of the Spanish language are concerned. 
German is spoken not only in Germany, but they somehow have implemented a reform setting new rules of writing. I don’t know what organization did it but I guess that the new rules are valid not only in Germany but in other German speaking countries as well. 
English seems to be the only exception. My be it’s the reason for


Kumpel said:


> I'm reluctant to use the word "correct," as there are so many varieties of English, all of which have different 'rules.'”.


source

It looks like no rules rule rules. So my question is if there is a body like the Spanish RAE where I could clear up questions like “half five”. I’m asking because for some English learners it’s more important to know if something is _correct or not_ rather than how something will be understood by one or another native, which was the case on the thread the second quote is from.


----------



## trbl

There is no normative regulating body for the German language in the style of the RAE or the Académie Française.  Most speakers still follow a more prescriptive approach to language than English speakers, though. 

The 1996 spelling reform was developed by a council with representatives from the different German-speaking countries and regions. While this is often regarded as the one and only "correct" spelling standard, it is legally binding for schools and public authorities only. Anyone else is free to use whatever spelling they like both for private and commercial exchange, as has been confirmed by courts numerous times.
Before the reform, the _Duden_ dictionary had been the de facto authoritative reference for spelling. 

There are no "official" rules concerning grammar and pronunciation.


----------



## Δημήτρης

Neither the Greek language is regulated by some "Académie".
Of course there are dictionaries (currently Bambiniotis'*) and grammar (Triantafillidis') that are considered authoritative and used as reference, but no one regulates any aspect of the language.

There was a spelling reform though, the one which made the monotonic spelling the official form used by the state and in schools, but anyone is free to write in whatever system they want. 
The sad/funny thing is that the users of the older polytonic orthography accept their system as the only correct (despite the clear incompatibility of it with the modern language) and they want it be the official system again. Ironically, their biggest argument is "freedom of choice". 

*Even though Bambiniotis' dictionary is considered to be authoritative, it proposes many spellings that are uncommon, like τσ_ύ_μα or αγ_ώ_ρι (and several others) in etymological grounds, but the grand majority prefers the traditional spellings τσίμα, αγόρι. In fact, the dictionary of Triantafillidis' Institution is more in touch with the actual use of the language, but Bambiniotis is the big name.


----------



## AutumnOwl

There is a "Svenska Akademien", it was created to further the "purity, strength, and sublimity of the Swedish language" after the model of the French Academy. The Academy publishes two dictionaries, one of them is Svenska akademiens ordlista, on Swedish spelling. The Swedish Academy is perhaps most known for deciding who will get the Nobel Prize in Literature.


----------



## Istriano

The last thing we need in English is its ''tamilization''. Tamil is a diglossic language of South India with two different forms: _written classical Tamil_ used in schools, newspapers, on the radio and in formal meetings and the_ modern spoken form_. The written form can be spoken, but the colloquial form can be written too: so you have 4 different language codes.

For example: the word for *monkey*

classical Tamil (H form): *குரங்கு  *[kurangu]
colloquial Tamil (L form): *கொரங்கு *[korãgɨ]

The last time modernization of the H-form took place was in the 13th century. Tamils are devoted to their H-language and worship it as if it were a Hindu deity. 

Thank God, there's no Academy in English who would force us to use a 13th century English for writing.  No wonder more and more Tamil children prefer reading in English. 
For example, Harry Potter books were not even translated in Tamil because the English original was so popular there.

So, Tamil is the language of the past (if there's no word for something in Tamil they will ''revive'' it from the old Tamil), and they're proud of it.
I prefer languages of the future, like English .


----------



## dec-sev

Istriano said:


> Thank God, there's no Academy in English who would force us to use a 13th century English for writing.


Do you think that "Svenska Akademien" forces people to speak and write 13th century Swedish?


Istriano said:


> I prefer languages of the future, like English .


Do you think that French, Spanish or Russian -- I mean languages where there are academies or other bodies responsible for the rules of the language -- have no future?


----------



## Istriano

Spanish Academia is not particularly picky, it just goes with the flow, it accepted Argentinian _voseo_, and included it in the verbal paradigm (see the verb conjugator on their site). Spanish Academia is more tolerant to Mexicanisms and Argentinisms than Brazilian Academia is to Brazilianisms. Spanish Academia will become just like an Italian Academia, a symbolic blessing giver.  This approach should be applauded, since it's more democratic than the restrictive and oppressive French academia. The latest grammar released by the Spanish Academia is descriptive and not prescriptive.


----------



## AutumnOwl

dec-sev said:


> Do you think that "Svenska Akademien" forces people to speak and write 13th century Swedish?


The "Svenska Akademien" is definitively not for a old-fashioned spelling or use of outdated words, it follows modern spelling and for every new edition of SAOL (Svenska Akademiens Ordlista = the Academy Dictionary) words that are no longer in common use are removed and new words are added. Some of the new words are borrowed from English or other foreign languages, others are new creations/combinations of Swedish words that are seen in newspapers etc. Here's a list of new words in the latest edition of SAOL: http://www.svenskaakademien.se/web/Exempel_pa_nyord.aspx


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

In fairness, it's not as if most people listen to the Académie française anyway. They're a waste of space.


----------



## Fernando

Istriano said:


> Thank God, there's no Academy in English who would force us to use a 13th century English for writing.



But you DO use old-fashioned writing in English. The fonetics of the words in English has evolved while the writing has frozen in the form it had in past centuries.

If you would have an Academy, they would have probably updated the writing, which is irrational and arcaic.

