compare this resistance to the medieval guild masters protecting their craft and craftsmen from
interlopers.
Today, when literacy is all but universal, we can look back with some astonishment at the way in
which spelling reform was rejected and the virulence of those who opposed it. But has one short century
made much difference? There is still a great deal of elitism involved in the use of English. One small
grammatical error can lower a speaker in the eye of his listener; a little mispronunciation or the wrong
accent can do the same. Poor sentence structure can ruin even the best article or e-mail, whereas the
clever use of words can make the poorest argument sound convincing.
As for spelling, there is an almost primitive defensive reaction to any spelling mistake discovered in
our morning newspaper. We are angry and indignant when we see spelling mistakes in any printed
document, whether it is an official publication or merely a hand-delivered leaflet. This reaction occurs
just as readily when the misspelled word is one of those ludicrous, illogical, un-phonetic words that
should have been “reformed” centuries ago.
There are numerous publications that refuse to use any “modern” spelling. The editors seem to think
that analogue is superior to analog, that archaeology with three vowels in a row is more correct than
archeology with only two, and they shudder at thru and lite. Unfortunately, such reactionary thinking is
not uncommon, even though it is historically and etymologically false and any attempt to radically
“improve” English spelling will surely be met by stiff resistance based largely on visual prejudice. In the
preface to his 1806 edition, Noah Webster wrote,
The opposers of reform, on the other hand, contend that no alterations should be
made in orthography, as they would ... occasion inconvenience.... It is fortunate for
the language and for those who use it, that this doctrine did not prevail in the reign of
Henry the Fourth ... had all changes in spelling ceased at that period, what a
spectacle of deformity would our language now exhibit! Every man ... knows that a
living language must necessarily suffer gradual changes in its current words, and in
pronunciation ... strange as it may seem the fact is undeniable, that the present
doctrine that no change must be made in writing words, is destroying the benefits of
an alphabet, The correct principal respecting changes in orthography seems to lie
between these extremes of opinion. No great changes shall be made at once... But
gradual changes to accommodate the written to the spoken language ... and especially
when they purify words from corruptions...are not only proper but indispensable.^8A NOTE ON USAGE IN THIS BOOK
Throughout this book, I use the phrase “commonly used words.” This needs a little explanation. The
English language contains over half a million words, more than any other European language, and new
words appear almost daily as old words change or disappear. No one person could be familiar with the
entire vocabulary. While the average educated person uses only a tiny fraction of these words, he or she
is familiar with, and will recognize, a much greater number. Although the words used in this book can be
found in any good dictionary, I have attempted to keep to a bare minimum the use of names, technical and
scientific terms, and rare or obscure words.
I use the terms “stem” and “root” when referring to the basic word before affixes have been added. In
the majority of cases, the stems will be recognizable words, but, over time, many of these words have
vanished or been drastically changed, and yet the stem with its affix has remained. For example, we use
the words invoke, provoke, and revoke, and it is clear that the in, pro, and re are prefixes. But the root
word voke no longer exists.