What do you think?
Rate this book
Spell It Out: The Curious, Enthralling and Extraordinary Story of English Spelling
In Spell It Out, David Crystal takes on the task of answering all the questions about how we spell: "Why is English spelling so difficult?" Or "Why are good spellers so proud of their achievement that when they see a misspelling they condemn the writer as sloppy, lazy, or uneducated?" In thirty-seven short, engaging and informative chapters, Crystal takes readers on a history of English spelling, starting with the Roman missionaries' sixth century introduction of the Roman alphabet, looks at each letter of the alphabet, and ends with where the language might be going.
328 pages, Hardcover
First published September 1, 2012
180 people are currently reading
1945 people want to read
About the author
David Crystal
230 books771 followersDavid Crystal works from his home in Holyhead, North Wales, as a writer, editor, lecturer, and broadcaster. Born in Lisburn, Northern Ireland in 1941, he spent his early years in Holyhead. His family moved to Liverpool in 1951, and he received his secondary schooling at St Mary's College. He read English at University College London (1959-62), specialised in English language studies, did some research there at the Survey of English Usage under Randolph Quirk (1962-3), then joined academic life as a lecturer in linguistics, first at Bangor, then at Reading. He published the first of his 100 or so books in 1964, and became known chiefly for his research work in English language studies, in such fields as intonation and stylistics, and in the application of linguistics to religious, educational and clinical contexts, notably in the development of a range of linguistic profiling techniques for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. He held a chair at the University of Reading for 10 years, and is now Honorary Professor of Linguistics at the University of Wales, Bangor. These days he divides his time between work on language and work on internet applications.
source: http://www.davidcrystal.com/
source: http://www.davidcrystal.com/
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 149 reviews
June 7, 2015
Scene 1 : Scriptorium of the monastery of St Giles the Bleeding.
Year : 874 AD
Winter sunlight streams through the recently installed stained glass. Outside, several peasant children are dying from scrofula.
Aethelfried : Hey, Cuthelbearthth, I think we have a problem.
Cuthelbearthth : Yeah? Whit’s oop?
Aethelfried : Well I'm trying to translate the beautiful words of Our Lord into plain English and I’m finding that three letters in the alphabet, h, c and g are being used to spell seven different sounds, but two letter pairs, cg and sc, are being used for just the one sound and each vowel has a long sound and a short sound such as – hop and hope, see that? But we only have the one letter for these sounds.
Cuthelbearthth : Shoot, that’s jist what ah was thinking masel. And wha aboot them dipthongs, eh? Gies me a fookin headach jist thinkin aboot them diphthongs. Ah wake oop sweatin aboot them so I do.
A mouse runs across the stone-flagged floor, through the brilliant blue and scarlet of the stained glass sunlight.
Cuthelbearthth : Where’s ma piic – I’m gonna shove a hol threw yon muus.
Aethelfried (sighing deeply) : And that’s the problem.
Scene 2 : Scriptorium of the monastery of St Giles the Bleeding
Year 1106
Gaiallard Euvrouin d' Expensivewine : Thees language eez bollocks, mon vieux. We will 'ave to make it better.
Fr Hildebrondus (resentful of Norman influence) : Your mother was an elderberry.
Gaiallard : Some of thees preenciples I agree weeth. For eenstance, doubling the consonant to eendicate a short vowel except if the vowel is already being spelled with two letters, and also not doubling the consonant after a short vowel eef there are already two consonants representing two sounds. Thees ees good. Eet ees true, we do not want words like mothth or fishshing. And we can't possibly 'ave double vees because we now 'ave double yous so lovving weel look like lowing so we weel 'ave to bequeeeeth to the future such confusibles as dove and dove and live and live, eet ees too bad.
Fr Hildebrondus (resentful of Norman influence) : Your father was an 'addock.
***
I bought this book in a spirit of joyful geekery but was quickly downcast by the annoying nature of the subject. The spelling of English is intrinsically aggravating. I will give one example. Sometimes the spelling of a word is influenced by other words when it really shouldn't be. So, English got the word delight from French, and this word was originally spelled delit and delyte, and there were several other words around following that form, such as syte, byte and kyte. But the great majority of "ite"-sounding words were spelled "ight" – might, fight, tight, etc. So delyte changed to delight. The gh came from the back-of-the-throat hacking sound still made by many Scottish people (it's a braw bricht moonlicht nicht) – English people stopped using this sound unless they were actually clearing their actual throats - so fight was originally pronounced fi(clearing throat noise)t. This noise was represented by the letter yogh which was rejected by the monks as being too weird, so they substituted gh which made SO MUCH MORE sense – to them, but not to us. There used to be many more gh spellings in English – willough, and yaughan (yawn). Daddy wouldn't buy me a bowgh wawgh. I don't know why some were respelled more sensibly and others weren't.
Likewise, analogy from pre-existing words is why we have a load of silly silent b's in such words as plumb and numb. In Old English they did sound the b in such words as dumb, climb and comb. This pronounciation disappeared. But when new words like plom and nom came into the language, the scribes decided (once again) they should follow this earlier pattern & so fixed on plumb and numb even though no one had ever pronounced the final b. This insane analogy rubbish also explains a lot of words beginning with wh. Whole and whore for instance. That's what this whole book is like. That's what English is like. I love it, but it's a very naughty language.
November 6, 2016
On the one hand, those readers who might approach this book in the hope that it will assist them in learning how to spell English words will, sadly, be quite disappointed. Indeed, one might argue that such readers should avoid this book like the plague!
What this book does is present a brief but extensive historical overview showing how and why English spelling is as “difficult” as it is (at least for those comparatively new to the language). Thus, ironically, one needs to be quite adept at English spelling in the first place, let alone in reading it and (to a much lesser extent) in speaking it, in order to appreciate what Crystal is on about here.
From this perspective, many readers might find this overview interesting and informative; and Crystal is a linguistic expert whose range and breadth of knowledge is clearly on display here (one does not need to be much of an expert in linguistics to appreciate his explications in his highly accessible prose). I feel sure that Crystal had much fun in the selections and preparations of the details he presents to his readers here.
Others might feel that ultimately Crystal is being a little too precious in selecting and emphasising problems more than anything else; but that is being pedantic — after all, it is a book showing the why and how problems in spelling arose in the first place, and that all too often, suggested “solutions” to that problem, instead of clarifying, often contributed merely to complicating it even further!
That being said, Crystal can be accused of being perhaps just a little bit too naughty on occasion: like when he juxtaposes and combines words from different languages, non-standard artistic and scientific disciplines, or different types of language use, to illustrate further potential complications. These complications are real enough (Crystal cannot be faulted in that) but it could be argued that such “problems” occur only when such disciplines and such usages are compared and contrasted — in other words, they do not normally occur in “standard” English, but only (as it were) as exceptions to the exceptions… In this regard, Crystal can be accused of not following his own advice which he (usefully) provides in his A Teaching Appendix at the end of the book: don’t provide examples derived from the more complex areas of English usage unless the student has already become quite acquainted with “standard” English in the first place…
Ultimately, however, I am slightly ambivalent as to the usefulness of this book. Admittedly there is much of interest in the historical titbits on display; yet the more universal feeling I get is that — precisely because of the many variables and influences that have contributed, one way or another, for better or worse, to its development — English has resulted in becoming perhaps the most flexible and accommodating (and even the most multicultural) of languages, and that this is reflected in its “odd” spellings.
If I am reading this book correctly, I think Crystal is generally arguing that the spelling of English, from the very beginning, has had to be flexible and accommodating, that it still is, and that it will continue to be so into the future. That future, however, seems to be rushing at us at unprecedented speed today. This is because of the impact of technology in the form of the Internet and its myriad manifestations (which themselves appear to be consistently and comprehensively just as flexible and accommodating in their own way, as witnessed by the many and confusing “upgrading” that apparently is necessary every few months or so of late). Crystal seems to believe that the pervasiveness of the Internet will quickly change English spelling, but that this is nothing to worry about, since this is what has happened in the past, only it is being done “faster” now.
I have reservations about that approach; I feel people are being misguided by the speed and huge numbers associated with the Internet. This technology has also been in existence for a comparatively very short time — too short for anyone to be able to make any worthwhile predictions as to its ultimate effect on languages. Sudden huge increases in numbers for any particular detail could just as easily convert to sudden huge decreases in the not too distant future. Slow and steady rises over a much longer time-frame might be more indicative of real changes occurring. What might be popular (= “millions of hits”) in one decade might cease to register as such in 50 or 100 years from now. It’s far too early to tell.
What the Internet does show is that more alternative details might be more readily available, but that is only significant, in my opinion, if the same weight of acceptability and validity is allocated to each of these alternatives — and this is far from certain, realistic, or even desirable. Similarly, one should not give equal weight, for example, to various “shorthand” techniques such as using numbers as part of a “word”, or using the pronunciation of a vowel or consonant to stand for a word (e.g.“see you later” = “c u l8r” — a saving of six characters); to then note the large number of users of these to prognosticate that in future all English spelling will be like this is not a reliable prediction, any more than arguing, say, that the shorthand used by Mediaeval scribes for certain words in their texts became (not) standard usage.
What this book does is present a brief but extensive historical overview showing how and why English spelling is as “difficult” as it is (at least for those comparatively new to the language). Thus, ironically, one needs to be quite adept at English spelling in the first place, let alone in reading it and (to a much lesser extent) in speaking it, in order to appreciate what Crystal is on about here.
From this perspective, many readers might find this overview interesting and informative; and Crystal is a linguistic expert whose range and breadth of knowledge is clearly on display here (one does not need to be much of an expert in linguistics to appreciate his explications in his highly accessible prose). I feel sure that Crystal had much fun in the selections and preparations of the details he presents to his readers here.