Do not get me wrong, I think English has some advantages over "academic" languages, but this is certainly not.


----------



## Momerath

The fact is that the English linguistic establishment doesn't believe in a standard normative grammar and the establishment of anything like the Académie Francaise would be regarded as an extremely retrograde step.
Hence the proliferation of style guides (most large institutions seem to have one) and the increasing seriousness with which "BBC English" is taken.

This situation makes life difficult for people who work with words: translators, teachers of English as a foreign language, and even literary critics. For an interesting take on this issue see
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/jul/13/referenceandlanguages.highereducation


----------



## duvija

I think Outsider is right, but not because of the diversity or strength of the language.
Any lang. can have an academy, but it's totally not mandatory.

English is pretty successful without anything else but the dictionaries (each one as lexicographers, and the whole shebang, just like the RAE).

The Romance languages, particularly Spanish, is diverse enough, and also pretty strong. I guess there is a tradition that fuels the need for some higher being encompassing all regions.


----------



## Mishe

I've read that the Academie francaise is more and more open towards influences from other French-speaking countries, such as Belgium, Quebec, Haiti, francophone countries in Africa, etc. However, I still don't quite understand the French system. I mean, it is clear that English is a pluricentric language with 2 visible standards: American English and the so-called Commonwealth English (the UK, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, etc.). But with French is much less clear: the Academie francaise still acts as the sole authority when it comes to "le bon usage", but I know that the Quebecois have their own authority and I'm sure most francophone Africans and Antilleans don't really care that much about it.


----------



## Istriano

Portuguese is doing just fine with two spelling systems, just like English.


----------



## cyberpedant

Any attempt at creating an academy with the power to "reform" the English language would be met with extreme resistance by all but the reformers. Here's an example of "spelling reform." It is both logical and consistent.
"_Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld._"
http://www.ojohaven.com/fun/spelling.html
The main problem with spelling reform would be the necessity for reprinting the entire corpus of English literature in the new manner. An "authority's" decisions about such things would never be accepted. "This is something up with which we will not put."


----------



## cyberpedant

Here's a *link* to a page about spelling reform which mentions a number of societies dedicated to the taming of English, among them:
American Philological Association
International Convention for the Amendment of English Orthography
The Spelling Reform Association


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

cyberpedant said:


> Any attempt at creating an academy with the power to "reform" the English language would be met with extreme resistance by all but the reformers. Here's an example of "spelling reform." It is both logical and consistent.
> "_Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld._"
> http://www.ojohaven.com/fun/spelling.html
> The main problem with spelling reform would be the necessity for reprinting the entire corpus of English literature in the new manner. An "authority's" decisions about such things would never be accepted. "This is something up with which we will not put."



That sort of reform is far too radical. I think most Anglophone countries could quite easily agree on the idea of everyone spelling "centre" as "center" from now on, or saying "aluminium" instead of "aluminum", but a wholesale reform would never be accepted for the simple reason that most human beings are resistant to change, and very resistant to wholesale change.


----------



## Smithy73

Pedro y La Torre said:


> That sort of reform is far too radical. I think most Anglophone countries could quite easily agree on the idea of everyone spelling "centre" as "center" from now on, or saying "aluminium" instead of "aluminum", but a wholesale reform would never be accepted for the simple reason that most human beings are resistant to change, and very resistant to wholesale change.


I don't think so, those spellings would not go down at all well in Britain - or at least with me and those that I know.


----------



## HUMBERT0

Pedro y La Torre said:


> That sort of reform is far too radical. I think most Anglophone countries could quite easily agree on the idea of everyone spelling "centre" as "center" from now on, or saying "aluminium" instead of "aluminum", but a wholesale reform would never be accepted for the simple reason that most human beings are resistant to change, and very resistant to wholesale change.


I think most people on the planet would reject it also if their written standard would underwent such a radical reform in the blink of an eye…

In real life most spelling reforms take decades or even hundreds of years, and not all done at once. At least that is the way it has been in Spanish. Even with the RAE, Spanish spelling has not change that much in its 300 year existence, heck I can still grab “El Quijote” and read it, or for that matter even “El Mio Cid” from the XIII century can be read, albeit with more difficulty because one has to look up a lot of old fashion words.

The language we have now is not the result of the RAE, though it has helped in maintain unity to a certain degree by being so conservative. We have a living snapshot of Pre-RAE Spanish from the XV century and it is called Sephardic, and from it we know that the language has not change that much, since it’s well understood by modern Spanish speaking peoples.

I think that by no means a visible central or quasi-central language institution will end up as some sort of stalinistic dictatorial language body. Just because there isn’t an identifiable language institution does not mean there isn’t a framework behind it (dictionaries, universities, publications, etc.) that can also exert influence or disesteem some spelling or language usage, else we would all be writing as one wished and hinder comprehension, even where there’s no Language Academy it’s not so “laissez faire” towards spelling, for example how well it would be understood if I spell, kolr o quelour for color/colour in English.

However, just because an Academy exists in one place that does not mean it has to exist everywhere. I’m pretty sure is if ever such a need exist in the English speaking world they will create one, so far that day hasn’t come..., to each its own.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

Smithy73 said:


> I don't think so, those spellings would not go down at all well in Britain - or at least with me and those that I know.



Well, you presumably already say aluminium, I added in center as a compromise, especially as it's more logical than just copying the French spelling. 

But like I said, change isn't something people much like, unless they can see an immediate benefit to it, or it's enforced and becomes the norm.


----------

