

Inglish Dreams

Andrew Carnegie's Seven Million Dollar Spelling Mistake and Spelling Reform in The Techno Age.

Copyright 2018 Dr. David Clyde Walters

Published by Dr. Walters at Smashwords

Smashwords e Book Edition License

The Smashwords e-book edition of Inglish Dreams has a unique license to facilitate its distribution thru-out the world. The print version of Inglish Dreams sells for $1000 USD and you are invited to purchase a hard copy of the book at lulu.com, amazon.com, and other online distributors. If you have received a copy of the e-book you can thank a friend. After reading the book, if you enjoyed it, you are invited to share a copy with as many friends as you wish. You may also give away or sell copies of the e-book at a reasonable price, by word of mouth or thru a personal or commercial website. However, please respect the work of the author, Dr. David Clyde Walters by retaining his name as the author and creator of the work.

"Where would the human society be today had it not been for the several thousands of social reformers all over the world, who since the beginning of civilization have strived to make the world a better place? Social reformers advocate reforms and play a key role in the development of society and nation building. The human society is not perfect and the social norms and conditions that are ingrained into the structure of the society are often biased against certain sections of the society. People who are distressed by the malpractices and injustices in the society and strive to bring about a change are the social reformers." Quoted from The Famous People website: https://www.thefamouspeople.com/social-reformers.php

This book is dedicated to social reformers and leaders such as Joan of Arc, Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Abraham Lincoln, William Willberforce, Viola Desmond, Sir Seretse Khama, Ruth Williams, Claudette Colvin, Rosa Parks, and Martin Luther King who tried to make the world a better place.

It is likewise dedicated to spelling reformers and change advocates such as Noah Webster, Benjamin Franklin, Melvil Dewey (decimal system), Theodore Roosevelt, John Wilkins, Alexander Ellis, Christopher Upward, Brigham Young, Mark Twain, George Bernard Shaw, Harry Lindgren, and Andrew Carnegie, the richest man in the world, who gave the equivalent of more than $7,200,000 to support the simplified spelling board and the spelling reform movement in the early Twentieth Century.

More importantly, it is dedicated to you and all readers who will take up this challenging cause and move it forward to make the world a better place for all.
Table of Contents

Background 4

The Dreams 6

The Flight 12

The Venue 21

The First Morning 27

The Conference Sessions 35

The Evening Address 54

The First Night 64

The Second Morning 89

My Closing Remarks 93

The Madrugada 111

Appendices 113

# Background

"I have a dream." On August 28, 1963 the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. gave a powerful and moving speech at the Lincoln memorial in Washington D. C. Copies of his speech can be found on the Internet and there are several videos on Youtube where you can watch the entire speech that lasts about 15 minutes. Dr. King reads most of the speech from notes, but he appears to deliver the last 5 minutes speaking directly from the heart without looking down at his notes. It is in these final 5 minutes or so that he repeats, a number of times, and in a variety of ways, the phrase, "I have a dream."

If you have never listened to the speech, I would invite you to take a few minutes and listen to Dr. King's address before you read the rest of this book. The story in this book deals with a world-wide issue of social injustice that is every bit as difficult and challenging as the civil rights movement – an issue that has yet to be resolved – an issue that will require as much energy, passion and determination as any noble cause the world has ever known.

The narrator of this story also has a dream. It is a dream that has been shared by a number of people for about a thousand years. Andrew Carnegie shared this dream and provided millions of dollars of funding in hopes of seeing it become a reality.

When I was a child, I used to dream about having lots of marbles or candy and then felt disappointed when I woke up and realized it was all just part of a dream. I even thought that maybe, if I held on very tightly to something in my dream, I might still have it in my hand, when I woke up in the morning. Unfortunately that never seemed to work.

Recently, I had another series of dreams; and like a child, I am holding on to them hoping that somehow they will come true; but of course that will depend upon you, the reader. The power to make these dreams a reality will be in your hands, after you have read this book.

# The Dreams

One ordinary summer night, I dreamed that a very rich man came to visit me. He knocked on my front door but when I opened it, no one was there. I thought it was odd and wondered if I had just been hearing things, but when I closed the door and turned around, I jumped because a man was standing inside my house, waiting for me. I didn't know if I should run or call for help; but he gave me a friendly smile and calmly offered his hand. He said he was sorry for giving me such a scare but that he had some very important things to discuss.

When I asked who he was, he said he would rather not give his name at this time, because it might cause me to disbelieve his entire message. He said I would soon learn who he was and why he had come to see me.

I found the whole thing very strange but he was such a pleasant gentleman and dressed in such an expensive suit, that I began to feel more curious than fearful; and so I asked him what he wanted to talk discuss with me. When he saw that he had somewhat gained my confidence, he asked if we could sit down. I invited him into the living room where we sat across the room from one another.

He first looked around my house as if he was interested in the architecture and décor. I later understood why, but at the time, it just made me suspicious. I wondered what he was really up to. Was he there to scope out my possessions? Then he turned directly to me and never lost eye contact as he spoke; first asking if I was an English teacher and smiling when I assured him that I was. He told me that a special language conference was being held in Canada in three months' time and that he wanted me to attend it.

Next, he pulled a new credit card from his wallet and offered it to me, explaining that I could use it to cover all expenses related to my attendance at the conference - travel, meals, accommodation, registration and any other incidentals. He even said I could use it for entertainment during the event.

Then he asked me if I would go. I thanked him and said that I would check my schedule and think about it. He paused, but never took his eyes off me, which again made me nervous. Then he said, "I don't think you understand. You must attend this conference because the things you will see and hear and especially the things you will do and say are about to change your life and the world around you forever."

That made me even more uncomfortable, but also very curious at the same time. Then I suddenly woke up.

The dream was so vivid and real that I wanted it to continue, but now I was wide awake, the dream had vanished, and the gentleman was gone. I wished that I could go back in time or fall asleep again and be more positive, more interested in the conference. Jokingly, I wished that I had at least held on tightly to that credit card before I woke up.

Later that day, while the dream was still fresh on my mind I did an Interent search for English language conferences, just for the heck of it. I found a few. They all sounded good, but the most interesting conference sounded like the one in my dream and was actually scheduled to take place in three month's time in Banff, Alberta Canada. I got the tingles and imagined hearing the theme music from _The Twilight Zone_. It was a conference on the history of writing and the progress of English spelling reform.

I had been an English teacher for quite a while but knew very little about spelling reform. And I was embarrassed to admit it, but, even though I had taught writing classes for several years, I didn't know that much about the early history of writing. I did a little more research and found the subject more interesting than I would have imagined.

The first systems of writing, as you might guess, were to record numbers rather than words, obviously for trade and accounting purposes as people bought and sold goods. Later they devised symbols to represent the sounds of spoken words. Other languages are much older than English. Ours is relatively young but linguists divide the history of the development of English writing systems into Old English, Middle English and Modern English. My students think Shakespeare wrote in Old English but that is technically not correct. The Old English period started long before Shakespeare and even he would have had difficulty reading it.

The oldest English writing we have found dates back to about 1300 years ago and was first written in runes like the ones described by J R R Tolkien in _The Hobbit_ and _The Lord of the Rings_. None of my students would be able to read Old English runes unless they learned the system from someone other than myself. Middle English, written in Roman charaters like the ones we now recognize, is only about 1000 years old, but my students would still have a very hard time reading it because it looks so different from anything we write today. Shakespeare actually wrote in Modern English, which is only about 600 years old and continues to change all the time. So, while my students are wrong when they say that Shakespeare wrote in Old English, they are absolutely right to realize that writing changes over time. It actually changes more than we think. We only assume that the English language is stable and unchanging because our personal experience with language only spans a few decades. But in fact, the writing of Englsih has always changed and it will continue to change in the future.

So, even after just a little research, the language conference on spelling reform was beginning to sound quite interesting to me. I can't say for sure if it was the visit from that stranger in my dream or a renewed interest in language, but the upcoming Canadian conference sounded intriging enough that I actually decided to register, by filling out the online form.

When I came to the checkout section of the online registration process, where it asked me to select a payment option, I chose Pay Pal, but secretly wished I had that credit card from the mysterious man in my dream.

A few minutes after I hit the submit button, I received a confirmation message from one of the conference organizers. At first, I thought it was probably just an auto-reply, but when I read the message, it seemed to be composed by a real person, just for me.

The message read:

Thank yu for registering for the language conference. We ar quite excited to meet yu and hav been waching and wating for yor personal registration. All of yor conference fees and expenses will be pade by a Carnegie legasy foundation, so yu will soon see a reverse credit appear on yor Pay Pal account. Please retain recetes for any other expenses yu may hav for a full reimbursement at the conference. We would also like to invite yu to be one of our guest speakers at the conclusion of the conference. If yu hav any questions pleze contact our offis.

Any questions? Yes, I had a lot of questions. First of all, why did the message have so many stupid spelling mistakes? Was this some kind of internet scam set up by someone living in another country, with a foreign language, offering a conference that didn't even exist?

The more I thought about the whole thing, the stranger it seemed. Why would they be so excited to meet me? How would they know anything about me in the first place? Had they really been watching for my registration or did they just say that to everyone?

Wait a minute. Did they really want me to be a concluding speaker at the conference? Why me? And come on - were they actually going to credit my pay pal account and reimburse me for all of my expenses? Yeah, right. Of course not! This was probably just some trick to get my paypal information. Had I just fallen for it?

But wait a minute. If this was a scam coming from some other part of the world, why did I dream about it before I went online? This whole thing was somehow actually connected to my dream in some crazy way, or it was an unrelated hoax to get access to my Pay Pal account. My recent dream was either a remarkable premonition or just a very weird coincidence. I starred at the contact number at the end of the text message: " _If yu hav any questions pleze contact our offis."_

I hesitated for a second, then started to dial, but hung up before anyone answered. I decided to just wait a bit and keep an eye on my Pay Pal account. I thought of my childhood dreams when I wished that I could hold on before everything vanished in the morning. I decided to just wait a few days to see what else might happen. Who knew? Maybe I would have another dream and another chance to ask that wealthy man a few questions. Or, maybe this was my dream coming true. My thoughts became confused. I really wanted to know if this conference was actually connected to my dream; but even if it was, I still couldn't figure out why these people would want me to speak at their conference.