Others might feel that ultimately Crystal is being a little too precious in selecting and emphasising problems more than anything else; but that is being pedantic — after all, it is a book showing the why and how problems in spelling arose in the first place, and that all too often, suggested “solutions” to that problem, instead of clarifying, often contributed merely to complicating it even further!
That being said, Crystal can be accused of being perhaps just a little bit too naughty on occasion: like when he juxtaposes and combines words from different languages, non-standard artistic and scientific disciplines, or different types of language use, to illustrate further potential complications. These complications are real enough (Crystal cannot be faulted in that) but it could be argued that such “problems” occur only when such disciplines and such usages are compared and contrasted — in other words, they do not normally occur in “standard” English, but only (as it were) as exceptions to the exceptions… In this regard, Crystal can be accused of not following his own advice which he (usefully) provides in his A Teaching Appendix at the end of the book: don’t provide examples derived from the more complex areas of English usage unless the student has already become quite acquainted with “standard” English in the first place…
Ultimately, however, I am slightly ambivalent as to the usefulness of this book. Admittedly there is much of interest in the historical titbits on display; yet the more universal feeling I get is that — precisely because of the many variables and influences that have contributed, one way or another, for better or worse, to its development — English has resulted in becoming perhaps the most flexible and accommodating (and even the most multicultural) of languages, and that this is reflected in its “odd” spellings.
If I am reading this book correctly, I think Crystal is generally arguing that the spelling of English, from the very beginning, has had to be flexible and accommodating, that it still is, and that it will continue to be so into the future. That future, however, seems to be rushing at us at unprecedented speed today. This is because of the impact of technology in the form of the Internet and its myriad manifestations (which themselves appear to be consistently and comprehensively just as flexible and accommodating in their own way, as witnessed by the many and confusing “upgrading” that apparently is necessary every few months or so of late). Crystal seems to believe that the pervasiveness of the Internet will quickly change English spelling, but that this is nothing to worry about, since this is what has happened in the past, only it is being done “faster” now.
I have reservations about that approach; I feel people are being misguided by the speed and huge numbers associated with the Internet. This technology has also been in existence for a comparatively very short time — too short for anyone to be able to make any worthwhile predictions as to its ultimate effect on languages. Sudden huge increases in numbers for any particular detail could just as easily convert to sudden huge decreases in the not too distant future. Slow and steady rises over a much longer time-frame might be more indicative of real changes occurring. What might be popular (= “millions of hits”) in one decade might cease to register as such in 50 or 100 years from now. It’s far too early to tell.
What the Internet does show is that more alternative details might be more readily available, but that is only significant, in my opinion, if the same weight of acceptability and validity is allocated to each of these alternatives — and this is far from certain, realistic, or even desirable. Similarly, one should not give equal weight, for example, to various “shorthand” techniques such as using numbers as part of a “word”, or using the pronunciation of a vowel or consonant to stand for a word (e.g.“see you later” = “c u l8r” — a saving of six characters); to then note the large number of users of these to prognosticate that in future all English spelling will be like this is not a reliable prediction, any more than arguing, say, that the shorthand used by Mediaeval scribes for certain words in their texts became (not) standard usage.
November 10, 2014
I found this history of English spelling interesting enough to skim to the end but not really interesting enough to read every page. English has irregular spelling for a number of reasons. The original Anglo-Saxon language did not correspond to the sounds of the Latin alphabet that was used to write it; there were a number of sounds for which there were no letters. Different scribes wrote words in different ways, and a variety of conventions developed for writing ch, sh, 2 kinds of th, hard and soft consonants, long and short vowels, some sounds that are generally no longer used in English, etc. Various conventions were employed to indicate which syllable of a word is emphasized, and sometimes different spellings were used on purpose to distinguish homonyms from each other. When prefixes and suffixes changed the pronunciation of certain vowels or consonants, choices had to be made whether or not to change the spelling to account for that. Some conventions didn't become "rules" of English spelling but still survived in certain words. One reason English has so many irregular spellings is that for some reason everyone (except the New Yorker magazine) agrees that English words should not have any diacritics (accents).
Many words are spelled a certain way because of their etymology, and elites who knew Latin often gave English words Latin spellings even if the English word was pronounced differently from the Latin. When the first printing presses were developed, silent letters were often added to words just for the purpose of right justifying the text (I guess they thought extra silent letters looked better than extra spaces). Then, Johnson's dictionary in England and Webster's dictionary in America codified the "correct" spellings of most words. Even today, a huge number of words can be spelled in more than one way. In the future, electronic communication is likely to change the way words are commonly spelled in English.
I liked the explanation in the first dictionary of how to find the words. The author had to explain in the preface the concept of alphabetical order, since that was a new concept that the readers would not be familiar with.
I thought this book showed how English is a language that has always been fully open to incorporating words from other languages, which is a big reason why English has so many irregular spellings. This means that the spelling of the word also gives meaning to the word. For example, when a hard g is spelled gh as in ghost or spaghetti, the word seems like it is describing something foreign. I would like to think that this is indicative of a culture that is open to foreign ideas and people.
Overall, this book made me appreciate how incredibly quirky the English language is, and left me with the impression that English is an ideal language for writing about Hobbits and Knights of the Round Table. English would be easier to learn but a poorer tool for conveying culture if all of the spelling followed predictable rules.
Many words are spelled a certain way because of their etymology, and elites who knew Latin often gave English words Latin spellings even if the English word was pronounced differently from the Latin. When the first printing presses were developed, silent letters were often added to words just for the purpose of right justifying the text (I guess they thought extra silent letters looked better than extra spaces). Then, Johnson's dictionary in England and Webster's dictionary in America codified the "correct" spellings of most words. Even today, a huge number of words can be spelled in more than one way. In the future, electronic communication is likely to change the way words are commonly spelled in English.
I liked the explanation in the first dictionary of how to find the words. The author had to explain in the preface the concept of alphabetical order, since that was a new concept that the readers would not be familiar with.
I thought this book showed how English is a language that has always been fully open to incorporating words from other languages, which is a big reason why English has so many irregular spellings. This means that the spelling of the word also gives meaning to the word. For example, when a hard g is spelled gh as in ghost or spaghetti, the word seems like it is describing something foreign. I would like to think that this is indicative of a culture that is open to foreign ideas and people.
Overall, this book made me appreciate how incredibly quirky the English language is, and left me with the impression that English is an ideal language for writing about Hobbits and Knights of the Round Table. English would be easier to learn but a poorer tool for conveying culture if all of the spelling followed predictable rules.
Read
January 26, 2025an interesting book explaining without much scientific detail why English language is so messed up when it comes to orthography and spelling why we have silent letters in words like debt, island, and ghost. why the comely ð and þ were replaced by the homely th some of these answers and explanations help me understand them better and ease my students’ frustration with english spelling. an interesting book part of the linguistic series by David Crystal which i’m planning to explore even further in the future.
April 15, 2014
Obviously not a book for everyone - even a word geek like me realises that not everyone wants to read a book about spelling - but if this is a subject that interests you, it's fascinating and readable and broken down into easily digestible chunks.
January 28, 2022
I loved the book, but chances are that it's only because it was very useful to me as a non-native!
The book aims to answer the general question of "why the f*** is this word spelled this way?", and I dare to say that it probably does that with great success for English speakers, as the current spelling of words cannot be understood without the historical context of each change that the language suffered along the centuries.
But to me (a non-English native) it helped me answer my general question of "why the f*** is this word pronounced this way?", which is the other face of the coin but also naturally explained through the same facts.
I definitely recommend this book to any person in my situation (let's say fluent with English but not native, good with spelling but struggling when trying to come up with general rules for pronouncing), but I can imagine it'd be great as well for its real purpose (help English speakers with spelling).
The book really goes through each and every major event in the evolution of English spelling, providing a lot of useful examples and clear explanations. Even if you're not a language nerd, you can enjoy the numerous anecdotes and fun facts about the origin of some spellings, as the chapters are not very dense really.
A small note I liked on the edition: the last paragraph of each chapter smoothly introduces the idea of the next one, and each chapter has a very brief summary at the beginning that makes it effortless to connect ideas when moving from one chapter to the next one.
I really enjoyed it to the unusual point for non-fiction books that I would read it again.
The book aims to answer the general question of "why the f*** is this word spelled this way?", and I dare to say that it probably does that with great success for English speakers, as the current spelling of words cannot be understood without the historical context of each change that the language suffered along the centuries.
But to me (a non-English native) it helped me answer my general question of "why the f*** is this word pronounced this way?", which is the other face of the coin but also naturally explained through the same facts.
I definitely recommend this book to any person in my situation (let's say fluent with English but not native, good with spelling but struggling when trying to come up with general rules for pronouncing), but I can imagine it'd be great as well for its real purpose (help English speakers with spelling).
The book really goes through each and every major event in the evolution of English spelling, providing a lot of useful examples and clear explanations. Even if you're not a language nerd, you can enjoy the numerous anecdotes and fun facts about the origin of some spellings, as the chapters are not very dense really.
A small note I liked on the edition: the last paragraph of each chapter smoothly introduces the idea of the next one, and each chapter has a very brief summary at the beginning that makes it effortless to connect ideas when moving from one chapter to the next one.
I really enjoyed it to the unusual point for non-fiction books that I would read it again.
January 29, 2020
This was a fascinating book about the development of English spelling with a bit of application as to how spelling can be taught to children or learners of English. It is written for anyone to be able to read, so it really was quite readable. As a trained linguist, I found it to be rather 'light' reading, but I think others would find it easy to read too. It did seem to go on a bit at times, but there is also so much to talk about in the development of English spelling that it would be hard to not include things, as many of the developments have had a lasting impact on how we spell today. I definitely recommend it.
