Getting rid of “u” in a small subset of words is a terrible way to try to simplify English. The fact that some words in standard English (as opposed to American English) are spelled the same as the source words from French is a major benefit.
Properly simplifying English would involve getting rid of the situations where one letter can make multiple different sounds. If you’re changing it, a word like “colour” should start with a “k”, the unambiguous letter that makes that sound. A word like “cell” should start with an “s”. Really, “c” should never make either an “s” sound or a “k” sound. Maybe it could be used in place of “ch”, instead of needing two different letters to make that one sound.
If you wanted another place to start in simplifying English, you could tackle letters using “oo”. There’s no way that “oo” should make different sounds for “pool”, “flood”, “book”, “door”.
Some of them were adopted and seem like they were good ideas. The removal of the “u” from words like “color” seems like it was one of the changes that was made, and one of the least useful ones.
What benefit would that be outside of linguistics?
It helps with translation, with knowing the origin of a word, with having a general idea how to pronounce something, etc. Fundamentally, it comes down to “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Those letters in that order can have that pronunciation in English, so why change the spelling from the origin language if you don’t have to?
But isn’t it a major benefit that it’s spelt like the Latin root?
If it were “cella”, then maybe. But, even then, probably not. The main senses in which “cell” are used now are only indirectly related to the original word. “cella” meant a small room, or hut. It didn’t mean a room in a prison or a small biological unit. It’s a word with a different meaning with different spelling. It’s not really worth keeping some of the letters from the original spelling for a completely different meaning, especially because the letter “c” is so bad when it comes to confusion between the “c” and “k” sounds.
Basically, it comes to the idea that if you’re going to address issues in the spelling, they should be the “worst offenders”, otherwise changing the spelling causes disruption for no real benefit. They should be the letters or sequences of letters that are hardest for English learners to understand.
I don’t think the “o” vs “ou” in words like “colour” are even in the top 50 of those, whereas the “c” being used as a /k/ sound in colour is another matter.
Getting rid of “u” in a small subset of words is a terrible way to try to simplify English. The fact that some words in standard English (as opposed to American English) are spelled the same as the source words from French is a major benefit.
Properly simplifying English would involve getting rid of the situations where one letter can make multiple different sounds. If you’re changing it, a word like “colour” should start with a “k”, the unambiguous letter that makes that sound. A word like “cell” should start with an “s”. Really, “c” should never make either an “s” sound or a “k” sound. Maybe it could be used in place of “ch”, instead of needing two different letters to make that one sound.
If you wanted another place to start in simplifying English, you could tackle letters using “oo”. There’s no way that “oo” should make different sounds for “pool”, “flood”, “book”, “door”.
I was specifically referring to this which proposed many of the changes you’re talking about, but very few were actually adopted.
Some of them were adopted and seem like they were good ideas. The removal of the “u” from words like “color” seems like it was one of the changes that was made, and one of the least useful ones.
What benefit would that be outside of linguistics?
But isn’t it a major benefit that it’s spelt like the Latin root?
(I’m not in favour of force-simplifying spelling conventions, I’m just curious about your reasoning :) )
It helps with translation, with knowing the origin of a word, with having a general idea how to pronounce something, etc. Fundamentally, it comes down to “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Those letters in that order can have that pronunciation in English, so why change the spelling from the origin language if you don’t have to?
If it were “cella”, then maybe. But, even then, probably not. The main senses in which “cell” are used now are only indirectly related to the original word. “cella” meant a small room, or hut. It didn’t mean a room in a prison or a small biological unit. It’s a word with a different meaning with different spelling. It’s not really worth keeping some of the letters from the original spelling for a completely different meaning, especially because the letter “c” is so bad when it comes to confusion between the “c” and “k” sounds.
Basically, it comes to the idea that if you’re going to address issues in the spelling, they should be the “worst offenders”, otherwise changing the spelling causes disruption for no real benefit. They should be the letters or sequences of letters that are hardest for English learners to understand.
I don’t think the “o” vs “ou” in words like “colour” are even in the top 50 of those, whereas the “c” being used as a /k/ sound in colour is another matter.