I waited three days before I finally made the phone call. When the line connected, the person on the other end acted even more excited on the phone than they had in the text message. She told me that when they didn't get a live phonecall from me right away they began to worry that I was not going to come through. They thought that maybe I was not the person they were expecting, after all. They had been instructed, however, not to contact me, not to push, but to simply wait, allowing me enough time to think and respond at my own pace. They had been told that if I registered and showed up at the conference, everything would work out just fine; and that If I didn't show up, there was a backup plan with someone else in mind to take my place.

When I asked what they wanted me to speak about at the end of the conference, the organizer explained that I didn't need to prepare anything in advance. She told me that they just wanted me to come to the conference with an open mind. She explained that most people, especially teachers, have an initial negative reaction toward any kind of English spelling changes. It takes most people some time to get used to the idea of spelling reform. They were very interested in better understanding the reasons behind that natural hesitation. They wanted to learn what could be done to improve the presentation of spelling reform ideas so that they are more easily understood and accepted by the public. They wanted me to just relax, attend the sessions, visit with people, ask questions and then give a short talk at the end of the conference from the perspective of someone new to spelling reform.

She said I could say anything I wanted about the conference or language or spelling in general from the perspective of an English teacher who had just recently heard about the idea of spelling reform; and said that a summary of how I felt about spelling reform before and after the conference would be perfect.

That actually sounded reasonable; and when I saw that a credit had actually been applied to my pay pal account – an amount that was even more than I had paid, I decided to give this thing a fair chance.

# The Flight

Three months later, I found myself heading for the conference. As I rolled my suitcase through the airport, I still felt a little unsure but I jokingly started thinking: " _The force is with me, I am one with the force._ " At my gate, the attendant smiled, and asked if I was Andrew Carnegie. I didn't recognize that name right away, so I wasn't sure if it was a compliment or not. I must have looked a little puzzled as I told her my name and showed her my boarding pass. Then she was embarrassed for having made the mistake, explaining that there were only two names remaining of people who had not yet boarded on her list of expected passengers, and that she was just going down the list. She apologized and said the plane would depart as soon as everyone was on board.

Okay, that made some sense, but I still thought it was odd that the other final passenger's name was Carnegie. It sounded familiar for some reason. I had read the book _How to Win Friends and Influence People_ by Dale Carnegie but I couldn't place the name of, Andrew Carnegie. Then I recalled the text message I received after registering for the conference, mentioning something about that name. So, after I located seat 26B I stowed my carry-on in the overhead compartment, sat down in my seat, and I quickly Googled _Andrew Carnegie_ , before we had to power down our devices or switch to airplane mode.

I chuckled when I read that Andrew Carnegie was a self-made, American billionaire who had funded several libraries and humanitarian foundations and had built Carnegie Hall in 1890 at a cost of 1.1 million, which would be more than 24 million in US dollars today. Wow. How could anyone confuse me with someone like that? Still, it made me feel good for a moment.

Shortly after take-off, I leaned back in my seat and tried to fall asleep. I was keyed up about the conference and the talk they expected me to give at the end, so I was thinking about that as I began to drift off.

I love that feeling when one's thoughts begin to warp and ripple between the present reality and the world of dreams. At first I was thinking about the name of Carnegie and all the weird spelling in that reply to my conference registration. Then I started thinking about modern text messages such as: How r u today? Simple writing like that is easy enough to read and easier to write. That style of playful spelling is becoming quite common for texting, but is still not acceptable in formal writing communication. I thought the conference might be all about those funny little abreviations that are creeping into our language. Then my mind melted into chaos as Air Canada flight 1919 flew toward the Calgary International Airport.

Suddenly someone in the aisle tapped me on the shoulder, and said: "I'm glad yu decided to come, and thanks for taking my place."

"Oh, I am so sorry," I replied, I thought this was my seat, let me check my boarding pass."

"No, I didn't mean yor seat on the plane, I ment my place at the conference. Yu see, I won't be able to giv my final speech, as originally planned, but I can help yu prepare a speech for me."

I jumped awake and wondered if my mouth had been open and hoped that no one had heard me snore. Who was that guy? I looked beside me at a student who was just listening to his music. He seemed innocent enough and completely unaware of what had just happened to me. Then I wished I could go back to sleep and hear what that guy would have suggested for my speech. That was not going to happen, so I pulled a book from my bag and tried to read a few pages until my eyes began to crisscross again. After fighting to stay awake for a while longer, I finally surrendered, closed the book and lay my head back on the seat.

The prosecutor looked at me and asked if I was the leader of the rebellion or just another recruit. I said I didn't know what he was talking about; but he cocked his head and smiled as if he knew very well that no one in the intergalactic council would believe me. Then suddenly the scene changed and someone else was at the witness stand answering the questions that the council members had just put to me. The witness explained that this movement shouldn't even be called a rebellion because it has been going on for such a very long time.

"It was in practice at least a thousand years ago..." he said. "when a monk named Orm made some changes to the way language was recorded; and this conference was nothing more than the continuation of what Orm had started when he began writing words with Roman characters rather than using olde English runes."

He continued his argument by saying that "writing systems would continue to change forever as long as people interact with one another, on this planet or any other. So, you see, Grand Council, it's not a rebellion. It's a natural, social, historical, process. In the past it changed more locally, on individual planets; now we can instantly communicate throughout the entire galaxy in mili-seconds and changes or the suppression of changes to our writing system effect a larger group of people. So, it would actually be more accurate to say that preventing the natural evolution of communication systems in the galaxy would be a worse kind of rebellion. I would call that 'interstellar communication oppression.' But, no matter what you call it, or how you personally feel about it, something must be done. The problem is not going away even if you choose to ignore it. Eventually everyone must take one side or the other in this war of evolving words."

Again, I suddenly jerked awake and looked around. The galactic council had instantly vanished and in their place was a teen watching a sci-fi movie on his portable device, a mother trying to calm her baby, and a man across the aisle reading the Globe and Mail.

I guess I was having these strange dreams because I was still worried about what would happen at the conference. My friends and collegues had advised me not to go. They said that even if there was such a conference, it was probably some kind of underground meeting organized by weirdos trying to destroy the English language. I knew that was ridiculous. There was nothing secretive about the conference. It was advertised broadly on the internet and open to anyone; and the objective was to improve written English, not destroy it. The conference was to be held at Banff, Alberta in the beautiful Canadian Rocky Mountains; and it was designed for linguists, university professors, educational leaders, publishing firms, government officials, and anyone interested in writing – not weirdos. The only thing strange about the conference was that they wanted me to attend and also wanted me to speak. Why? I wasn't an expert of any kind. I still didn't understand why they had picked me out of all the other, more qualified attendees they could have chosen. Why were they willing to pay all my expenses and why did they care what I thought of the event? I had to admit that I was a little flattered but I was just an ordinary English teacher and I didn't feel qualified to speak at a conference like this, especially about spelling reform. To be honest, I wasn't sure I even liked the idea of spelling changes; so I didn't know what I was going to say.

But, the organizers had assured me that this was precisely why they wanted me to give the closing remarks at the conference. They said they wanted an ordinary English teacher, with no bias toward spelling reform to attend the conference, listen to the presentations, and then give some honest and open feedback.

These weird dreams were probably the result of my nervous anxiety. Because I was so worried about speaking at the event, over the past few weeks I had done a little more research to avoid sounding like a complete idiot. As an English teacher, of course I was aware of some difficulties and inconsistencies in English spelling but like most people, brought up in English schools, I had accepted these anomalies as unavoidable - just part of the language that no one seriously questions or tries to change. I didn't think English spelling was all that bad anyway, once it was learned. Like most people, I thought that the ability to spell properly was actually a sign of a well educated person, even though I still often have to ask how to spell certain words. Thank goodness for spell checkers and auto-correct. I use them all the time.

Over the years, as a teacher, I have probably given my students thousands of spelling tests and have even organized a few spelling bees. The we always admire the winners of spelling competitons; and whenever my students ask if spelling counts on an essay or exam, I always reply that 'of course it counts.' It counts on everything, both in and out of school. So, ya, I know that English spelling is difficult, but I have been taught and continue to believe that spelling is supposed to be tough or at least that's the way it is, so everyone should just accept it and get used to it. I never dreamed that people could just change it, but after doing a little research I have learned that, historically, we have changed it...many times, actually.

So in preparation for speaking at this conference, as I continued to learn, I tried to be a little more open minded and willing to take a more critical look at some of the difficulties with English spelling.

In one article I read that, Mark Twain, a master of the English Language and a respected American author, had poked fun at some of the flaws in our spelling system. In Twain's typical humorous style, he joked that,

"There's not a vowel in [the alphabet] with a definite value, and not a consonant that you can hitch anything to. Look at the "h's" distributed all around. There's "gherkin." What are you going to do with the "h" in that? What the devil's the use of "h" in gherkin, I'd like to know. It's one thing I admire the English for: they just don't mind anything about them at all.

But look at the "pneumatics" and the "pneumonias" and the rest of them. A real reform would settle them once and for all, and wind up by giving us an alphabet that we wouldn't have to spell with at all, instead of this present silly alphabet, which I fancy was invented by a drunken thief. Why, there isn't a man who doesn't have to throw out about fifteen hundred words a day when he writes his letters because he can't spell them! It's like trying to do a St. Vitus's dance with wooden legs.... If we had adequate, competent vowels, with a system of accents, giving to each vowel its own soul and value, so every shade of that vowel would be shown in its accent, there is not a word in any tongue that we could not spell accurately. That would be competent, adequate, simplified spelling.... If I ask you what b-o-w spells you can't tell me unless you know which b-o-w I mean, and it is the same with r-o-w, b-o-r-e, and the whole family of words which were born out of lawful wedlock and don't know their own origin. Now, if we had an alphabet that was adequate and competent, instead of inadequate and incompetent, things would be different. There is the whole tribe of them, "row" and "read" and "lead"--a whole family who don't know who they are. I ask you to pronounce s-o-w, and you ask me what kind of a one. If we had a sane, determinate alphabet,... you would know whether one referred to the act of a man casting the seed over the ploughed land or whether one wished to recall the lady hog and the future ham."

I found Twain's argument comical; and It allowed me to lighten up a bit and be willing to poke a little fun at the language myself.

I also found an article by George Bernard Shaw who dedicated a large portion of his will to English spelling reform. Shaw pointed out that our current English spelling system is so flawed that you can actually write the word 'fish' with the letters g-h-o-t-i. How? You might ask. Well the 'gh' in _laugh_ makes the 'f' sound. The 'o' in _women_ makes the same sound as the 'i' in _fish_ and the 'ti' in _motion_ makes the very same sound as the 'sh' in _fish_ , so you should be able to spell _fish_ with the letters f-i-s-h or with g-h-o-t-i and the letters could make the same sounds.