September 30, 2018
Not as entertaining as Making Sense (The Glamorous Story of English Grammar) but it definitely convinced me that there is some method to the madness of English spelling :D
August 1, 2020
I love David Crystal, and I love anything relating to orthography, so this seemed like a sure hit. Something about it just seemed “off,” somehow.
July 16, 2013
I have a problem with spelling rules, and so does David Crystal -
"People notice a linguistic point...find some examples which seem to support it, and then generalise wildly. They notice cases where the rule doesn't apply, call them 'exceptions', but they don't try to find out how many there are, and they don't try to explain them" (pg 179).
This pretty much summarises my reaction to the last discussion of English spelling I read. But Crystal's book has much smaller scope than Nádasdy's and is particularly weak on how the complex system of English pronunciation is rendered into script. The view of English spelling Crystal promotes is that it is the result of a multitude of individual decisions, whether by unknown Irish monks or Samuel Johnson himself, for example:
"So the scribes started using 'e' to show that the preceding vowel sound was long, as in hope, and two consonants to show that the preceding vowel was short, as in hopping" (pg 43).
These decisions need not be used consistently by an indiviudal - as in the case of Caxton's use of the final 'e' (pg 138), or be used consistently by others - as in modern newspapers house styles (pg 207). But they seem to be always to the result of a subjective process.
The many explanations for English spellings that Crystal offers could be organised within the systemic functional grammar I studied at University : spelling like language more generally varies according to field, mode and tenor. Given that, it is actually the consistency in modern English spelling which is surprising, not the inconsistencies that Crystal documents here.
Nádasdy's book shows how the magic 'e' and the double consonant rules given above can be brought together and extended to account for the surprisingly consistent spelling of 'tense' and 'lax' vowels in English in a way that seems similarly powerful and systematic. Crystal's lack of explanations, or even recognition for this more systematic treatment of vowels in English spelling raises the question of where these spelling rules did originate.
Crystal argues that over time some spelling decisions were popular and thrived, others less so and died off. A less humanistic account of why some units of language thrive and others die off is given in Selfish sounds and linguistic Evolution which argues that language is composed of memes, and memes evolve by a process of selection. A selection that is not artificially driven by human preferences alone, but operates naturally, within the systems of language itself.
Consider as an example the 'exceptional' spelling of 'have'. This should in the light of the spelling rules discussed be spelled 'havv'. Crystal argues that 'have' is result of an ending 'e' initially added by Caxton (pg 138) whose primary concern was to justify his lines of print. Ritt, however, argues that it was the pronunciation of 'have' that changed as it became to be used primarily as a auxillary verb, which are difficult to pronounce with long vowels (pg 255). In this account the scribes needed to make no decision about how to spell 'have' they just continued using the old spelling rule while the pronunciation changed. In orthography, such self-organising systems could explain how the prescriptive rules described by Crystal could evolve unconsciously into the agent-less rules described by Nádasdy.
Despite his account of spelling rules, Crystal is not beyond introducing one or two I've never seen before. Such as his lexical/grammatical distinction - grammatical words are spelled short, lexical words spelled long. This covers 'by/bye', 'in/inn' and even 'to/two/too', but doesn't account for 'some/sum' (grammatical/lexical) or 'of/off' (grammatical/grammatical). Then there is a difference in phonetic quality in consonants which gives Crystal argues results in the rule that in monosyllabic words p,b,t,d,g,and m take one, whereas f,s,z,l and r take two: hence 'dog' and 'fill'.
But by this point in the argument I am far from convinced. English spelling is an unstable system, and continues to evolve, like other human institutions it is not simply the product of human agency but evolves through interaction with extant texts and technologies. The first of these interactions were the constraints imposed on us by our own speech organs. I note how youtube videos are now edited to eliminate the breaths that as humans we must inevitably take. Similar processes happened when speech was first turned into script, and then those processes took on a life of their own.
"People notice a linguistic point...find some examples which seem to support it, and then generalise wildly. They notice cases where the rule doesn't apply, call them 'exceptions', but they don't try to find out how many there are, and they don't try to explain them" (pg 179).
This pretty much summarises my reaction to the last discussion of English spelling I read. But Crystal's book has much smaller scope than Nádasdy's and is particularly weak on how the complex system of English pronunciation is rendered into script. The view of English spelling Crystal promotes is that it is the result of a multitude of individual decisions, whether by unknown Irish monks or Samuel Johnson himself, for example:
"So the scribes started using 'e' to show that the preceding vowel sound was long, as in hope, and two consonants to show that the preceding vowel was short, as in hopping" (pg 43).
These decisions need not be used consistently by an indiviudal - as in the case of Caxton's use of the final 'e' (pg 138), or be used consistently by others - as in modern newspapers house styles (pg 207). But they seem to be always to the result of a subjective process.
The many explanations for English spellings that Crystal offers could be organised within the systemic functional grammar I studied at University : spelling like language more generally varies according to field, mode and tenor. Given that, it is actually the consistency in modern English spelling which is surprising, not the inconsistencies that Crystal documents here.
Nádasdy's book shows how the magic 'e' and the double consonant rules given above can be brought together and extended to account for the surprisingly consistent spelling of 'tense' and 'lax' vowels in English in a way that seems similarly powerful and systematic. Crystal's lack of explanations, or even recognition for this more systematic treatment of vowels in English spelling raises the question of where these spelling rules did originate.
Crystal argues that over time some spelling decisions were popular and thrived, others less so and died off. A less humanistic account of why some units of language thrive and others die off is given in Selfish sounds and linguistic Evolution which argues that language is composed of memes, and memes evolve by a process of selection. A selection that is not artificially driven by human preferences alone, but operates naturally, within the systems of language itself.
Consider as an example the 'exceptional' spelling of 'have'. This should in the light of the spelling rules discussed be spelled 'havv'. Crystal argues that 'have' is result of an ending 'e' initially added by Caxton (pg 138) whose primary concern was to justify his lines of print. Ritt, however, argues that it was the pronunciation of 'have' that changed as it became to be used primarily as a auxillary verb, which are difficult to pronounce with long vowels (pg 255). In this account the scribes needed to make no decision about how to spell 'have' they just continued using the old spelling rule while the pronunciation changed. In orthography, such self-organising systems could explain how the prescriptive rules described by Crystal could evolve unconsciously into the agent-less rules described by Nádasdy.
Despite his account of spelling rules, Crystal is not beyond introducing one or two I've never seen before. Such as his lexical/grammatical distinction - grammatical words are spelled short, lexical words spelled long. This covers 'by/bye', 'in/inn' and even 'to/two/too', but doesn't account for 'some/sum' (grammatical/lexical) or 'of/off' (grammatical/grammatical). Then there is a difference in phonetic quality in consonants which gives Crystal argues results in the rule that in monosyllabic words p,b,t,d,g,and m take one, whereas f,s,z,l and r take two: hence 'dog' and 'fill'.
But by this point in the argument I am far from convinced. English spelling is an unstable system, and continues to evolve, like other human institutions it is not simply the product of human agency but evolves through interaction with extant texts and technologies. The first of these interactions were the constraints imposed on us by our own speech organs. I note how youtube videos are now edited to eliminate the breaths that as humans we must inevitably take. Similar processes happened when speech was first turned into script, and then those processes took on a life of their own.
June 3, 2016
As ever, David Crystal writes accessibly about language. He doesn't have a Bill Bryson flair for storytelling or making potentially dry subjects entertaining, but he's not without skills in that department.
As he confesses in his intro, he shied away from a book about English spelling for many, many years - and with good reason. It's a complicated story, with so twists and turns and side-streets and cul-de-sacs, that it's hard to write about it simply without too much clutter or conjecture.....
He nonetheless does a valiant job - aided immeasurably by a clear and clever structure (largely historically based, obviously) - and short, to-the-point chapters.
He says the book is primarily aimed at suggesting ways in which learners of English can be better spellers - or how teachers of English can teach their students to be better spellers. He contends that the lists of rules (and their exceptions) that have traditionally been used (i before e etc.) are pretty much useless. He prefers an approach that aims to help students understand, through the history of spelling, why English is spelled how it is and thus aiding them in seeing the patterns that are otherwise obscured. For me, this is not too convincing.
He proposes teaching students the Latin roots of words, with all their prefixes and suffixes, to understand why "recommend" has one 'co' and two 'm's, but "accommodate" has two of each. To my mind, the kind of pupil that is going to grasp a sufficient understanding of Latin (or French if that's the direct root) before being able to understand the English spelling is probably already going to have a natural enough affinity with language(s) to be a pretty decent English speller.
Where he's on stronger ground, in my opinion, is his proposal to avoid giving students long lists of single words to learn by rote and then testing their spelling of them. He contends that it's pointless learning lists of solo words out of context. Words and their spelling need to be learned in contexts of sentences or longer passages, so that their meaning and grammatical functions are learned together with their spellings. He also suggests that higher-frequency words should be learned much earlier than lower-frequency words. It's obvious when he says it. Thus, as "stationary" is apparently used three times more frequently than "stationery", let the first one be learned first and established in its context. Much, much later (and among lists of related words), "stationery" can be instilled. Similarly, "principal" much earlier than "principle".
As he confesses in his intro, he shied away from a book about English spelling for many, many years - and with good reason. It's a complicated story, with so twists and turns and side-streets and cul-de-sacs, that it's hard to write about it simply without too much clutter or conjecture.....
He nonetheless does a valiant job - aided immeasurably by a clear and clever structure (largely historically based, obviously) - and short, to-the-point chapters.
