American/British Z/S split is even worse
- Thread starter Wolfhound
- Start date
The ise/ize difference owes much to Noah Webster and his reforms, which were only partly adopted in the US. His position is summarized at http://edweb.sdsu.edu/people/DKitchen/new_655/webster_language.htm, among other places.
At most, you'd see <z> substituted for <s> only when it makes the sound /z/ - words like <iz>, <communizm>, and <pleez>, but not <zo>, <pozzible>, or <pantz>.
OK, here'z an essay that Webster rote in wich he uzes hiz modernized spellings: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s44.html. He duz not uze <z> to indicate plurals or possessivs, and this makes sens becuz plurals and possessivs can be pronounced as eether /s/ or /z/ depending on context - thus he rites <subjects> and <states>, but also <principles> and <divisions>.
On the other hand, he uzes <z> almost wherever else it wud be fonetically called for: <iz>, <az>, <hiz>. He is inconsistent with the spelling <division>/<divizion>.
IMO, the US would need to establish a centralized language authority, with Webster either at its head or with his ideas inspiring it, in order to affect such massive change to English spelling. And that would be very counter to the decentralized spirit of the American Revolution. It sounds very French, matter of fact.
Somehow, the Federalists would have to gain the upper hand in a big way and institute a national program of education. John Quincy Adams and his failed "lighthouses in the sky" program could give it a boost in the early 19th century. But you would need a PoD that changed US culture to the point where the federal government could force spelling on everybody else.
So no - not ASB, but rather unlikely nonetheless.
At most, you'd see <z> substituted for <s> only when it makes the sound /z/ - words like <iz>, <communizm>, and <pleez>, but not <zo>, <pozzible>, or <pantz>.
OK, here'z an essay that Webster rote in wich he uzes hiz modernized spellings: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s44.html. He duz not uze <z> to indicate plurals or possessivs, and this makes sens becuz plurals and possessivs can be pronounced as eether /s/ or /z/ depending on context - thus he rites <subjects> and <states>, but also <principles> and <divisions>.
On the other hand, he uzes <z> almost wherever else it wud be fonetically called for: <iz>, <az>, <hiz>. He is inconsistent with the spelling <division>/<divizion>.
IMO, the US would need to establish a centralized language authority, with Webster either at its head or with his ideas inspiring it, in order to affect such massive change to English spelling. And that would be very counter to the decentralized spirit of the American Revolution. It sounds very French, matter of fact.
Somehow, the Federalists would have to gain the upper hand in a big way and institute a national program of education. John Quincy Adams and his failed "lighthouses in the sky" program could give it a boost in the early 19th century. But you would need a PoD that changed US culture to the point where the federal government could force spelling on everybody else.
So no - not ASB, but rather unlikely nonetheless.
Thinking a little more... suppose the PoD is simply that the slavery issue came to a head earlier, and the USA split into north & south in the 1780s. Webster, a northerner, could well have gotten some kind of national education program in the North to adopt his changes.