Of course that is silly and you could argue that those letters don't always make those sounds, but as soon as you admit that, then you must agree with Twain and Shaw, that English letters have inconsistent sounds, making things very difficult for anyone trying to learn to read or write in English.

The Irish author and poet James Joyce, regarded as one of the most influential and important writers of the 20th Century, playfully alluded to the _ghoti_ spelling problem in a line from his famous essay entitled 'Finnigan's Wake' which reads: " _Gee each owe tea eye smells fish_." And in the constructed Klingon language, 'ghoti' is actually the proper name for _fish_. Batman had to explain all of this crazy spelling nonsense to Robin in an episode entitled "An Egg Grows in Gotham" where Egghead used 'Ghoti Œuf' as the name for his caviar business, _ghoti oeuf_ meaning _fish eggs_.

Of course _ghoti_ is an extreme example of how English spelling and pronunciation do not match, but there are hundreds of other more common examples that our eyes and ears just seem to ignore without acknowleding the problem. Try to explain why _laugh_ ends in _u-g-h_ or why there is an _h_ in _rhyme_ or a _k_ in _knight_ , or a _g_ in _diaphragm_. Soon you will begin to see what Twain, Shaw, James, and many other brilliant critics of English spelling were talking about.

Because English spelling is so tricky, in my office, I keep a copy of _Websters' Spell It Right Dictionary_. It was compiled by Paul Heacock and lists the 25,000 most commonly misspelled English words. Can you imagine a language that has 25 thousand commonly misspelled words? Shakespeare only used about 12 thousand words in total in all his work; and yet there are 25,000 commonly misspelled words in the English language. Imagine that! In the introduction of this handy spelling dictionary, Mr. Heacock admits that American English is a "bizarre hodgepodge...with roots in standard English (or English English, if you will) and borrowings from French, German, Dutch, Hebrew, Arabic, Akan, Chinese, Spanish, and virtually every other language under the sun, it's a minor miracle anyone ever spells anything correctly." And so, I guess that is partly why I agreed to attend the conference and see what spelling reform was all about.

As the plane engines hummed toward Calgary, I tried to stay awake but I must have drifted off again, because the teen beside me suddenly turned into a third grader and it didn't seem strange at all that I was sitting beside him in school. The teacher asked the class to spell the word, _stuff_. "That's easy," one boy replied, "s-t-u-f-f." Then the teacher asked us to spell _puff_. "P-u-f-f," came our quick reply. Next, the teacher asked the class to spell _tough_ and of course we all spelled it t-u-f-f.

The teacher then laughed and proceeded to show us how smart she was by writing t-o-u-g-h on the board. She used this example to tell us that English is full of unphonetic words, that often don't follow normal expectations. But, I noticed a tear running down the cheek of one little boy; and the teacher told us to close our books. She said that was enough spelling for the day. Then I saw the teacher comforting the child and telling him not to get upset, reassuring him that these were just "sight words" and that he should not try to sound them out because that would only confuse him. She said, if he kept trying, he would eventually begin to recognize these words just by looking at them.

The student looked up at her and asked why sometimes she told the students to 'sound out' the words and at other times she told them not to. "How do we know when they are sight words?" He asked. "And why are there were so many different ways to spell the same sound and so many different sounds for the same letters."

The teacher just laughed and said, "Well, that's English. That's just how it is and we can't really do anything about it."

"Why not," asked the boy, looking up at his teacher.

"Well that would break the rules, and we can't break rules now can we?" She replied with a little hug around the crying boy's shoulder.

"I guess not... well, maybe we can. You told us today that some of these sight words break the rules so why do we have to keep the rules if the sight words don't even keep their own stupid rules?" he asked, wiping the tears from his eyes.

The teacher tried to think of an answer that would make sense to a 9-year-old boy. But, she knew that was impossible; so, she just told the little child not to say _stupid_ and not to think too much about it, but to just memorize each word in the English language, one word at a time.

But, I wondered who actually did make English spelling rules and why there were so many exceptions; then I laughed and repeated the words of that innocent student, "Why do we have to keep the rules if the words don't even keep their own stupid rules?"

After that, the sound of the words and the hum of the airplane engine got all mixed together and I couldn't tell if we were in school or outer-space, awake or asleep. Zzzz.

I didn't wake up again until we touched down in Alberta and I stumbled off the plane into the YYC, Calgary International airport.

An officer at Customs and Immigration asked for my passport, looked at it, and then asked if my trip to Canada was for business or pleasure. I hesitated on my answer and he looked up at me expecting to hear something. I still didn't know what to say because I wasn't making any money on the trip, other than the extra payment to my pay pal account. I wasn't being paid by my school, but it wasn't costing me anything either. I wasn't on vacation, and speaking at a conference certainly wasn't pleasure. All those thoughts flashed through my mind in an instant and I finally the words tumbled out that I was attending a conference, whereupon the officer impatiently informed me that conferences were usually considered business, and asked what the conference was about.

I could see that being vague would only make him more suspicious, so I decided I might as well just tell him everything, straight up, and let him decide when he had heard enough. I said that the conference was about changing English orthography. There would be presentations on proposed reform schemes and debates on the best timeline for implementation of orthographic changes.

He just stared at me as if that meant nothing to him, so I said: "They want to change the spelling of some English words."

He stared again for just a moment, then the light came on and he replied, "Oh, you mean like taking the _K_ out of _knife_? You're not going to change that are you? I always kinda liked that word when I was a kid."

"Well, maybe." I said, "See, I think that's what the whole conference is about. I believe that they will discuss which words could be changed, how to best change them, and how far and how fast they should go with spelling reform. Stuff like that. But that's not all, they are probably also going to talk about how the changes will affect the education system, the benefits and challenges for learners of English as a Second Language, how the changes might impact the economy and the kind of jobs and opportunities spelling reform might create.

The officer had heard enough. He handed me my passport, smiled and told me that it would be okay if they decided to take the _S_ out of _Island_ , but asked me to please have them keep the _K_ in _knife_. I smiled and said I would see what I could do.

# The Venue

It was clouding over in Calgary as we took the Airporter to the town of Banff, almost two hours away; and it started to rain as I ran into the lobby of the Banff Springs Hotel. I had planned to go for a walk in the gorgeous mountain resort, but the rain kept me in my room, where I tossed my things on the desk, fell on the bed, exhausted from the long travel, closed my eyes, and began to review the strange events that had brought me here.

Arriving at the conference location made my upcoming speech seem more like a real and present danger. I couldn't seem to stop wondering and worrying about it. I finally decided that I should just try to forget about it, be completely open minded, just take some notes on the presentations, and then give my honest impressions at the end. Still, I felt a little bit of a responsibility to be positive because they were paying all my expenses and I also believed that the outcome of this conference would largely determine whether the project would advance to the next stage, or if the whole spelling reform initiative would fizzle and die as it has so many times before.

I wanted to remain unbiased but I had to admit that, in a lot of ways, the timing for English spelling improvement seemed much better in this modern, digital age. People are already using shorter and simpler spelling in instant messaging, so it feels more like the world might actually be ready for some spelling changes to take place; at least, perhaps among the younger generation.

As I rested in my hotel room, listening to the rain outside, my mind drifted back to when I was a child. I remembered we used to say, "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me," so I wondered why we all get so upset when we see a "spelling mistake." English is so difficult to spell that it is very common to ask each other how to spell certain words – even words that we commonly use in speech. For example, just yesterday my son asked me how to spell _piece_. I spelled it out p-i-e-c-e. He thanked me and then embarrassingly said that he always gets mixed up with the "i before e, except after c" rule. No kidding – so do a lot of us. We have so many rules and so many exceptions to those rules, that we should be more tolerant of a few spelling variations.

In North America we enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of the press but there seems to be no freedom when it comes to spelling. Canadians claim freedom of expression but it doesn't seem to extend to spelling. They allow religious and sexual diversity but have very little tolerance for any form of spelling diversity.

But, I guess I have to admit that when I first heard of spelling reform, I didn't care much for the idea either. I didn't like some of the suggested spelling changes I had seen, but the more I studied and the closer I came to attending this conference, the better I had begun to feel about it. So, I decided that I would just keep listening to what people had to say and give this _nu_ spelling business a fair chance. Some of the suggested changes I have seen actually make more sense than the current spelling conventions, like _thru_ rather than _through_. Not just for children learning to write in schools but also for the millions of people learning English as a second language.

Why not write _nite_ rather than _night_? When I acknowledge that worldwide there are far more speakers of English as a Second Language than those who speak it as a first language, I realize that English doesn't really belong to native English speakers anymore anyway. It has become the international language of choice and so I guess it belongs to the whole world now. We are just lucky that English has been chosen as the preferred international language, rather than some other language that we would have to learn.

So, I guess it would be easier for me to change the spelling of a few words than it would be to learn a whole new language. I decided that perhaps I need to be a little more tolerant and understanding from a global perspective and grateful that we are talking about English rather than something much more difficult for me to learn. Insisting upon keeping confusing antiquities of the language no longer makes sense in a modern, global world.

Then just as my thoughts were getting a little fuzzy again, I heard a knock on the door of my room. I wasn't expecting anyone, so I just walked over near the door and asked who it was, without opening the door. A muffled voice outside replied, "It's Andrew, open the door." That was weird. I know anyone named Andrew but if it was that rich gentleman with a credit card and ideas for my speech, I wanted to talk to him, so I opened the door, but no one was there. I looked both ways down the empty hall. Then I slowly turned around just in case he was already standing in my room, but no one was inside either.

The disappointment woke me up. Just another dream - or was it? I looked at the door of my hotel room. Maybe someone really had knocked while I was sleeping and I thought it was part of my dream, so I got up, walked to the door and asked if anyone was there. When no one answered, I opened the door and looked both ways just to make sure. Nothing. Perfectly normal. Very weird.

I guess I had fallen asleep again, this time on top of my bed, still in my street clothes. I was obviously over tired from my busy schedule lately, and keyed up about this conference. So I changed into PJs, and washed my face to get ready for some real sleep in a real bed.