He says the book is primarily aimed at suggesting ways in which learners of English can be better spellers - or how teachers of English can teach their students to be better spellers. He contends that the lists of rules (and their exceptions) that have traditionally been used (i before e etc.) are pretty much useless. He prefers an approach that aims to help students understand, through the history of spelling, why English is spelled how it is and thus aiding them in seeing the patterns that are otherwise obscured. For me, this is not too convincing.
He proposes teaching students the Latin roots of words, with all their prefixes and suffixes, to understand why "recommend" has one 'co' and two 'm's, but "accommodate" has two of each. To my mind, the kind of pupil that is going to grasp a sufficient understanding of Latin (or French if that's the direct root) before being able to understand the English spelling is probably already going to have a natural enough affinity with language(s) to be a pretty decent English speller.
Where he's on stronger ground, in my opinion, is his proposal to avoid giving students long lists of single words to learn by rote and then testing their spelling of them. He contends that it's pointless learning lists of solo words out of context. Words and their spelling need to be learned in contexts of sentences or longer passages, so that their meaning and grammatical functions are learned together with their spellings. He also suggests that higher-frequency words should be learned much earlier than lower-frequency words. It's obvious when he says it. Thus, as "stationary" is apparently used three times more frequently than "stationery", let the first one be learned first and established in its context. Much, much later (and among lists of related words), "stationery" can be instilled. Similarly, "principal" much earlier than "principle".
March 4, 2020
As someone who has an entirely regrettable penchant for pedantry, this book is a delight. It is an exhaustive examination of the evolution and development of English spelling from the earliest times - or at least Anglo Saxon speech, for then it was a spoken language not written. It’s organised into easily digestible chapters and it is well written with a sharp wit underlying the learning.
May 27, 2014
The history of English spelling is not the most thrilling of subjects. David Crystal takes this not-very-interesting topic and manages to craft a slightly-less-uninteresting book from it. Parts even rose to such dizzying heights that I thought “Huh, that's kind of interesting.”
It's easy and maybe even accurate to blame the book's mediocrity on the fact that David Crystal is on a mission. English spelling is difficult. Everyone knows this because we're forever being told that English spelling is difficult. I just said “English spelling is difficult” twice in two sentences, so it must be true. Thrice in three sentences now; I rest my case.
But it turns out that English spelling is only difficult because we're taught it wrong. David Crystal tells us this in the introduction and promises to show how spelling should be taught before the book is finished. And so you read on and realise the mortifying truth of his philosophy. Four-year-old kids shouldn't be taught the alphabet, then simple words, then harder words, then read and read and read till they kind of know how to spell. No, they should be thoroughly grounded in a millennium or so of linguistic history, roughly the same amount of British history, and have a decent knowledge of Latin, the Romance languages, and the Germanic languages. And then it's obvious why ‘through’ is spelt like ‘rough’ and ‘plough’, why ‘lieutenant’ doesn't have an f in it, and every other complication you can think of. And speaking of things that don't have an f in them: David Crystal's idea might work in a Brave New World future where knowledge is pumped into our brain and where ‘chance’ is spelt ‘chanfe’, but here in the real world there is no f in chance.
It's easy and maybe even accurate to blame the book's mediocrity on the fact that David Crystal is on a mission. English spelling is difficult. Everyone knows this because we're forever being told that English spelling is difficult. I just said “English spelling is difficult” twice in two sentences, so it must be true. Thrice in three sentences now; I rest my case.
But it turns out that English spelling is only difficult because we're taught it wrong. David Crystal tells us this in the introduction and promises to show how spelling should be taught before the book is finished. And so you read on and realise the mortifying truth of his philosophy. Four-year-old kids shouldn't be taught the alphabet, then simple words, then harder words, then read and read and read till they kind of know how to spell. No, they should be thoroughly grounded in a millennium or so of linguistic history, roughly the same amount of British history, and have a decent knowledge of Latin, the Romance languages, and the Germanic languages. And then it's obvious why ‘through’ is spelt like ‘rough’ and ‘plough’, why ‘lieutenant’ doesn't have an f in it, and every other complication you can think of. And speaking of things that don't have an f in them: David Crystal's idea might work in a Brave New World future where knowledge is pumped into our brain and where ‘chance’ is spelt ‘chanfe’, but here in the real world there is no f in chance.
November 14, 2017
Readable and enjoyable. Short chapters and down-to-earth explanations of why we spell as we do.
Words used to be spelled in as many as sixty different ways. Depending on which influence—personal, cultural, practical, accidental—outweighed the others, a certain spelling of a word became the preferred one, then eventually, became the one we are familiar with today.
David Crystal traces the development of spelling from the missionaries who came to Britain in 6 AD, to the differences between American and British English, to modern-day abbreviations, the Internet, and learning systems to help children acquire basic spelling abilities.
It is difficult to absorb everything that he writes, or indeed, much of it. Different factors determine the appearances of different groups of words, and unless you are a linguist, keeping them all in mind is less practical than brute-force memorising how to spell the individual words you use daily (and referring to a spell checker or dictionary for the rest). Although, having an overview and general idea is helpful.
The interested reader will surely return to the book multiple times and keep it as a reference.
Words used to be spelled in as many as sixty different ways. Depending on which influence—personal, cultural, practical, accidental—outweighed the others, a certain spelling of a word became the preferred one, then eventually, became the one we are familiar with today.
Having flexible spelling was a gift for printers trying to make their pages look good to the eye, with a nicely justified right-hand margin, especially if there were two columns on the page.
David Crystal traces the development of spelling from the missionaries who came to Britain in 6 AD, to the differences between American and British English, to modern-day abbreviations, the Internet, and learning systems to help children acquire basic spelling abilities.
It is difficult to absorb everything that he writes, or indeed, much of it. Different factors determine the appearances of different groups of words, and unless you are a linguist, keeping them all in mind is less practical than brute-force memorising how to spell the individual words you use daily (and referring to a spell checker or dictionary for the rest). Although, having an overview and general idea is helpful.
The interested reader will surely return to the book multiple times and keep it as a reference.
February 26, 2015
I certainly didn't expect that I'd be able to read an entire book on spelling but I guess the author was just that good at making his points in a clear and, dare I say it, enjoyable way. It didn't hurt that the font was extra large and the margins extra wide.
But now I have a whole pile of reasons why I can't spell very well (Whoo-hooo! I'll be coasting on these for a while). Some of the reasons are nicely summed up by Joseph Worcester from his 1859 dictionary (so much for the modern decline of spelling ability; people sucked at it all along) "In some cases, words are so variously affected by etymology, analogy, and general usage, that it is difficult to determine what orthography is best supported." (p. 206) Yes, between those things and loanwords, pronunciation changes, a lack of letters for all the sounds spoken, globalization and the dear old Internet, English spellers are screwed! Heh, ok, I think the author didn't say that, he may have implied it was a voyage or something. But it's certainly not easy.
But now I have a whole pile of reasons why I can't spell very well (Whoo-hooo! I'll be coasting on these for a while). Some of the reasons are nicely summed up by Joseph Worcester from his 1859 dictionary (so much for the modern decline of spelling ability; people sucked at it all along) "In some cases, words are so variously affected by etymology, analogy, and general usage, that it is difficult to determine what orthography is best supported." (p. 206) Yes, between those things and loanwords, pronunciation changes, a lack of letters for all the sounds spoken, globalization and the dear old Internet, English spellers are screwed! Heh, ok, I think the author didn't say that, he may have implied it was a voyage or something. But it's certainly not easy.
January 23, 2015
I found this book, or rather it found me, on the freebie shelf at work, and it was a happy encounter. Chapter 18, on pronunciation patterns at the time of the Great Vowel Shift, was particularly interesting. My big takeaway was that writers in the time of Donne could indicate stress with spelling changes: "me" is unstressed, while "mee" is stressed. (Trying to figure out how a line of Shakespeare works? Check an online copy of the Folio.)
Crystal makes an interesting thesis is that spelling rules can't be learned in isolation, and generally he backs it up. By unpacking a word like "necessary" into its Latin roots, Crystal states that a language learner can make sense of some of the consonant doubling—a result of a thousand years of ad hoc theory by reformers and get 'er done practice by printers and scribes.
The later chapters—on contemporary trademarks, the internet, and the like—are weaker, and not really that helpful.
Crystal makes an interesting thesis is that spelling rules can't be learned in isolation, and generally he backs it up. By unpacking a word like "necessary" into its Latin roots, Crystal states that a language learner can make sense of some of the consonant doubling—a result of a thousand years of ad hoc theory by reformers and get 'er done practice by printers and scribes.
The later chapters—on contemporary trademarks, the internet, and the like—are weaker, and not really that helpful.
October 10, 2012
OK so I am a bit of a GEEK when it comes to spelling - but this is such a fabulous book!!! What can I say? David Crystal is so good at storytelling - and really what's not to love about the story of English spelling and why it seems to be so weird (when really it's not - it's just a long story!!!!).
August 14, 2013
Why a great read! Well-researched, well-written, and overall delightful. I had a few quibbles with some of his claims (such as his statement that certain words in the Renaissance were called 'ink-horn words' because a writer had to use a lot of ink to write them; i believe it was because these words were exclusively written and never spoken) but I found him to be very convincing in general.
June 27, 2017
Both wonderfully entertaining as well as immensely interesting, in “Spell It Out” you find out just exactly why English is so full of peculiar spellings. With sensible chapters covering the history of English, its roots and why words are spelt the way they are, there are also very funny extracts from famous books.
The first extracts are from Winnie the pooh stories in which I remember Eeryore spelt his name “EOR” and Owl “WOL”. There’s also Churchill’s school report (“spelling as bad as it well could be”); forensic spelling in Poirot (The Mysterious Affair at Styles); how Tarzan learnt to read (Tarzan of the Apes); several jokes from Punch (Boss “How do you spell ‘income’? You’ve got here ‘i-n-c-u-m.’” Flapper: “Good Heavens! How did I come to leave out the ‘b’?”); and the very well known quote from George Bernard Shaw: “The English have no respect for their language, and will not teach their children to speak it. They spell it so abominably that no man can teach himself what it sounds like. It is impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth without making some other Englishman hate or despise him.” (Pygmalion).
