(1) A change in spelling is acceptable if it purges the original word of superfluous letters or illogical
construction.
(2) Simplification is to be encouraged only if it does not change the meaning in any way or create yet
another homophone or homograph.
(3) In all cases it is imperative that the new spelling conform to the spelling rules.
(4) “...and that it resemble, as closely as possible, the original word.
(1) “A change in spelling is acceptable if it purges the original word of superfluous letters or
illogical construction.” It is clear that the reformers did this, often with excessive enthusiasm.
(2) “Simplification is to be encouraged only if it does not change the meaning in any way or create
yet another homophone or homograph.” Here the reformers made too many mistakes. Considering
the high quality of the academics who made up most of the committees, it is truly astonishing the
number of times that the reformed word was simply a homonym and bound to cause confusion.
(^) (3) “In all cases it is imperative that the new spelling conform to the spelling rules.” It is all too
clear that the spelling rules were largely ignored by the reformers. Perhaps they saw these rules as
traditions that had to be broken in order to get the job done, or perhaps they hoped to create new
spelling rules that were more logical. Whatever their reasoning, it is clear that they wasted little
effort attempting to make their spellings conform to the traditional English spelling rules.
(4) “...and that it resemble, as closely as possible, the original word.” In this vital matter, the
reformers failed completely. There was little if any attempt to cater to the “visual prejudice” of the
general public. Too many of the new words appear ungainly, awkward, and down right ugly. Many
are so different in appearance that the reader has to pause a while in order to assimilate them. When
all things are considered, it is probably this last factor that was mainly responsible for the lack of
interest shown by the general public and the ultimate decline of the reform movement.
There is little doubt that elitism and snobbery were important factors in the defeat of the spelling
reformers. At the time the reformers were working, the great cities of the eastern United States were
swarming with new immigrants, most of whom were low-class laborers with just a smattering of English.
In England and in America, the people who migrated to the cities from rural areas were hardly much
better, as few had much education.
It can take up to twenty years for a person to acquire a near perfect grasp of English, and it usually
takes both time and money, two things not available to the average working man at that time. The result
was a small but powerful elite that read books, newspapers, and journals and prided itself on the ability
to use both the spoken and the written word with ease and skill. The standard of literacy and fluency was
very high indeed—for the few. This is not to say that it was only the children of the rich and powerful
who were well educated. History is full of examples of men and women of very humble origins who
acquired a near perfect grasp of the English language through extraordinary perseverance. Abraham
Lincoln is an excellent example.
But the common working man, who was most in need of a better education, was not asked for his
opinion of the work of the spelling reformers. The most violent criticism of reform came from newspaper
editors, writers, and statesmen, all of whom saw it as an attack on that which they valued the most—their
excellent grasp of English and their hard earned knowledge of its intricacies and subtleties. We could