Yet, as I looked in the mirror and started to brush my teeth, I couldn't get some of the images from those crazy dreams out of my mind. What was that star wars council all about? And who was that guy that tapped my shoulder on the plane? Was it supposed to be Andrew Carnegie? Is that the same guy that visited me at home in my very first dream? Did he just now knock on my door again? And, why did he say he could help prepare my speech? Actually, that would be helpful, if I could just hang onto him a little longer in my dreams.

I was probably having these mixed up thoughts and dreams because I was over anxious from the international flight and all this language stuff. But, I was also a bit haunted by the thought that maybe my friends were right. Maybe this whole spelling reform thing was just too weird and I should not have come to the conference.

Then on the other hand, recently I had been teaching English as a Second Language and I knew very well that most of my students really did struggle with the difficulties of English spelling. We don't write as we speak and we don't speak as we write. But I was teaching my ESL students to spell the same way I had been taught and I could see how frustrating it was to them. I felt sorry for them but also felt sort of helpless, like there was nothing I could do about it. It was awkward when they asked me to explain why _bird_ , _herd_ and _word_ all have the same middle sound, but are spelled with different vowels. They also asked why _Wednesday_ includes the letter _d_ but only has two syllables. I didn't have a good explanation. I told them I was sorry and apologized that English spelling was so goofy. But, then I felt even more perplexed when they would ask me why nobody tries to fix the obvious problems with our language.

I have also been in elementary classrooms and have seen how English-speaking children also struggle with our spelling system. Maybe the people organizing the spelling reform conference needed to be supported and encouraged in their efforts to improve the language, rather than opposed for their good intentions.

As I continued to brush my teeth, all these random thoughts rattled through my brain. I wondered if spelling reform has failed in the past because people just like me were too afraid to start making even simple spelling changes, too afraid of criticism and ridicule. Perhaps we want someone to declare that spelling has been officially reformed before we dare to make any changes ourselves. Maybe we want consensus and approval before we dare take any chances. We want to see the authorized spelling variations printed in a dictionary before we begin to use them. I guess, secretly, I hoped this conference would lead to some official changes or legislation that would require everyone to make some needed spelling changes. If the changes were mandatory I could happily comply with the new rules without fear of public criticism and ridicule.

But, as I switched my tooth brush to the other side, I thought that perhaps spelling reform will only occur the other way around. Maybe, someone has to start making unauthorized changes without approval, and suffer some negative consequences to shake things up a bit. I guess that is what happened when Viola Desmond, a courageous, Canadian, businesswoman refused to move from her seat in an all-white section of the Roseland Theatre in Nova Scotia. Nine years later, Claudette Colvin and Rosa Parks broke the rules and sat in the white section of a bus; taking a bold stand against social injustice in Alabama.

Another powerful example of someone willing to break social norms in order to bring about change was that of Sir Seretse Khama, a prince of the Bamangwato people of Bechuanaland, Africa and Ruth Williams from London, England. Their star-crossed love story was portrayed in a modern movie entitled _A United Kingdom_. They fell in love and married in 1947, shortly after Viola Desmond made her protest known in Canada and eight years before the Rosa Parks incident in the United States. At the time, in England, it was socially and politically unacceptable for a colored man to marry a white woman. So, when these brave people took personal action to change entrenched social norms, it angered a lot of people. But as more and more courageous individuals began to take action in different parts of the world, little by little, it started to inspire others, like the Reverend Martin Luther King, to take up their cause and eventually the movement gained enough momentum to turn public opinion completely around.

Wow, what if those first brave individuals hadn't been courageous enough to get things started? What if they kept waiting for someone else to start the changes or for officials to say it was okay?

These examples show that social reform usually doesn't happen without a fight; and sometimes it takes some very brave people to get the ball rolling. Unfortunatly, in some cases perhaps someone might need to break the law before certain unfair laws will be changed.

So, I looked at myself in the mirror, with my tooth brush sticking out one side of my mouth, and mumbled thru the toothpaste, "Are you brave enough to do something like that? Would you dare break some spelling rules before some official declares that it's okay? Well, what about it? Do you have the courage, or are you hoping this conference will somehow bring about 'authorized' changes?"

I waited for an answer, as I looked at my own reflection in the mirror.

As I washed my face and climbed into bed, I kept thinking about it. I wondered if I had the guts to start making some of the spelling reform changes this organization was considering. Will people just think I am making stupid spelling mistakes? What if I am out there all by myself, appearing like an idiot who never learned to spell properly? What if people think I am some kind of nut, loser, weirdo, or rebel?

Rebel? Oh wow. Maybe my friends were right. Maybe that galactic council in my dream was right too. Maybe this is some kind of rebellion after all.... But then again, maybe it needs to be.

Those thoughts swirled around in my head, along with possible conference topics and what I would say at the end of this whole thing, as I starred at the ceiling in my comfortable bed. Before long though, I passed from these troubling thoughts into a deep, restful sleep.

# The First Morning

This time, however, I didn't wake up again until early the next day; and it took me a moment to realize where I was, so, I must have finally had a good, uninterrupted sleep. I rolled out of bed to prepare for the first exciting day of the conference, showered, dressed and took the elevator to the restaurant where I ordered eggs, which reminded me of a story I found, as I was doing some research on spelling reform, in preparation for this conference. It was written in Middle English from the 12th century about some merchant travelers that landed on the English shore and asked a farmer's wife for eggs. The old story goes like this:

"And specyally he axyed after eggys. And the good wyf answerde that she coulde speke no frenshe. And the marchaunt was angry for he also coulde speke no frenshe but wold haue hadde egges and she vnderstode hym not. And thenne at laste a nother sayd that he wolde haue eyren. Then the good wyf sayd that she vnderstood hym wel."

This funny story is a little difficult to read the first time thru, because spelling conventions have changed considerably since the Middle English period. However, we smile as we begin to understand the words and experience the charm of language written in an earlier time. Of course, it also helps us catch the humorous punch line of the story if we know that _eyern_ was the German word for _eggs._ As language evolves, it modernizes itself on the one hand, and on the other, leaves an important historical, linquistic record of how the language was previously spoken and written. This story of the eggs is actually written in a relatively modern version of Middle English. Older versions of Middle English, are even more difficult to read and show us just how much the language has changed over time, like this passage:

"Forrþrihht anan se time comm þatt ure Drihhtin wollde ben borenn i þiss middellærd forr all mannkinne nede he chæs himm sone kinnessmenn all swillke summ he wollde & whær he wollde borenn ben he chæs all att hiss wille."

You might think I am just making that up, but I actually found it online. It is an account of the birth of Christ recorded by Orm, a monk who had the courage and foresight to break some spelling rules. No, he wasn't trying to make English harder to read, he actually made it easier to read and more accessible to a much wider audience by having the audacity to start writing English in Roman characters rather than Olde English runes. If you can't understand the passage very well the first time through perhaps you can sympathize somewhat with the millions of people trying to learn English right now. Because Orm wrote this in Latin characters, we can at least begin to sound out the words as they may have been pronounced in his day. Transcribed into modern English and current spelling conventions, the passage would read something more like this:

"Forthwith soon the time came that our Lord would be born in this middle-earth. For all mankind's need, he chose him his kinsmen, all like as he would, and where he would born be, he chose all at his will."

Simply changing the spelling and a little punctuation helps us better understand the passage. Orm transcribed the words into the more modern roman charaters that were beginning to be used by a wider audience, which is the same goal spelling reformers have for simplifying the spelling of English today. Modern English would be easier to read by a much wider global audience with even a few changes. After Orm began using Roman characters, others started to follow. Eventually fewer and fewer people continued writing words with the Olde English runes, because the new system was being adopted by many more people. The same thing would happen now if some English spelling changes were made. Some people would continue to use the old forms of spelling but as the new forms came into wider use, the older forms would eventually fall out of favor.

I was still waiting for my eggs to arrive so I googled English runes and found an image of an Undley Bracteate medallion imprinted with runes from the fifth century. The runes read from right to left ending at the image of a she wolf suckling human children. The web site said that the runes on this disc were some early examples of written English. I marveled at how much English has changed over time.

If the truth were told, most people are probably glad that the language has evolved and prefer current versions, for several obvious reasons. As we continue to improve the spelling of English, it should become even easier to read in the future and benefit an ever wider audience. Still, as I looked at the image, I wished I knew how to read the runes, but I was also glad that the monk had the courage to break some rules and start writing in Roman characters.

However, the web site also said that the old English runes followed very standard phonetic conventions. In other words, if you could read the rune, you would also know how to pronounce the sound the rune represented, which is certainly not the case with our current spelling system. So, what went wrong? When did English start breaking phonetic rules, and why? Well, evidently, as English was adopted by more and more people, words from many foreign languages were brought in and things got a little mixed up as English embraced words from so many other languages. And with no authoritative body to govern the language, it just evolved in a somewhat haphazard manner.

I also noticed that the Google Doodle for the day honored Zhou Youguang, a Chinese writer and linguist that began the work in 1955 of transcribing Chinese characters into roman letters called Pinyin, reaffirming the notion that all world languages and writing systems are capable of change - not just English.

The server suddenly arrived with my breakfast, sat it down, and rattled me out of my daydreams. But, just as I took the first bite, I looked up and saw a distinquished man, with a white beard, walk into the restaurant with a few friends. He wore a sharp, tailor-made suit that instantly communicateded wealth and success. He had the bearing of a man who was used to making confident decisions that resulted in making a lot of money; so rather than wait for the hostess to lead him to a table, he picked out the one he wanted and headed straight for it. His companions closely followed as if drawn by a powerful magnet. My heart stopped because this gentleman looked so much like the guy who had visited me at home and later had spoken to me on the airplane. I knew it was rude to stare, but it electrified me to suddenly see him again, and especially while I was awake. Or was I?

I couldn't help but watch as he and his companions marched toward me and settled into the booth directly across from where I was sitting. They were close enough now that I could easily over-hear what they were saying; and so it wasn't long before I heard his friends call him Mr. Carnegie.

Wait a minute. This was all getting a little too weird. I had to admit that he looked like the image of Andrew Carnegie I saw in my Google search, as I boarded the plane. I also had to admit that I was sort of hoping all along that a billionaire would actually show some interest in me; but this couldn't be true. Carnegie had died in 1919 according to the web site. My earlier Google search also informed me that he was not only one of the richest men in America, but worth more in today's terms than Bill Gates, Sam Walton, and Warren Buffett all combined! So, this couldn't be him, but still, I couldn't take my eyes off him.