But by far the funniest is a poem written by a cockroach who can’t reach the shift key. As a result everything comes out in lower case without punctuation e.g. “say comma boss comma capital” (“archys life of mehitobel” by Dan Marquis).
The trouble with English is that there is so much of it. Secondly, nobody wrote it down and when they did, they had to make up the rules as they went along. One imagines the Anglo-Saxon monks wrestling with twenty three letters of the alphabet and over forty phonemes (sounds) and coming up with several letters we no longer use: eth, thorn and ash (none of which I can reproduce here.) But then the French came along and brought a radical transformation to English spelling, getting rid of the eths, thorns and ashes (they could be trees ... !) Thousands of new words entered the language – and they all had to be spelled in some way or another. Printing caused huge changes once again and demands for reformation failed.
Etymology helps to explain much of the spelling irregularities and people have found a number of ways to cope: rules; dictionaries; publishers’ house styles; printers’ manuals etc. But language continues to be influenced by unexpected arrivals of exotic loanwords and – not least of all – the Internet.
David Crystal points out something here that few have considered. The Internet generates a phenomenal amount of writing and everywhere people complain how poor the spelling is, that the Internet is, in fact, ruining people’s ability to spell. This is not true. All or most writing until now has been rigorously edited and spelling thoroughly corrected. There is no editing on the Internet: you write what you like and can publish it on a zillion different platforms. What the Internet highlights is not only that no one can spell properly but that they NEVER HAVE. It’s not that the Internet is worsening spelling, it’s that it is highlighting a problem that was always there: English is not only really hard to spell but poorly taught.
Texting teens are blamed for deteriorating standards in spelling – but consider that you have to know how to spell a word before you can contract it. My daughter and her friends have developed their own idiosyncrasies in text speak (not used in phone texts, by the way, but online platforms such as Tumbl’r, Skype and G+). And consider how well you have to spell to find the right website: domain names are very precise. One letter wrong and you’re somewhere you don’t want to be. Professor Google can only go so far: “did you mean --- ” can be mighty annoying. Best just to spell it right in the first place.
It’s towards the end of the book that David Crystal shows his true genius: how to teach spelling. Oh, if only this book was a compulsory read for all primary school teachers. If only the teaching methods could be implemented at once. The agonies of learning English spelling would be avoided and literacy would increase in leaps and bounds. My daughter (now doing A-levels) is remarkably bright and reads voraciously but she dropped English as soon as she could because she hated the way it was taught. They didn’t teach her the science of the language: no grammar, no etymology, no word history, no punctuation ... nothing that she found at all interesting. “Why weren’t we told THIS stuff?” she shouted, shaking the book at me. Quite.
The first extracts are from Winnie the pooh stories in which I remember Eeryore spelt his name “EOR” and Owl “WOL”. There’s also Churchill’s school report (“spelling as bad as it well could be”); forensic spelling in Poirot (The Mysterious Affair at Styles); how Tarzan learnt to read (Tarzan of the Apes); several jokes from Punch (Boss “How do you spell ‘income’? You’ve got here ‘i-n-c-u-m.’” Flapper: “Good Heavens! How did I come to leave out the ‘b’?”); and the very well known quote from George Bernard Shaw: “The English have no respect for their language, and will not teach their children to speak it. They spell it so abominably that no man can teach himself what it sounds like. It is impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth without making some other Englishman hate or despise him.” (Pygmalion).
But by far the funniest is a poem written by a cockroach who can’t reach the shift key. As a result everything comes out in lower case without punctuation e.g. “say comma boss comma capital” (“archys life of mehitobel” by Dan Marquis).
The trouble with English is that there is so much of it. Secondly, nobody wrote it down and when they did, they had to make up the rules as they went along. One imagines the Anglo-Saxon monks wrestling with twenty three letters of the alphabet and over forty phonemes (sounds) and coming up with several letters we no longer use: eth, thorn and ash (none of which I can reproduce here.) But then the French came along and brought a radical transformation to English spelling, getting rid of the eths, thorns and ashes (they could be trees ... !) Thousands of new words entered the language – and they all had to be spelled in some way or another. Printing caused huge changes once again and demands for reformation failed.
Etymology helps to explain much of the spelling irregularities and people have found a number of ways to cope: rules; dictionaries; publishers’ house styles; printers’ manuals etc. But language continues to be influenced by unexpected arrivals of exotic loanwords and – not least of all – the Internet.
David Crystal points out something here that few have considered. The Internet generates a phenomenal amount of writing and everywhere people complain how poor the spelling is, that the Internet is, in fact, ruining people’s ability to spell. This is not true. All or most writing until now has been rigorously edited and spelling thoroughly corrected. There is no editing on the Internet: you write what you like and can publish it on a zillion different platforms. What the Internet highlights is not only that no one can spell properly but that they NEVER HAVE. It’s not that the Internet is worsening spelling, it’s that it is highlighting a problem that was always there: English is not only really hard to spell but poorly taught.
Texting teens are blamed for deteriorating standards in spelling – but consider that you have to know how to spell a word before you can contract it. My daughter and her friends have developed their own idiosyncrasies in text speak (not used in phone texts, by the way, but online platforms such as Tumbl’r, Skype and G+). And consider how well you have to spell to find the right website: domain names are very precise. One letter wrong and you’re somewhere you don’t want to be. Professor Google can only go so far: “did you mean --- ” can be mighty annoying. Best just to spell it right in the first place.
It’s towards the end of the book that David Crystal shows his true genius: how to teach spelling. Oh, if only this book was a compulsory read for all primary school teachers. If only the teaching methods could be implemented at once. The agonies of learning English spelling would be avoided and literacy would increase in leaps and bounds. My daughter (now doing A-levels) is remarkably bright and reads voraciously but she dropped English as soon as she could because she hated the way it was taught. They didn’t teach her the science of the language: no grammar, no etymology, no word history, no punctuation ... nothing that she found at all interesting. “Why weren’t we told THIS stuff?” she shouted, shaking the book at me. Quite.
September 18, 2013
A history and explanation on how English came to be spelled and the issues involved.
My Take
This was excellent with Spell It Out being easy and fun to read. ! I am so impressed with the work that has been done over the centuries in figuring out how to spell words in English. And completely amused with their efforts, frustrations, and Crystal's writing!
Yup, Crystal includes "the first two stanzas of an ode to a spelling checker by Mark Eckman and Jerrold H. Zar" which proves the uselessness of a spellchecker:
I'd never really thought about how spelling evolved, how people went about putting letters together to make a visual representation of the sound of any particular word. And, as much as I adore words and language, I am so grateful I wasn't one of them. I suspect I'd'a gotten a nasty headache! There are so many permutations, considerations, possibilities, dialects...and changes(!) that have and will continue to have an effect on words and how they're spelled.
England began using runes to represent thoughts and writings, but Christianity couldn't accept pagan markings, and it chose to use Latin and the Latin alphabet as the base for English spellings.
Crystal does provide a "chart" of the consonant and vowel phonemes to show how certain consonants and vowels are pronounced—and I strongly endorse Crystal's suggestion to bookmark these pages. He uses these phonemes throughout the book, and it's just impossible to remember them. I think this is an excellent example of how much better this could be as an enhanced book with audio using a choice of either Received Pronunciation or General America! Especially when he talks about short and long vowel sounds and the various sounds that were used to pronounce words.
Crystal provides a plethora of reasons as to why it is so difficult to create rules to explain how to spell anything. The only rule I do remember is the old i before e except after c one...and it turns out that this is wrong! Eight, weird, weigh, neighbor, vein, veil...
He mentions that the ideal phonetic alphabet has one letter for each sound, unlike English in which some "letters had more than one sounds, and some sounds were shown by more than one letter". The reason for the silent e. How a word's place of origin affected its spelling.
I loved the reason for the confusions over double consonant endings---pinning versus pining, batting versus bating; burr or bur and torr or tor; the double+e of cigarette, brunette, finesse, and more; how prefixes and suffixes changed pronunciation; the reason behind ; the evolution of the æ and the distinctions today in who uses what.
The beauty of English has always been its readiness to adopt foreign words into its vocabulary. It's also one of the reasons that figuring out how to consistently spell in English is too difficult. Then I have to laugh at how strongly the French today resist English words despoiling their language when Crystal reveals how much influence the French have had on English!
Consider how few people could read or write all those centuries ago. There wasn't that great a need to have a consistent way of spelling words. You know how creative they were every time you try to read something from a primary source, LOL! It's actually similar to wanting to write but having to grab a goose so as to have a quill and then needing to collect enough acorns or iron to create the ink. People may have been speaking word-sounds, but someone had to invent how to write the same word-sounds. And this creative process occurred over and over again as new words "invaded" England, i.e., loanwords.
Crystal is amazing in his analyses of word sounds: long vowels, short vowels, what's necessary to add an -ng ending, whether word endings needed doubling or the silent e, why some people pronounced h and others didn't.
It did crack me up that speed of writing and our own laziness influenced spelling and letter formation! Check out what Crystal has to say about the letter z, lol. Then his comments on how medieval scribes' handwriting forced new solutions and/or new irregular spellings. The evolution of new letters: w, i, j, and the primacy of y in certain circumstances. Fashionable pasttimes that resulted in hi, O.K., lite, including text messaging that replaces you with u; I loved Crystal's pointing out that really good texters have an excellent spelling sense!
