word with only one l, while the Americans, for no logical reason, spell it with two. For example:
(^) Noah Webster would have had something quite scathing to say about “such palpable inconsistencies
and preposterous anomalies.”
In American spelling, there is a conscious attempt to simplify while retaining the correct sound and
meaning, especially in the case of multiple letters. British English still retains numerous examples of
double consonants where a single consonant would be quite sufficient, for example, worshipping and
focuss. American simplification extends especially to triple vowels. Whether they are diphthongs or not,
we feel that two vowels should be enough to produce the desired sound. Fortunately, many of the British
triple vowel words are slowly disappearing, for example, diarrhoea–diarrhea and manoeuvre–
maneuver. Retaining an unneeded and unhelpful extra letter is illogical when we remember that the prime
function of language is clear communication.
Since Noah Webster’s time there have been a number of attempts to reform, or at least to improve,
English spelling. They vary from the thoughtful to the ludicrous. At the present time there is a widespread
belief that perhaps English spelling could be made more phonetic, despite the fact that English is not a
completely phonetic language. Roughly half of our words are already spelled phonetically, but the other
half could never be spelled according to the rules of phonics without utter chaos. In the words of the great
writer Jonathan Swift,
Another cause ... which hath contributed not a little to the maiming of our
language, is a foolish Opinion, advanced of late years, that we ought to spell exactly
as we speak, which besides the obvious inconvenience of utterly destroying our
Etymology, would be a thing we should never see the end of.^7
This is not to say that spelling is sacrosanct and should never be allowed to change; on the contrary,
our spelling is constantly changing, sometimes at glacial speed, other times quite rapidly. But not all
change is for the better. A change in spelling is acceptable if it purges the original word of superfluous
letters or illogical construction. Simplification is to be encouraged only if it does not change the meaning
of the original word in any way. It is imperative that the new spelling conform to the spelling rules and
that it resemble the original word as closely as possible. Care should be taken to try to avoid the creation
of yet another homophone or homograph.
Many attempts to reform English spelling have been targeted at the alphabet. George Bernard Shaw left
the bulk of his fortune to a committee charged with producing a better alphabet, but with no success. On
the other hand, the 19th century geniuses who produced the International Phonetic Alphabet were very
successful and the IPA, has proved immensely valuable.
Probably the most famous person to tackle the problem was Benjamin Franklin. Although he was a
friend of Noah Webster and an enthusiastic supporter of Webster’s work, he was much more radical than
Webster. Franklin designed an alphabet containing six new letters, and he eliminated the c in favor of the
s and the k. He showed his specially carved type to Webster, but Webster declined to use it. Initially,
Webster had proposed quite a few revolutionary changes to English spelling, but the resistance that he
encountered soon persuaded him that the average person was—and still is—not prepared to accept
extraordinary changes to his or her mother tongue. Although Webster gradually modified his suggestions,
quite a large number of his improvements were eventually accepted on both sides of the Atlantic.