Maybe this was a rich descendant of the steel giant, or more likely, just a look-alike motivational speaker at some Banff Springs business convention. It had to be something like that. But, even if this was just some business publicity stunt, why would I have dreamed about him long before I even came here? It didn't make sense, but it was all so interesting that I could not stop myself from listening in on their conversation, while pretending to eat my breakfast. Soon enough I didn't need to try very hard to eaves drop, because, the more he talked, the madder and louder he got - so loud in fact that soon it was easy for pretty much everyone in the restaurant to hear what he was saying.

He looked and sounded like an old-fashioned, evangelical preacher as he pounded the table and affirmed that 'to make the world better than you found it was a noble motive in life.' He told his friends that he predicted as long ago as 1906 that English would become a universal language and believed that it could become a global, unifying force for bringing about world peace, and this had been one of his lifelong aspirations.

Then leaning forward in his chair, he looked straight into the eyes of his companions, and told them he believed that correcting some of the anomalies in English spelling was such a noble endeavor that he had given more than 7.2 million dollars toward that aim. Then he sat back and said he was glad to have done it; but was disappointed that so little was accomplished toward spelling reform in his lifetime. He was disheartened that even until now, over a hundred years later, only some of his board's 300 suggested spelling changes had been generally adopted.

I couldn't believe what I was hearing. He was actually talking about English spelling reform! I hadn't read far enough in my Google search to learn that Mr. Carnegie was not only a steak baron, but that he had also been involved in supporting the efforts of something called the _Simplified Spelling Board_ ; and I certainly never dreamed that anyone had ever put so much money into such a cause. Wow. Well, if it was true, then it was not surprising to hear that he was disappointed that only some of the board's suggested spelling changes had been accepted. I wondered how I would feel if I had committed that much money to a project.

It made me stop and think that the reformation of English spelling might be a hopeless cause after all; and that this whole conference might be a big waste of time, effort and money, unless something very different happened this time around.

Precisely as those thoughts passed through my mind, Mr. Carnegie slowly turned his head and his friendly eyes looked directly into mine. I couldn't blink. I couldn't move. My heart stopped and I got the same warm feeling I had when he looked at me in my living room – an interest in his cause and a desire to be affiliated with him or at least learn more about him and his seven-million-dollar mistake.

I quickly looked away as if I wasn't listening, but I wanted to hear more. I thought of doing another quick Google search to see if I could find the 300 spelling changes he had mentioned, but just then the attractive woman sitting next to Mr. Carnegie asked him to give a few examples.

In response, he reached out, picked up a dinner roll and said, "Well, this used to be spelled b-u-n-n. We suggested dropping silent and double letters in 1916 and no one today seems to miss the extra _n_ in _bun_ and there are a lot of other silent letters in English that we could probably do without just as easily. For example, we can now write _ax_ or _axe_ and no one really cares. _Fetus_ is another suggestion we made that was accepted. In 1906 it was spelled with an _o_ ," and he wrote _foetus_ on a napkin. "Most people today like it better without the silent _o_ but you should have seen how people resisted the change initially. Now we write _gram_ rather than _gramme_ as it used to be, and _program_ rather than _programme_. People were outraged by these suggestions at first and some still reject the change, but most people now would wonder what the fuss was all about. In the United States people now write _catalog_ rather than _catalogue_ but the British seem to prefer the older spelling. A few people still like to spell _maneuver_ the old way, which was _manoeuvre_. We also suggested changing _boulder_ to _bolder_ , and _mould_ to _mold_ , both of which are fairly common now and acceptable alternative spellings in most countries. You can write _doughnut_ or _donut_. That was not one of our suggestions but today, no one cares. You are also more likely now to get a burger at a _drive-thru_ than at a _drive-through_.

Farmers in 1906 used a horse drawn _plough_ but modern farmers today usually call it a _plow_ thanks to our suggestion. Our cousins in England and our friends here in Canada still spell _colour, flavour_ , and _honour_ with the letter _u_ , but we suggested that it was not really necessary so Webster dropped the _u_ in such words when he published his 1906 American dictionary. Most people in the US now prefer the newer form of spelling. Webster also moved the letter r to the end of the word in _centre, metre_ , and _theatre_ , but some British colonies still refuse to make the change.

In the U.S. people write _checks_ while the British still write _cheques_. So, you see, some of our suggestions have been accepted; and after the initial shock of the change subsides, people are usually happy with the change. I am just sorry that so many people stubbornly resist change when there are still so many words in English that are quite troublesome to language learners such as, though, through, bought, and laugh. These words might seem easy enough for people who have learned them in school, but they may have forgotten how long it took to learn them; and each generation of school children go thru the same unnecessary difficulty. Not to mention the grief they cause the hundreds of millions of people learning English as a Second language each year. Try explaining why we include the letter _u_ in _build_ and you might begin see how frustrated a foreigner feels when trying to learn our language."

Andrew then asked his friends at the table if they preferred _clew_ or _clue_ , then _comptroller_ or _controller_ , and finally _draught_ or _draft_ , explaining that those were all spelling changes suggested by the Board in 1906. Everyone at his table agreed that they preferred the newer versions. So, then Carnegie said he couldn't understand why people today have accepted some of the board's proposed changes but not others, such as the suggestion to change _rhubarb_ to _rubarb_ , _scissors_ to _sissors_ , or _hemorrhage_ to _hemorage_. "Why not?" he said. They make as much sense as the other accepted changes, and they are easier to spell and pronounce for both native and non-native English speakers alike."

When I looked at those words as he spelled them out on his napkin and I wrote them on mine, I had to agree. Simplifying made them look better and the suggested changes made more sense. The current spellings suddenly looked a little old-fashioned and I began to understand why he might be upset that he had spent more than seven million dollars to improve the world with a few logical spelling changes, only to find that people were unwilling to make even such simple modifications.

As I continued writing on my napkin, Andrew pounded the table again and said, "Did you know that _eon_ used to be spelled _aeon_ , _era_ was spelled _aera_ , and _jail_ was spelled _geol_ , for goodness sake? Well, they were! And thank heaven some people were brave enough to make those changes. Now millions of people benefit from these simple improvements; and if people today would have just a little more of that same tolereant attitude, in a few years people at home and abroad would thank them for changing a few more."

Carnegie's last statement gave me a little more encouragement to try experimenting with some spelling changes. It felt weird at first to make spelling mistakes on purpose, but I had to remind myself that they were not spelling errors, but more like spelling corrections.

As Carnegie mentioned one or two more spelling changes that have already taken place, I quickly jotted them down. He said that _fantasy_ was spelled _phantasy_ in 1906. That caused me to wonder: if we have accepted the replacement of _ph_ with _f_ in that word, why not also change _photo_ to _foto_? Sure it looks a little strange at first, but only because we have learned to recognize the _ph_ sound in words like _photography_ and _pharmacy_ just as Chinese children learn to recognize un-phonetic Chinese symbols. The letter f would make more sense and I bet we would get used to it in a very short time.

Carnegie continued, "The word _phenomenon_ was spelled _phaenomenon_ in 1906 and we are now used to seeing it without the letter _a_ so, we could probably also get used to seeing it spelled _fenomenon_ with the letter _f_ rather than the _ph_. We could probably also drop some unnecessary double letters just as we did in words like _wagon_ which was spelled with double _gg's_ as _waggon_ in 1906.

Few people realize how natural it is for spelling to evolve. Many believe, just because they learned to spell a certain way in school that we have always spelled words that very same way, but that is simply not true. _Debt_ was originally spelled _d-e-t_. But someone added the letter _b_ to make the word appear more like Latin than French. The word _guitar_ was originally spelled _ghittar_ by Dutch printers and the letter _h_ was later removed. So, because spelling has changed so much in the past, there is really no good reason why it cannot continue to change, as we progress into the future."

I had been eating my breakfast slowly so I could keep listening to this fascinating conversation at the other table. I wanted to hear as much as possible but eventually they finished their meal and got up to leave. So, I quickly took a few more bites, then set my fork down, and tried to catch up to them on the way out of the restaurant. But, I lost track of them at the cash counter, where I was told that my tab had already been paid. Surprised, I asked who had paid my bill and was told that a gentleman with a white beard had just taken care of it for me. What? Why would he do that?

# The Conference Sessions

As I headed back to the lobby I was still puzzling over why he had paid for my breakfast. Was it that obvious that I had been listening to his conversation? And, why just me? Plenty of other people had also heard everything he was saying. Did he pay for their breakfast too?

When I got back to the front desk of the hotel, I was told that my conference fee and hotel room account had also just been paid. When I asked by whom, I was told that the staff at the front desk had been informed that all my expenses were being covered by one of Andrew Carnegie's legacy foundations and the attendant smiled at me, as if she thought I must be some very important person.

I was dumbfounded, but I smiled. This was getting more and more crazy by the minute. I composed myself and asked where the registration table and conference meeting rooms were located.

The clerk graciously pointed me doen the hall, where I was given a special registration packet and was informed that the format of the convention would be somewhat different than traditional conferences. I received a name tag, program and the usual swag but was informed that all of the sessions would be held in rooms set up with individual monitors where attendees would sit with headphones at their own private stations and could chose to watch various sessions from a menu of topics and presenters.

Each session was available, on demand, something like a TED talk or YouTube video. If you lost interest in a session, you could easily choose another from the menu, or if you really liked a certain presentation, you could pause and replay points of particular interest at any time. Obviously, the sessions had been pre-recorded by the presenters and most of them were of better quality than if they had been regular face-to-face conference presentions. I thought it was a brilliant, innovative, conference format, and wondered why more conferences were not organized in this new, more efficient way.

Between sessions attendees could still mingle over a coffee or juice and a bun, (or b-u-n-n) chit-chat, network, and recommend sessions they found especially interesting or effective. No one had to worry about missing a particular session that a friend found interesting because they could catch it again later in the day. Sessions of special interest could be reviewed or shared on social media after the conference. Delegates who were not able to travel to the physical location of the conference and mingle with the other attendees, could still participate in some of the conference offerings by registering solely for the online sessions.

I kept looking around and asking about Andrew Carnegie who I learned was scheduled to give a short speech at the close of each conference day. Tonight he would speak briefly at the wine and cheese social. I thought it was strange that I never saw him in any of the presentation rooms during the day, but then, I guess it was stranger still for him to be at the conference in the first place. Maybe he wasn't really there. Maybe I was getting fantasy and reality mixed up in my mind. But someone had paid for my meal and accomodations. That seemed real enough.