Crystal also addresses non-standard spellings such as regional variations like yer for your, reet for right; colloquial speech such as gotcha, wanna and more; and, class distinctions which include missus for Mrs. How people's names evolved.
LOL, he explains the origins of noodle versus strudel, the evolution of expressions of disgust or bodily discomfort, the necessity of abbreviation conformity(!)…
More crack-ups! I've drifted along, vaguely assuming that ye was something Old English characters said. Oops. Wrong, wrong, wrong. It was simply the thorn letter, dily discomfort, the necessity of abbreviation, which, when spelled out in a blackletter script looked like y, was interpreted as ye. Who'd'a thunk?
It doesn't matter how very badly writers, printers, and grammarians have tried to streamline spelling, it's evolving as it pleases with the Internet hurrying the entire process up.
Hey, knowledge of language can provide character names: Vader turns out to mean father but is pronounced/spelled differently from father. Subtle joke on the author's part in Star Wars!
The Great Vowel Shift sounds funny, and yet this period in history had a tremendous impact on how words were spelled, and it was all about how people began changing how they pronounced long vowels. This Shift took some 300 years, and eventually, as the pronunciation of a word changed, how it was spelled also changed. Of course, this wasn't the only time the pronunciation of words changed—just keep hoping you outlive any shifts in pronunciation in your own lifetime! Consider the differences in pronunciation between British English and American English. Crystal reckons that the Internet is enabling changes to happen much quicker than in Shakespeare's time!
Considering the variety of spelling that continued through the nineteenth century, you'll never believe that spelling reform began in the sixteenth century!
I loved learning about the many influences there have been on language; so much I never thought of or considered. Printers, the source language for a word, spellings that had to be left as is due to custom, the increase in reading material with a corresponding increase in the number of people who could read and the increase in the number of publishers who became professional, cultural preferences to show identity...
Oh, wow, the evolution of the style guide as a response to the huge number of alternative spellings dictionaries provided! The "Government Printing Office" style guide was first issued in 1887 followed by Hart's Rules in 1893, "the basis of the Oxford University Press", and the Chicago Manual of Style in 1906. None of which has reduced the variations in spelling!
Crystal pointed out that certain variations were dependent upon the field of the author with archæology indicative of a history background and aesthetics used in the art field whereas esthetics is preferred in dentistry. Spelling variations that draw attention to a product; I liked Crystal's example of Louise Pound's article about "The Kraze for 'K'".
It is amazing how in-depth Crystal is in analyzing language. I had no idea it was so complex and fascinating. He does provide tips on how to figure out how a word should be spelled/ended/whatever, but I reckon I'll use the online dictionary…
The Cover
The cover is a typographic collage of shades of blue against a darker blue background of words the spelling of which evolved over the centuries.
The title is exactly what this book is about: Spell It Out: The Curious, Enthralling, and Extraordinary Story of English Spelling.
My Take
This was excellent with Spell It Out being easy and fun to read. ! I am so impressed with the work that has been done over the centuries in figuring out how to spell words in English. And completely amused with their efforts, frustrations, and Crystal's writing!
Yup, Crystal includes "the first two stanzas of an ode to a spelling checker by Mark Eckman and Jerrold H. Zar" which proves the uselessness of a spellchecker:
I have a spelling checker,
It came with my PC.
It plane lee marks four my revue
Miss steaks aye can knot sea.
Eye ran this poem threw it,
Your sure reel glad two no.
Its vary polished in it's weigh.
My checker tolled me sew.
I'd never really thought about how spelling evolved, how people went about putting letters together to make a visual representation of the sound of any particular word. And, as much as I adore words and language, I am so grateful I wasn't one of them. I suspect I'd'a gotten a nasty headache! There are so many permutations, considerations, possibilities, dialects...and changes(!) that have and will continue to have an effect on words and how they're spelled.
England began using runes to represent thoughts and writings, but Christianity couldn't accept pagan markings, and it chose to use Latin and the Latin alphabet as the base for English spellings.
Crystal does provide a "chart" of the consonant and vowel phonemes to show how certain consonants and vowels are pronounced—and I strongly endorse Crystal's suggestion to bookmark these pages. He uses these phonemes throughout the book, and it's just impossible to remember them. I think this is an excellent example of how much better this could be as an enhanced book with audio using a choice of either Received Pronunciation or General America! Especially when he talks about short and long vowel sounds and the various sounds that were used to pronounce words.
Crystal provides a plethora of reasons as to why it is so difficult to create rules to explain how to spell anything. The only rule I do remember is the old i before e except after c one...and it turns out that this is wrong! Eight, weird, weigh, neighbor, vein, veil...
He mentions that the ideal phonetic alphabet has one letter for each sound, unlike English in which some "letters had more than one sounds, and some sounds were shown by more than one letter". The reason for the silent e. How a word's place of origin affected its spelling.
I loved the reason for the confusions over double consonant endings---pinning versus pining, batting versus bating; burr or bur and torr or tor; the double+e of cigarette, brunette, finesse, and more; how prefixes and suffixes changed pronunciation; the reason behind ; the evolution of the æ and the distinctions today in who uses what.
The beauty of English has always been its readiness to adopt foreign words into its vocabulary. It's also one of the reasons that figuring out how to consistently spell in English is too difficult. Then I have to laugh at how strongly the French today resist English words despoiling their language when Crystal reveals how much influence the French have had on English!
Consider how few people could read or write all those centuries ago. There wasn't that great a need to have a consistent way of spelling words. You know how creative they were every time you try to read something from a primary source, LOL! It's actually similar to wanting to write but having to grab a goose so as to have a quill and then needing to collect enough acorns or iron to create the ink. People may have been speaking word-sounds, but someone had to invent how to write the same word-sounds. And this creative process occurred over and over again as new words "invaded" England, i.e., loanwords.
Crystal is amazing in his analyses of word sounds: long vowels, short vowels, what's necessary to add an -ng ending, whether word endings needed doubling or the silent e, why some people pronounced h and others didn't.
It did crack me up that speed of writing and our own laziness influenced spelling and letter formation! Check out what Crystal has to say about the letter z, lol. Then his comments on how medieval scribes' handwriting forced new solutions and/or new irregular spellings. The evolution of new letters: w, i, j, and the primacy of y in certain circumstances. Fashionable pasttimes that resulted in hi, O.K., lite, including text messaging that replaces you with u; I loved Crystal's pointing out that really good texters have an excellent spelling sense!
Crystal also addresses non-standard spellings such as regional variations like yer for your, reet for right; colloquial speech such as gotcha, wanna and more; and, class distinctions which include missus for Mrs. How people's names evolved.
LOL, he explains the origins of noodle versus strudel, the evolution of expressions of disgust or bodily discomfort, the necessity of abbreviation conformity(!)…
More crack-ups! I've drifted along, vaguely assuming that ye was something Old English characters said. Oops. Wrong, wrong, wrong. It was simply the thorn letter, dily discomfort, the necessity of abbreviation, which, when spelled out in a blackletter script looked like y, was interpreted as ye. Who'd'a thunk?
It doesn't matter how very badly writers, printers, and grammarians have tried to streamline spelling, it's evolving as it pleases with the Internet hurrying the entire process up.
Hey, knowledge of language can provide character names: Vader turns out to mean father but is pronounced/spelled differently from father. Subtle joke on the author's part in Star Wars!
The Great Vowel Shift sounds funny, and yet this period in history had a tremendous impact on how words were spelled, and it was all about how people began changing how they pronounced long vowels. This Shift took some 300 years, and eventually, as the pronunciation of a word changed, how it was spelled also changed. Of course, this wasn't the only time the pronunciation of words changed—just keep hoping you outlive any shifts in pronunciation in your own lifetime! Consider the differences in pronunciation between British English and American English. Crystal reckons that the Internet is enabling changes to happen much quicker than in Shakespeare's time!
Considering the variety of spelling that continued through the nineteenth century, you'll never believe that spelling reform began in the sixteenth century!
I loved learning about the many influences there have been on language; so much I never thought of or considered. Printers, the source language for a word, spellings that had to be left as is due to custom, the increase in reading material with a corresponding increase in the number of people who could read and the increase in the number of publishers who became professional, cultural preferences to show identity...
Oh, wow, the evolution of the style guide as a response to the huge number of alternative spellings dictionaries provided! The "Government Printing Office" style guide was first issued in 1887 followed by Hart's Rules in 1893, "the basis of the Oxford University Press", and the Chicago Manual of Style in 1906. None of which has reduced the variations in spelling!
Crystal pointed out that certain variations were dependent upon the field of the author with archæology indicative of a history background and aesthetics used in the art field whereas esthetics is preferred in dentistry. Spelling variations that draw attention to a product; I liked Crystal's example of Louise Pound's article about "The Kraze for 'K'".
It is amazing how in-depth Crystal is in analyzing language. I had no idea it was so complex and fascinating. He does provide tips on how to figure out how a word should be spelled/ended/whatever, but I reckon I'll use the online dictionary…
The Cover
The cover is a typographic collage of shades of blue against a darker blue background of words the spelling of which evolved over the centuries.
The title is exactly what this book is about: Spell It Out: The Curious, Enthralling, and Extraordinary Story of English Spelling.
August 10, 2019
Good writing, as with the author's other books, but the subject is… quite aggravating. At times horrendously fascinating in its seemingly random convolutions, but it makes me feel for those learning English as a second language.
The book is highly thorough, with chapters about new vowel sounds, new consonant sounds, old vowels for new purposes, etc etc—super interesting to see (and, inevitably, as with most things about vocabulary and spelling, to mouth or whisper) the many examples of etymological origin or historical change littered throughout, but it began to feel a bit fatiguing toward the end.
Still, always here for some good linguistic descriptivism.
