Spelling is just a map

Yesterday I was listening to a fascinating conversation about earthquakes. It touched on the technologies used to measure the movement of land. Some of the same technologies are used for cadastral mapping of municipal and property boundaries.

One technology involves taking sequences of images over time, and comparing the images to detect changes. If such technologies had been available decades and centuries ago, they would doubtless show just how much the earth has changed: such differences as rivers changing course, lakes appearing or disappeared, landslips and coastal erosion.

Just imagine a map generated in 2025 compared with one generated 100 years ago, or 1,000 years ago or 10,000 years ago. Would you rely on one of those older maps?

We have the something comparable to old maps for the English language. Our spelling was mapped over two centuries ago in Johnson’s Dictionary (1755). Has the pronunciation of words changed since then? I think it is very likely that it has changed, but it’s certain that the spelling hasn't.

Some languages (e.g. Norwegian) have changed their spelling to match contemporary speech. English has chosen to keep its old spellings. I think there are good reasons for this. Indeed, I would be opposed to any major chnges. Spelling reform in English would be extraordinarily difficult because it would require widespread agreement across diverse English-speaking communities. We would need consensus on what sounds each letter (or combination of letters) should represent. We would have to choose a “reference” pronunciation for every word — but pronounced how? Received Pronunciation? Midwestern American? Kiwi? And we’d face the question of how often to update the spelling to keep pace with change. Every few decades? Annually? The logistics alone are daunting — and the cultural politics even more so.

English spelling is at best a rough guide to pronunciation rather than an authoritative hard and fast reference.