I soon discovered that this conference was not just attended by supporters of spelling reform. Yes, it is true that some of the sessions promoted spelling reform, but many of the sessions were just regular English language sessions that you might find at any conference dealing with words.

I listened to several presentations, and some of them can still be found online. The first session I attended was on the history of spelling reform; and it was pretty much what anyone can find on-line. I learned that Modern English spelling developed from about 1350 onwards, when, after three centuries of Norman French rule, English gradually became the official language of England again, although very different from before 1066 having incorporated many words of French origin such as battle, beef, and button. Early writers of this new English, such as Geoffrey Chaucer, gave it a fairly consistent spelling system, but this was soon diluted by the Chancery clerks, who re-spelled words based on French orthography. English spelling consistency was dealt a further blow when William Caxton brought the printing press to London in 1476. Having lived on the continent for the preceding 30 years, his grasp of the English spelling system had become uncertain. The Belgian assistants he brought with him to help set up and operate his printing business had an even poorer command of written English.

As printing developed, printers began to adopt individual preferences which they termed "house styles." Furthermore, typesetters were paid by the line and were fond of making words longer whenever possible. However, the biggest change in English spelling consistency occurred between 1525, when William Tyndale first translated the New Testament, and 1539, when King Henry VIII legalized the printing of English bibles in England. Most editions of these bibles were printed outside England by people who spoke little or no English. They often changed spellings to match their Dutch orthography. Examples include the silent _h_ in _ghost_ to match the Dutch word _gheest_. The Dutch later dropped the letter _h_ in their own language and spelled it _geest_ but the English kept the silent _h_ in _ghost_ and words like, _aghast_ , _ghastly_ and _gherkin_ but dropped it from other words, such as _ghospel_ , _ghossip_ and _ghizzard_.

In another presentation Tom Scott argued that the evolution of English is okay. His session had already been viewed over 300,000 times when I watched it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9Q1cM7_ai4

Dictionary editor, Anne Curzan gave a very interesting TED talk on the topic of what makes a word real. Her talk had been viewed more than 1.7 million times before I saw it. In her summary comments she indicated that there is no authoritative dictionary that decides what is considered a true word and what is not. Rather, she explained that people and their common usage of words decide what is real, and that dictionaries just do their best to keep up with ever changing language usage.

 https://www.ted.com/talks/anne_curzan_what_makes_a_word_real#t-1012520

she didn't say so, but I assumed from listening to her talk that users of the language might also decide the true spelling of a word and that dictionaries will continually monitor how people are currently spelling words and will try to keep up with those changes also, as the language naturally evolves.

I also watched a funny satire clip by the British comedian, Michael McIntyre, on how Americans have changed some British words to make them more understandable. It added some humor to the notion of English language reform. That clip already had more than 2 million views and if you need a little laugh, you can still watch it on Youtube:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wSw3IWRJa0>

I paused in my session viewing for lunch then watched several more in the afternoon. The format was so open, interesting, and flexible that a person could watch every session available if they wanted to; unlike traditional conferences where attendees must choose between concurrent offerings. And, without a firm schedule of presenters, an attendee could stay up all night watching sessions if they chose to do so. I really liked the pre-recorded, digital format.

One session in the afternoon proposed keeping the current spelling rules. I appreciated that both sides of the argument were being presented at this conference so, I watched it too. The presenter cautioned that changing spelling rules would make things very confusing for learners. She did an excellent job of presenting the current rules of English Spelling. However, even for me, a native English speaker, with a doctoral degree in Education, the 31 rules were so complicated that I didn't see how an international student or a 10 year-old child would be able to comprehend and keep all of them in mind when spelling words. The 31 rules can be found on one of the best English language learning sites on the Internet. See if you can easily understand them.

<https://www.logicofenglish.com/>

Rule 1 | C always softens to /s/ when followed by E, I, or Y.   
Otherwise, C says /k/.

---|---

Rule 2 | G may soften to /j/ only when followed by E, I, or Y. Otherwise, G says /g/.

Rule 3 | English words do not end in I, U, V, or J.

Rule 4 | A E O U usually say their names at the end of a syllable.

Rule 5 | I and Y may say /ĭ/ or /ī/ at the end of a syllable.

Rule 6 | When a one-syllable word ends in a single vowel Y, it says /ī/.

Rule 7 | Y says /ē/ only at the end of a multisyllable base word. I says /ē/ at the end of a syllable that is followed by a vowel and at the end of foreign words.

Rule 8 | I and O may say /ī/ and /ō/ when followed by two consonants.

Rule 9 | AY usually spells the sound /ā/ at the end of a base word.

Rule 10 | When a word ends with the phonogram A, it says /ä/. A may also say /ä/ after a W or before an L.

Rule 11 | Q always needs a U; therefore, U is not a vowel here.

Rule 12 | Silent Final E Rules

12.1 | The vowel says its name because of the E.

12.2 | English words do not end in V or U.

12.3 | The C says /s/ and the G says /j/ because of the E.

12.4 | Every syllable must have a written vowel.

12.5 | Add an E to keep singular words that end in the letter S from looking plural.

12.6 | Add an E to make the word look bigger.

12.7 | TH says its voiced sound /TH/ because of the E.

12.8 | Add an E to clarify meaning.

12.9 | Unseen reason.

Rule 13 | Drop the silent final E when adding a vowel suffix only if it is allowed by other spelling rules.

Rule 14 | Double the last consonant when adding a vowel suffix to words ending in one vowel followed by one consonant only if the syllable before the suffix is accented.*  
*This is always true for one-syllable words.

Rule 15 | Single vowel Y changes to I when adding any ending, unless the ending begins with I.

Rule 16 | Two I's cannot be next to one another in English words.

Rule 17 | TI, CI, and SI are used only at the beginning of any syllable after the first one.

Rule 18 | SH spells /sh/ at the beginning of a base word and at the end of the syllable. SH never spells /sh/ at the beginning of any syllable after the first one, except for the ending -ship.

Rule 19 | To make a verb past tense, add the ending -ED unless it is an irregular verb.

Rule 20 | -ED, past tense ending, forms another syllable when the base word ends in /d/ or /t/.   
Otherwise, -ED says /d/ or /t/.

Rule 21 | To make a noun plural, add the ending -S, unless the word hisses or changes; then add -ES.   
Occasional nouns have no change or an irregular spelling.

Rule 22 | To make a verb 3rd person singular, add the ending -S, unless the word hisses or changes; then add -ES. Only four verbs are irregular.

Rule 23 | Al- is a prefix written with one L when preceding another syllable.

Rule 24 | -Ful is a suffix written with one L when added to another syllable.

Rule 25 | DGE is used only after a single vowel which says its short (first) sound.

Rule 26 | CK is used only after a single vowel which says its short (first) sound.

Rule 27 | TCH is used only after a single vowel which does not say its name.

Rule 28 | AUGH, EIGH, IGH, OUGH. Phonograms ending in GH are used only at the end of a base word or before the letter T. The GH is either silent or pronounced /f/.

Rule 29 | Z, never S, spells /z/ at the beginning of a base word.

Rule 30 | We often double F, L, and S after a single vowel at the end of a base word. Occasionally other letters also are doubled.

Rule 31 | Schwa Rules

31.1 | Any vowel may say one of the schwa sounds, /ŭ/ or /ĭ/, in an unstressed syllable or unstressed word.

31.2 | O may also say /ŭ/ in a stressed syllable next to W, TH, M, N, or V.

31.3 | AR and OR may say their schwa sound, /er/, in an unstressed syllable.

In another session, the presenter read a poem by Charivarius that highlights so many English spelling inconsistencies that it just about drove me crazy. I thought the poem's composition was brilliant, but the spelling anomolies got me so frustrated with the confusing condition of current, English that I finally had to close the presentation and go to another. But it certainly made me sympathetic toward anyone trying to learn to spell in English. The poem is very clever. Readers who have grown up in English schools may fly through the poem with little difficulty, but ask a young reader or someone learning English as a second language to read the lines and you will see them struggle with spelling problems that we often overlook. Words that should rhyme, don't and words that should not rhyme do! I hope you enjoy the poem more than I did.

THE CHAOS

by Charivarius (Gerard Nolst Trenité)

Dearest creature in Creation,

Studying English pronunciation,

I will teach you in my verse

Sounds like corpse, corps, horse, and worse.

I will keep you, Susy, busy,

Make your head with heat grow dizzy;

Tear in eye, your dress you'll tear;

So shall I!

Oh, hear my prayer.

Pray, console your loving poet,

Make my coat look new, dear, sew it!

Just compare heart, beard, and heard,

Dies and diet, lord and word.

Sword and sward, retain and Britain

(Mind the latter, how it's written!)

Made has not the sound of bade,

Say-said, pay-paid, laid, but plaid.

Now I surely will not plague you

With such words as vague and ague,

But be careful how you speak,

Say break, steak, but bleak and streak.

Previous, precious, fuchsia, via;

Pipe, snipe, recipe and choir,

Cloven, oven; how and low;

Script, receipt; shoe, poem, toe.

Hear me say, devoid of trickery:

Daughter, laughter and Terpsichore,

Typhoid; measles, topsails, aisles;

Exiles, similes, reviles;

Wholly, holly; signal, signing;

Thames; examining, combining;

Scholar, vicar, and cigar,

Solar, mica, war, and far.

From "desire": desirable--admirable from "admire";

Lumber, plumber, bier, but brier;

Chatham, brougham; renown but known,

Knowledge; done, but gone and tone,

One, anemone; Balmoral;

Kitchen, lichen; laundry, laurel;

Gertrude, German; wind and mind;

Scene, Melpomene, mankind;

Tortoise, turquoise, chamois-leather,

Reading, Reading, heathen, heather.

This phonetic labyrinth

Gives moss, gross, brook, brooch, ninth, plinth.

Billet does not end like ballet;

Bouquet, wallet, mallet, chalet;

Blood and flood are not like food,

Nor is mould like should and would.

Banquet is not nearly parquet,

Which is said to rhyme with "darky."

Viscous, viscount; load and broad;

Toward, to forward, to reward,

And your pronunciation's OK.

Rounded, wounded; grieve and sieve;

Friend and fiend; alive and live.

Liberty, library; heave and heaven;

Rachel, ache, moustache, eleven,

We say hallowed, but allowed;

People, leopard; towed, but vowed.

Mark the difference, moreover,

Between mover, plover, Dover,

Leeches, breeches; wise, precise;

Chalice but police and lice.