On that forward-looking note, I found the final chapters about the Internet's potential influence on language and the future of English spelling quite thought-provoking. He gives pairs such as rhubarb → rubarb, recommend → recomend, and minuscule → miniscule as examples of misspellings on the Internet potentially becoming accepted variant spellings. For minuscule/miniscule, this is the usage note in the Oxford Dictionary:
I think this is one of the themes of the book that I really enjoyed, the idea that language, especially one as open to foreign influences as English, is perpetually evolving. Perhaps the irregularity of English spelling sees some smoothing out over the course of history, as its users perceive existing patterns and warp language ever so slightly so it makes more sense to them, but foreign words and neologisms (most prominently, words introduced/influenced by technology) keep seeping in, and the river of linguistic variation narrows and widens thusly.
The book is highly thorough, with chapters about new vowel sounds, new consonant sounds, old vowels for new purposes, etc etc—super interesting to see (and, inevitably, as with most things about vocabulary and spelling, to mouth or whisper) the many examples of etymological origin or historical change littered throughout, but it began to feel a bit fatiguing toward the end.
Still, always here for some good linguistic descriptivism.
Nor is staying with traditional attitudes towards spelling an option. We — everyone, not just teachers — need to change the way we think about it. We have to stop cursing it in solely negative terms — as a daunting barrier, as a hostile mountain, as an apparently perpetual process of rote learning — and start thinking of it as a voyage of exploration.
On that forward-looking note, I found the final chapters about the Internet's potential influence on language and the future of English spelling quite thought-provoking. He gives pairs such as rhubarb → rubarb, recommend → recomend, and minuscule → miniscule as examples of misspellings on the Internet potentially becoming accepted variant spellings. For minuscule/miniscule, this is the usage note in the Oxford Dictionary:
The standard spelling is minuscule rather than miniscule. The latter form is a very common one (accounting for almost half of citations for the term in the Oxford English Corpus), and has been recorded since the late 19th century. It arose by analogy with other words beginning with mini-, where the meaning is similarly ‘very small’. It is now so widely used that it can be considered as an acceptable variant, although it should be avoided in formal contexts.
I think this is one of the themes of the book that I really enjoyed, the idea that language, especially one as open to foreign influences as English, is perpetually evolving. Perhaps the irregularity of English spelling sees some smoothing out over the course of history, as its users perceive existing patterns and warp language ever so slightly so it makes more sense to them, but foreign words and neologisms (most prominently, words introduced/influenced by technology) keep seeping in, and the river of linguistic variation narrows and widens thusly.
August 16, 2018
It's really hard to beat Mr. Crystal when it comes to anything English-language related. Granted, he doesn't have a lot out there, but the first of his I read, "History of English in 100 words" (or roughly that) is what one would call (I suppose) a "bathroom" type book. Small, short, to the point. About a page or three on 100 different words that help explain (a little) where in the world English came from.
This one does something similar, but in broader strokes. There are plenty of examples, almost too many at points, but what you get here are the general explanations, or guesses, about why things ended up the way they have. (And as if reading this book in the first place didn't point out my dorky side, you'll be glad to know it does cover 'where did these crazy, silent 'gh's come from, and what's up with 'ahem.')
So, what it is, exactly? Basically what the subtitle says. He starts with the attempt to even write down Anglo-Saxon in the first place, and runs you right up through the Normans in 1066 and Dr. Johnson and Noah Webster and winds up on the internet and a funny little explanation of why, contrary to popular opinion, you have to be a better speller to text things like "dnt b l8!"
In fairness, things do get a little slow towards the end when he is discussing names of people, businesses, towns, etc, but again, he sticks to his previous brevity and there's really nothing to complain about. I think my only problem was wanting to finish this quickly to keep moving on my "reading schedule." (ha)
But here's the main take away, this is a book written for any old guy or gal, and it covers some very interesting topics (you know you've whined at least once about things like that silent k back there). You really ought to do yourself a favor, just as an English-speaker, and check this out. He's a great writer, and an even better teacher. (And, bonus: two brief appendices lay out some relevant topics regarding the teaching of spelling.)
This one does something similar, but in broader strokes. There are plenty of examples, almost too many at points, but what you get here are the general explanations, or guesses, about why things ended up the way they have. (And as if reading this book in the first place didn't point out my dorky side, you'll be glad to know it does cover 'where did these crazy, silent 'gh's come from, and what's up with 'ahem.')
So, what it is, exactly? Basically what the subtitle says. He starts with the attempt to even write down Anglo-Saxon in the first place, and runs you right up through the Normans in 1066 and Dr. Johnson and Noah Webster and winds up on the internet and a funny little explanation of why, contrary to popular opinion, you have to be a better speller to text things like "dnt b l8!"
In fairness, things do get a little slow towards the end when he is discussing names of people, businesses, towns, etc, but again, he sticks to his previous brevity and there's really nothing to complain about. I think my only problem was wanting to finish this quickly to keep moving on my "reading schedule." (ha)
But here's the main take away, this is a book written for any old guy or gal, and it covers some very interesting topics (you know you've whined at least once about things like that silent k back there). You really ought to do yourself a favor, just as an English-speaker, and check this out. He's a great writer, and an even better teacher. (And, bonus: two brief appendices lay out some relevant topics regarding the teaching of spelling.)
March 7, 2021
So clever.
David Crystal's witty banter helps keep the linguistic explanation intriguing. Pick up anything of his, and you'll be glad you did.
My favorite part was finding out why my hometown of Pittsburgh has an H on the end, but most other "burg" towns do not. The answer? William Pitt was from Edinburgh in Scotland, where many towns' final spelling ends in an H, so naturally, the town he founded would have ended the same due to general familiarity. Apparently, spelling reformers took it off in the late 1800s, but the outcry against the change had it permanently affixed to the name by 1920.
I can confirm that little anecdote because I was recently gifted a 1916 copy of Funk and Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary of the English Language, and in a reference section in the back, the city of 80,000 (then) is spelled Pittsburg.
His basic premise is that basic standardization is necessary for general intelligibility, but all language always has and always will naturally change over time. Whether because of the influence of loan words from other places, our comfort with what we already know, or the ease in which it is to write or type the word, there are linguistic reasons for why English spelling.
For language teachers, a linguistic perspective is the most effective strategy for teaching spellig. The random lists we all had to memorize for the Friday test, is just random, and the learning doesn't last if it ever even happens at all.
This is a fun read.
David Crystal's witty banter helps keep the linguistic explanation intriguing. Pick up anything of his, and you'll be glad you did.
My favorite part was finding out why my hometown of Pittsburgh has an H on the end, but most other "burg" towns do not. The answer? William Pitt was from Edinburgh in Scotland, where many towns' final spelling ends in an H, so naturally, the town he founded would have ended the same due to general familiarity. Apparently, spelling reformers took it off in the late 1800s, but the outcry against the change had it permanently affixed to the name by 1920.
I can confirm that little anecdote because I was recently gifted a 1916 copy of Funk and Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary of the English Language, and in a reference section in the back, the city of 80,000 (then) is spelled Pittsburg.
His basic premise is that basic standardization is necessary for general intelligibility, but all language always has and always will naturally change over time. Whether because of the influence of loan words from other places, our comfort with what we already know, or the ease in which it is to write or type the word, there are linguistic reasons for why English spelling.
For language teachers, a linguistic perspective is the most effective strategy for teaching spellig. The random lists we all had to memorize for the Friday test, is just random, and the learning doesn't last if it ever even happens at all.
This is a fun read.
March 1, 2017
I love David Crystal's book "The Story of English in 100 Words." It was the perfect bedside book to pick up every now and then when I couldn't fall asleep: short, witty, humorous chapters that made both bizarre and mundane words fascinating. And to top it all off, a progressive, descriptivist approach to language. So much general audience writing about the English language is so conservative and fatalist, essentially stating that the internet will bring about the end of the English language. Even DFW – perhaps one of the most famous writers to write explicitly about things like usage – adopted a shockingly conservative approach that one wouldn't be surprised to find voiced by an Oxford don in the 19th century. David Crystal, thankfully, embraces the constantly evolving nature of language (and the internet/twitter/textspeak) and argues forcefully that it's neither a diminishing of standards nor total anarchy. A+ in my book for an old white Linguistics professor with tenure.
This book on spelling is a bit drier than his compulsively readable "Story of English in 100 Words" but still brings humor and a light touch to a topic that, for most people, couldn't be more boring. I find myself considering buying his book on punctuation as well..
This book on spelling is a bit drier than his compulsively readable "Story of English in 100 Words" but still brings humor and a light touch to a topic that, for most people, couldn't be more boring. I find myself considering buying his book on punctuation as well..
June 4, 2025
🦆 Snap Review
If you’ve ever looked at the word colonel and quacked in confusion, this book is for you. Spell It Out dives beak-first into the delightful mess that is English spelling — from the ancient duck tracks of Old English to the feather-ruffling influence of the Normans and beyond. And somehow, David Crystal makes it all fun. Yes, fun. Like spelling knight with a silent joust.
✨ Rating: 5/5 quacks (and not a silent one among them)
📚 Mood: Like wandering through a spelling museum with a charming duck who keeps whispering, “See? That silent ‘e’ has a reason, darling.”
🧠 Current Thoughts
I really enjoyed this book! It’s a niche subject, sure, but if the whys, how's, and tangled tales of spelling tickle your duckbrain, this is a total delight. David Crystal waddles through centuries of linguistic chaos with charm, clarity, and the kind of enthusiasm usually reserved for bubble baths and breadcrumbs.
Recommended for: word nerds, etymology lovers, and anyone who’s ever yelled “WHY IS THERE A GH IN LAUGH?”