Camel, constable, unstable;

Principle, disciple; label;

Petal, penal, and canal;

Wait, surmise, plait, promise; pal.

Suit, suite, ruin; circuit, conduit

Rhyme with "shirk it" and "beyond it."

But it is not hard to tell

Why it's pall, mall, but Pall Mall.

Muscle, muscular; gaol, iron;

Timber, climber; bullion, lion,

Worm and storm; chaise, chaos, chair;

Senator, spectator, mayor.

Ivy, privy, famous; clamour

And enamour rime with "hammer."

Pussy, hussy, and possess,

Desert, but desert, address.

Golf, wolf, countenance, lieutenants

Hoist in lieu of flags left pennants.

Courier, courtier, tomb, bomb, comb,

Cow, but Cowper, some, and home.

"Solder, soldier! Blood is thicker,"

Quoth he, "than liqueur or liquor,"

Making, it is sad but true,

In bravado, much ado.

Stranger does not rhyme with anger,

Neither does devour with clangour.

Pilot, pivot, gaunt, but aunt,

Font, front, wont, want, grand, and grant.

Arsenic, specific, scenic,

Relic, rhetoric, hygienic.

Gooseberry, goose, and close, but close,

Paradise, rise, rose, and dose.

Say inveigh, neigh, but inveigle,

Make the latter rhyme with eagle.

Mind! Meandering but mean,

Valentine and magazine.

And I bet you, dear, a penny,

You say mani-(fold) like many,

Which is wrong. Say rapier, pier,

Tier (one who ties), but tier.

Arch, archangel; pray, does erring

Rhyme with herring or with stirring?

Prison, bison, treasure trove,

Treason, hover, cover, cove,

Perseverance, severance. Ribald

Rhymes (but piebald doesn't) with nibbled.

Phaeton, paean, gnat, ghat, gnaw,

Lien, psychic, shone, bone, pshaw.

Don't be down, my own, but rough it,

And distinguish buffet, buffet;

Brood, stood, roof, rook, school, wool, boon,

Worcester, Boleyn, to impugn.

Say in sounds correct and sterling

Hearse, hear, hearken, year and yearling.

Evil, devil, mezzotint,

Mind the Z! (A gentle hint.)

Now you need not pay attention

To such sounds as I don't mention,

Sounds like pores, pause, pours and paws,

Rhyming with the pronoun yours;

Nor are proper names included,

Though I often heard, as you did,

Funny rhymes to unicorn,

Yes, you know them, Vaughan and Strachan.

No, my maiden, coy and comely,

I don't want to speak of Cholmondeley.

No. Yet Froude compared with proud

Is no better than McLeod.

But mind trivial and vial,

Tripod, menial, denial,

Troll and trolley, realm and ream,

Schedule, mischief, schism, and scheme.

Argil, gill, Argyll, gill. Surely

May be made to rhyme with Raleigh,

But you're not supposed to say

Piquet rhymes with sobriquet.

Had this invalid invalid

Worthless documents? How pallid,

How uncouth he, couchant, looked,

When for Portsmouth I had booked!

Zeus, Thebes, Thales, Aphrodite,

Paramour, enamoured, flighty,

Episodes, antipodes,

Acquiesce, and obsequies.

Please don't monkey with the geyser,

Don't peel 'taters with my razor,

Rather say in accents pure:

Nature, stature and mature.

Pious, impious, limb, climb, glumly,

Worsted, worsted, crumbly, dumbly,

Conquer, conquest, vase, phase, fan,

Wan, sedan and artisan.

The TH will surely trouble you

More than R, CH or W.

Say then these phonetic gems:

Thomas, thyme, Theresa, Thames.

Thompson, Chatham, Waltham, Streatham,

There are more but I forget 'em-

Wait! I've got it: Anthony,

Lighten your anxiety.

The archaic word albeit

Does not rhyme with eight-you see it;

With and forthwith, one has voice,

One has not, you make your choice.

Shoes, goes, does. Now first say: finger;

Then say: singer, ginger, linger.

Real, zeal, mauve, gauze and gauge,

Marriage, foliage, mirage, age,

Hero, heron, query, very,

Parry, tarry fury, bury,

Dost, lost, post, and doth, cloth, loth,

Job, Job, blossom, bosom, oath.

Faugh, oppugnant, keen oppugners,

Bowing, bowing, banjo-tuners

Holm you know, but noes, canoes,

Puisne, truism, use, to use?

Though the difference seems little,

We say actual, but victual,

Seat, sweat, chaste, caste, Leigh, eight, height,

Put, nut, granite, and unite.

Reefer does not rhyme with deafer,

Feoffer does, and zephyr, heifer.

Dull, bull, Geoffrey, George, ate, late,

Hint, pint, senate, but sedate.

Gaelic, Arabic, pacific,

Science, conscience, scientific;

Tour, but our, dour, succour, four,

Gas, alas, and Arkansas.

Say manoeuvre, yacht and vomit,

Next omit, which differs from it

Bona fide, alibi

Gyrate, dowry and awry.

Sea, idea, guinea, area,

Psalm, Maria, but malaria.

Youth, south, southern, cleanse and clean,

Doctrine, turpentine, marine.

Compare alien with Italian,

Dandelion with battalion,

Rally with ally; yea, ye,

Eye, I, ay, aye, whey, key, quay!

Say aver, but ever, fever,

Neither, leisure, skein, receiver.

Never guess--it is not safe,

We say calves, valves, half, but Ralf.

Starry, granary, canary,

Crevice, but device, and eyrie,

Face, but preface, then grimace,

Phlegm, phlegmatic, ass, glass, bass.

Bass, large, target, gin, give, verging,

Ought, oust, joust, and scour, but scourging;

Ear, but earn; and ere and tear

Do not rhyme with here but heir.

Mind the O of off and often

Which may be pronounced as orphan,

With the sound of saw and sauce;

Also soft, lost, cloth and cross.

Pudding, puddle, putting. Putting?

Yes: at golf it rhymes with shutting.

Respite, spite, consent, resent.

Liable, but Parliament.

Seven is right, but so is even,

Hyphen, roughen, nephew, Stephen,

Monkey, donkey, clerk and jerk,

Asp, grasp, wasp, demesne, cork, work.

A of valour, vapid vapour,

S of news (compare newspaper),

G of gibbet, gibbon, gist,

I of antichrist and grist,

Differ like diverse and divers,

Rivers, strivers, shivers, fivers.

Once, but nonce, toll, doll, but roll,

Polish, Polish, poll and poll.

Pronunciation--think of Psyche!-

Is a paling, stout and spiky.

Won't it make you lose your wits

Writing groats and saying 'grits'?

It's a dark abyss or tunnel

Strewn with stones like rowlock, gunwale,

Islington, and Isle of Wight,

Housewife, verdict and indict.

Don't you think so, reader, rather,

Saying lather, bather, father?

Finally, which rhymes with enough,

Though, through, bough, cough, hough,sough, tough?

Hiccough has the sound of 'cup' . . .

My advice is: give it up!

"The Chaos" by Dr. Gerard Nolst Trenité first appeared in an appendix to his textbook Drop Your Foreign Accent, published in 1920.

Those friends that advised me not to attend this conference said that changing English spelling would just confuse people. After reading Dr. Trenité's poem, I don't see how English spelling could get much more confusing than it already is!

Another session reviewed a Readers Digest article by Claire Nowak which can be found at: (<https://www.rd.com/culture/mrs-spelling/>) The article explained why we have the letter _r_ in the abbreviation _Mrs._ when there is no _r_ in the full word _Missus_. It also informed me that the abbreviation _Mr._ is short for _Master_ and that a _mister_ is actually the master of a trade rather than the master of a house. I came out of that session more confused than when I went in but learned something I didn't know I didn't know.

Yet another Readers Digest article by Brandon Specktor, sub-titled "Demons are Real And They Write Spelling Tests" presented a list of 25 English words and asked the audience to indicate which were spelled right and which were wrong. You can read the entire article at:

(<https://www.rd.com/culture/spelling-test-1974-will-drive-insane/>)

The list inlcuded the following troublesome words:

<https://www.rd.com/culture/spelling-test-1974-will-drive-insane/>

The above tricky list was compiled by Dr. William Kottmeyer, who sold more than 225 million copies of books to help elementary school children learn to spell. Evidently there is a lot of money to be made in teaching the difficulties of English spelling. If you are interested, you can find this list and more information about Dr. Kottmeyer in the Readers Digest article at the URL shown under the image above.

Illustratie: Matthijs Sluiter; foto: Michael Lionstar

In another session by Kory Stamper at: <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/okay> the associate editor of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, gave a short presentation on the history or etymology of the most common word in the entire world: _okay_. She explained that the most accepted original source of the word comes from the abbreviation o.k. of the words _oll korrect_ that first appeared in print in 1839. Kory Stamper also tried to clarify the ambiguous use of the terms biweekly and bimonthly; and Emily Brewster, another associate editor at Merriam-Webster tackled the very confusing spellings for the verb forms of lay and lie. I would recommend the video to clip to everyone who tries to speak and spell correctly:

(https://www.merriam-webster.com/video/lay-vs-lie)

Peter Sokolowski, photo: The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com

Finally, editor-at-large, Peter Sokolowski, also of Merriam-Webster, then explained the influence of French in our use of words relating to animals and the associated food.

 https://www.merriam-webster.com/video/words-from-the-norman-invasion He explained that _Ox_ and _cow_ are English words but _beef_ comes from the French, _boeuf_. _Pig_ is from old English but _pork_ is from the French, _porc_. _Sheep_ is English but _mutton_ is from the French _mouton_. _Deer_ is English but _venison_ is from the French _venaison_ , and _calf_ is English but _veal_ is from the French, _veau_. So, we see that barnyard animals retained their English origins but French cuisine after the Norman Conquest in 1066 influenced what we set on the table. And not surprisingly, even the word _table_ is French.

# The Evening Address

The more sessions I watched, the more interested I became and the more convinced that something really should be done about modern English spelling, but I still felt a little timid and wasn't sure where to personally begin. So, I just kept watching presentations right up until the wine and cheese social that evening when everyone gathered into a lecture hall to mingle, network, and chat, but especially to hear what the mysterious, guest billionaire would have to say about spelling reform.

The din of small talk quickly ceased when Andrew Carnegie walked into the room and stood near the front. Rumors had been circulating all day that he was at the conference and would give a speech at the wine and cheese event, but no one had seen him since breakfast. It was as if he had disappeared.