If you’ve ever looked at the word colonel and quacked in confusion, this book is for you. Spell It Out dives beak-first into the delightful mess that is English spelling — from the ancient duck tracks of Old English to the feather-ruffling influence of the Normans and beyond. And somehow, David Crystal makes it all fun. Yes, fun. Like spelling knight with a silent joust.
✨ Rating: 5/5 quacks (and not a silent one among them)
📚 Mood: Like wandering through a spelling museum with a charming duck who keeps whispering, “See? That silent ‘e’ has a reason, darling.”
🧠 Current Thoughts
I really enjoyed this book! It’s a niche subject, sure, but if the whys, how's, and tangled tales of spelling tickle your duckbrain, this is a total delight. David Crystal waddles through centuries of linguistic chaos with charm, clarity, and the kind of enthusiasm usually reserved for bubble baths and breadcrumbs.
Recommended for: word nerds, etymology lovers, and anyone who’s ever yelled “WHY IS THERE A GH IN LAUGH?”
June 16, 2020
It breaks my heart a little tiny bit to say this, because I love David Crystal, but I don't think I took a lot from this. There were a lot of individual words and idiosyncracies to read about, but I don't think I learned a lot about the English spelling system as a whole. Maybe that's because I already had a general impression of how English spelling works? Maybe I'm underestimating how much I did learn?
I'd definitely recommend this if you haven't done a lot of English language study, or you get annoyed by English spelling and you want to understand it a little. It's easily understandable and a very palatable introduction to etymology.
I'd definitely recommend this if you haven't done a lot of English language study, or you get annoyed by English spelling and you want to understand it a little. It's easily understandable and a very palatable introduction to etymology.
February 3, 2021
I have seen David Crystal speak a couple of times and found him engaging and interesting, and this book was no disappointment. It's so interesting to find out where words have come from and some of the peculiarities of English spelling now make a lot more sense. As a precarious speller I will henceforth consider myself at the forefront of spelling evolution, and it was a revelation that there are words with more than one acceptable spelling. Judgement/judgment can depend on which newspaper you write for! Next time I moan about the ridiculousness of spelling I shall remember it is not the words' fault.
February 5, 2025
Engaging history of orthography. Maybe "engaging" and "orthography" are hard to picture together, but I found it so. Amusing historical items and anecdotes—as well as the more straightforward passages—serve to illuminate how we got to our current state of inconsistencies, exceptions, and confusions. A "teaching appendix" offers advice for improving how spelling is taught.
Each chapter begins with a two-sentence summary (like a headnote for a judicial opinion), so if you don't want to read the book straight through, you can skim these points to get the gist and decide what chapters to visit in depth.
Many chapters also end with passages commenting on spelling by authors as varied as A. A. Milne and Vladimir Nabokov. I wish the table of contents listed the authors rather than just headings. (For that matter, I'd like a detailed table of contents that listed the two-sentence chapter summaries.
Each chapter begins with a two-sentence summary (like a headnote for a judicial opinion), so if you don't want to read the book straight through, you can skim these points to get the gist and decide what chapters to visit in depth.
Many chapters also end with passages commenting on spelling by authors as varied as A. A. Milne and Vladimir Nabokov. I wish the table of contents listed the authors rather than just headings. (For that matter, I'd like a detailed table of contents that listed the two-sentence chapter summaries.
December 13, 2015
"Approached in the right way, spelling can be fun." That's how David Crystal ends this entertaining read on the spelling of the English language.
Of course, spelling isn't the most interesting subject to read about, especially when all of us have been confronted with it in school. Speaking of which, spelling and languages were among my favourite subjects.
As you can imagine, you must have a certain interest in language, spelling, and/or linguistics to read this nifty little reference work. There are more serious works about English, about spelling, but the purpose of this book was to keep it accessible, broadly themed and usable for a long time to come.
Crystal starts way back in time, with the Anglo-Saxon monks, when Old English was spoken and written and a proper alphabet was yet to be written down. Each chapter ends with an aspect that is the central subject for the next chapter. Or, Crystal sort of applied the same pattern as Mark Forsyth did in his The Etymologicon: A Circular Stroll through the Hidden Connections of the English Language, for example. With each chapter he advanced on the time-line, into Middle English and finally into Modern English, although he goes back and forth on certain occasions.
You'll learn about the various influences from (mostly) Latin and French, but also about how letters changed (but sounds kept), how sounds changed (but letters kept), about doubling, singling, loanwords, accents, and more.
On a side note, I'm very proud to read that even the Flemish have had an influence, however small, on the English language and vice versa, I believe, as Crystal gave some examples of Old English words that are still in use - albeit not every one 100% written in the same way - in Dutch/Flemish.
Over the course of several centuries many people of influence (writers, printers, ...) tried to dominate the English spelling by imposing their vision, their way of writing. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it failed (for various reasons). How American English came to be and distanced itself from British English, is another happening that is described. The influence of the Internet was also included, as it has already had quite an impact on how English is treated on-line.
Crystal also wrote that, while English is a difficult language for which it is hard to lay down a fixed set of rules, knowing some historical background (etymology, for instance) can help a lot in detecting a word's meaning and why it is written they way it is. Also, the "i before e, except after c"-rule is bollocks, because there are too many exceptions to that rule that you could make a rule for every x number of words that are written in a certain manner.
While it's, in itself, a heavy subject, David Crystal managed to handle a light writing style, accessible and entertaining. In addition, several chapters were enhanced with anecdotes and examples from (very) old publications.
There also 'A teaching appendix', in which Crystal wrote about how spelling is taught to children (and adults) in school, how it could or should be and how, through the different approach (e.g. a linguistic perspective on the matter, which he explains in detail), be beneficial for everyone. Especially, as he wrote, when spelling "is the bridge between reading and writing."
Long story short: If you're into languages (and especially the English one), then this little book simply must be added to your collection.
--------------------
Some related works I can recommend (from what I've read so far on languages):
- The Etymologicon: A Circular Stroll through the Hidden Connections of the English Language by Mark Forsyth (see my review here)
- The Horologicon: A Day's Jaunt Through the Lost Words of the English Language also by Mark Forsyth (see my review here)
- Is That a Fish in Your Ear? The Amazing Adventure of Translation by David Bellos (see my review here)
- The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language by Steven Pinker (see my review here, in Dutch, though)
Of course, spelling isn't the most interesting subject to read about, especially when all of us have been confronted with it in school. Speaking of which, spelling and languages were among my favourite subjects.
As you can imagine, you must have a certain interest in language, spelling, and/or linguistics to read this nifty little reference work. There are more serious works about English, about spelling, but the purpose of this book was to keep it accessible, broadly themed and usable for a long time to come.
Crystal starts way back in time, with the Anglo-Saxon monks, when Old English was spoken and written and a proper alphabet was yet to be written down. Each chapter ends with an aspect that is the central subject for the next chapter. Or, Crystal sort of applied the same pattern as Mark Forsyth did in his The Etymologicon: A Circular Stroll through the Hidden Connections of the English Language, for example. With each chapter he advanced on the time-line, into Middle English and finally into Modern English, although he goes back and forth on certain occasions.
You'll learn about the various influences from (mostly) Latin and French, but also about how letters changed (but sounds kept), how sounds changed (but letters kept), about doubling, singling, loanwords, accents, and more.
On a side note, I'm very proud to read that even the Flemish have had an influence, however small, on the English language and vice versa, I believe, as Crystal gave some examples of Old English words that are still in use - albeit not every one 100% written in the same way - in Dutch/Flemish.
Over the course of several centuries many people of influence (writers, printers, ...) tried to dominate the English spelling by imposing their vision, their way of writing. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it failed (for various reasons). How American English came to be and distanced itself from British English, is another happening that is described. The influence of the Internet was also included, as it has already had quite an impact on how English is treated on-line.
Crystal also wrote that, while English is a difficult language for which it is hard to lay down a fixed set of rules, knowing some historical background (etymology, for instance) can help a lot in detecting a word's meaning and why it is written they way it is. Also, the "i before e, except after c"-rule is bollocks, because there are too many exceptions to that rule that you could make a rule for every x number of words that are written in a certain manner.
While it's, in itself, a heavy subject, David Crystal managed to handle a light writing style, accessible and entertaining. In addition, several chapters were enhanced with anecdotes and examples from (very) old publications.
There also 'A teaching appendix', in which Crystal wrote about how spelling is taught to children (and adults) in school, how it could or should be and how, through the different approach (e.g. a linguistic perspective on the matter, which he explains in detail), be beneficial for everyone. Especially, as he wrote, when spelling "is the bridge between reading and writing."
Long story short: If you're into languages (and especially the English one), then this little book simply must be added to your collection.
--------------------
Some related works I can recommend (from what I've read so far on languages):
- The Etymologicon: A Circular Stroll through the Hidden Connections of the English Language by Mark Forsyth (see my review here)
- The Horologicon: A Day's Jaunt Through the Lost Words of the English Language also by Mark Forsyth (see my review here)
- Is That a Fish in Your Ear? The Amazing Adventure of Translation by David Bellos (see my review here)
- The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language by Steven Pinker (see my review here, in Dutch, though)
February 16, 2018
After reading "The Story of English in 100 Words", David Crystal had enough credit to lead me to "Spell it out". For sure, he didn't waste an ounce of it.
He loves English and he lets the reader knows it. Page after page, you keep thinking "oh, so this is why we pronounce/write this word that way".
Spelling is part of English and, by knowing it, you make your English knowledge much more easier.
I'm not English native but I found a very useful tool in order to be more and more interested in this wonderful language.
He loves English and he lets the reader knows it. Page after page, you keep thinking "oh, so this is why we pronounce/write this word that way".
Spelling is part of English and, by knowing it, you make your English knowledge much more easier.
I'm not English native but I found a very useful tool in order to be more and more interested in this wonderful language.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 149 reviews