But now, there he was; and he needed very little introduction because everyone had been whispering and gossiping about him so much throughout the day. Of course, attendees had also been doing plenty of Google searches to learn more about this interesting man, his life, and his work. What no one could figure out, was how he could still be alive.

I was glad I was not the person asked to introduce him but a more confident facilitator took the mic, welcomed the crowd, and began to introduce our unique guest, explaining that Mr. Carnegie was born in 1835 to working class parents in Scotland. When he was 13, his family immigrated to the United States where he got his first job in a textile mill earning $1.20 a week. His next job was tending a steam engine with a raise amounting to $2 a week. Andrew was intelligent and dependable, so he worked his way up through various jobs, and by the 1860s he had saved enough to start investing in railroads, rail sleeping cars, bridges, and oil derricks. He reinvested his earnings and eventually created the Carnegie Steel Company in Pittsburgh. After amassing huge profits in steel, he later sold the company to J.P. Morgan in 1901 for $480 million. That would be a stunning 12 Billion in today's dollars. And what did he do with all that money? Well, in the last 18 years of his life he gave 90% of his entire accumulated wealth to charities to enhance learning and projects to bring about world peace. One of the causes he gave money to called the "Simplified Spelling Board" which published the _Handbook of Simplified Spelling_ , written using reformed spelling throughout the document. Mr. Carnegie passed away in the summer of 1919 and, unfortunately, without his financial support, the spelling board dissolved in 1920, the same year it published the _Handbook of Simplified Spelling_.

With that introduction, the facilitator added a few more words of appreciation to Mr. Carnegie for attending the conference and invited the audience to welcome him to the microphone with their applause.

As Mr. Carnegie made his way to the lecturn, I wondered why the facilitator had failed to explain how someone who supposedly died in 1919 was able to suddenly appear here at our conference. I expected to hear that this was a look-a-like, a historian, or a Las Vegas entertainer, but nothing like that was said. So, I waited anxiously for the celebrated guest to begin, and wondered if the explanation would come as part of his speech. Like everyone else in the room, I sat motionless, curious to hear what he would say.

His speech went something like this: "Ladies and Gentlemen, thank yu for inviting me. Beleve me when I tell yu I am very glad to be here with yu today." Everyone laughed as they caught his meaming - glad to be alive, I guessed. Then he continued, "My notes are all ritten in simplified spelling, so I hope yu don't find them too difficult to understand." Everyone laughed again.

"Everyone likes to tell my rags-to-riches story, and I must admit that I actually like to hear it myself. It is such an incredible story that if it had not happened to me I mite not beleve it myself. But, I think people also like to tell the story becuz it supports the idea that in America anyone can accomplish anything, as long as they ar willing to work hard and never give up. Well, I did work hard; I stuck to it, even when things were tuff, and I made an awful lot of money, but as successful as I was financially, in some ways I feel like I failed.

In what ways? Yu mite ask. Well, I failed to accomplish something that I thot was very important. I was only able to make modest improvements to English spelling. That's rite, even with all my wealth and the foundations I established, I lerned that I could not acheve these goals with money alone. I discovered that change only takes place when individual people, just like yu and I, are willing to make a few simple changes. It doesn't matter if yu are rich or poor, blak or wite. What matters is that yu are willing to think of others as much or more than yourself; and that is my message for yu today. Think of children lerning to write in English scools and of adults all around the world struggling to lern English as a Second Language.

Many people are too selfish to think about these children or our foren frends. I have witnessed for more than a century that English speakers, even those who struggled with spelling in scool, for some inexplicable reason, still resist changes to English spelling, and I am really not sure why. Yu mite not like the way I am spelling now becauz it looks different than what you lerned in scool. However, speakers of other languages, who try to read and write the current form of English, find it even more confusing. And, your own children get frustrated with all the inconsistencies in our unreasonable spelling sistem. For some strange reason, nativ English speakers tend to forget that even they struggled with the ritten language when they first encountered it and often, they still hav trouble spelling certain words, even tho they hav been speaking thos words all ther life.

I guess people love their language even when it misbehaves, just like a mother luvs a wayward child. But, we all no that wen a child misbehaves in society, even tho we luv the child very much, it is not rite to let the child's bad behavior continue unchecked. Something really shoud be dun. It is not fair to the community or the child to let them run wild.

The same is true of our language. We luv it, but sometimes it misbehaves, it brakes rules, and sometimes it duz foolish, unreasonable things. It cauzes trouble for a lot of people, and that's not really fair. In today's global world, wher so many people ar willing to lern our language, the poor behavior of our spelling sistem is no longer globally acceptable. The truth is that our dear language needs a little luving correction. For the good of our future scool children and our international frends, we need to correct some of the unnecessary problems that our language cauzes. And, with only a little effort, I beleve we can.

Most people were told and hav come to beleve that spelling is always rite or rong. Year after year in scool, children ar given weekly spelling tests wher they try to spell al the words rite. The goal is to get 100 percent on these tests. We even hav spelling bees wher one misplaced or mising letter humiliates, and eliminates a child from the competition. The process continues until only one child remains and is declared the one and only winner. Everyone admires the winner's ability to spell so many difficult English words.

These rituals, performed decade after decade, hav drilled into our minds the cultural belefe that spelling conventions ar set in stone and one of the main indicators of intelligence in a wel-educated person. These routines hav been so effective in convincing us that spelling cannot be altered, that in everyday life we ar terrified that we might mis-spell a word and suffer the shame that accompanies such an unforgivable mistake.

It seems strange to me that we would preserve a spelling sistem that is so difficult that it can be turned into a challenging competition. Evidently, a language with predictable spelling patterns and rules would be too easy and spelling competitions would be rather pointless. What an odd thing: to perpetuate an educational practice wher ther ar so many losers and only one winner.

I guess I am fortunate that I am so rich. I can spell words the way they sound and few people dare to openly criticize a billionaire's spelling." Everyone laughed again.

"But most people ar either shocked, sceptical, defensive, or outraged when they ar told that spelling can be changed. Don't get me rong. I am not suggesting that people should spell any way they like. I am not advocating that spelling should be casual or messy. If anything I would argue that English spelling is very messy now and that with even a few changes it could be considerably more tidy and precise.

We could also look at English spelling more like the way we view fashion. Can you imagine society forcing us to wear the same old style of clothing for hundreds of years? Most people would find that too stuffy and ridiculous to tolerate. The standard spelling that we see today in scools is really just old fashioned spelling. And just like any other fashion it could be changed if we think it is getting a little dated or out of style. We shoud be as free to disregard a certain fashion of spelling as we ar to wear a certain hat. We shoud be able to wear a soft shirt or one that has been starched. We shoud be able to put on a pair of comfortable foot-gear or shoes with pointed toes. In spelling as with any other fashion we shoud be able to adopt what we see as sensible, convenient, and appropriate for the occasion without fear of unreasonable ridicule.

At breakfast this morning I was telling some people that I had predicted that English would become a worldwide language and I thot it could be a unifying force to move us closer to world peace. Happily, now in the twenty first century we can see that I was at least partly rite. English has become a global language and I beleve it has had a positive effect in bringing us closer together. I am glad I was rite about that much, but I also beleve that some of the old-fashioned features of the English language hav actually held back the progress of world peace; and I beleve that could still be changed in our more modern and progressive world.

Over 100 years ago we made some reasonable suggestions for modernizing the English language to make it more 'user-friendly' as yu now say. I am saddened that only some of the simplifications we suggested in 1916 hav been implemented. Don't get offended or misunderstand, I am very pleased that some of our recommendations hav been adopted, but I beleve that with the cooperation of a few more people we could do even more to simplify the language we luv. And I also beleve that this could be a great help to our nabors thruout the world who, rite now, ar trying to lern our language.

You don't need to contribute millions of dollars, like it did, to make this happen. No, not even one dime. And, anyone can do it. In fact, if yu ar clever, yu can probably think of a few ways to actually make money from the guaranteed, certain evolution of written English. Yu don't need to adopt all of the spelling changes that I am using now. Yu can decide for yourself wich ones yu beleve ar most reasonable, then all yu need to do is start using one or two of them in yor everyday communications. Chooz the easiest ones first, or begin with some old word that is seldom used anyway. If some of yor frends prefer the old spellings or the old style, don't argue with them. No one shoud force them to use the new style. But if you start to use even one of these new spelling suggestions, yu will be playing a role in the modernization of the English writing sistem. It is really quite simple. It only takes a little effort on yor part, it's kind of fun, and it could benefit hundreds of millions of people at home and abrod. People yu no and people yu will never no.

Thru the natural process of crowd sourcing in our modern, technological world, good and useful spelling changes will begin to catch on, while other variations may not. No one can stop yu from experimenting with various spelling options and yor example mite lead the way for millions of others to adopt a better spelling alternative.

Let me tell you a little story that mite help make my point. I was talking to one of my little grand-dauters and I asked her how to spell _stuff_. She proudly replied it s-t-u-f-f. Then I asked her how to spell _puff_ and she just as confidently replied p-u-f-f. Then I asked her how to spell _tough_."

Wow, déjà vu. Those were the same words I had heard in my dream on the airplane coming to the conference. Was I still dreaming? Was Carnegie and this conference, the eggs, the knock on my door, everything, just one long, weird dream, or was it all real? Carnegie was standing right there in front of me, still talking, so I couldn't be dreaming this time – could I?

"What was I supposed to do?" Carnegie continued. "Break my little grand-dauter's heart, make her feel like a spelling loser and confuse her yung mind with a ridiculus spelling correction that would make no sense and cauze her to question her ability to spell most everything else in the future? Of course not! Nonsense! If she wants to spell _tough_ t-u-f-f, then that's how she shoud spell it. If older people want to keep spelling it the old way, let them. But if younger peeple want to make some reasonable changes to modern spelling style, then they should be allowed to do so.

Most of the ideas I hav been sharing with yu here, tonite come from the _Handbook of Simplified Spelling_ which we published in 1920. I would like to read a little from that publication rite now if yu don't mind. I realize that some of the vocabulary mite sound a bit outdated now, which only serves to demonstate how language style naturally changes over time. The world is quite a different place than it was 100 years ago when we rote the handbook. But many of the ideas expressed in this little publication make even more sense now in the information age."

Carnegie opened a little document, adjusted his glasses and began to read:

"Spelling was invented by man and, like other human inventions, is capable of development and improvement by man in the direction of simplicity, economy, and efficiency. Its true function is to represent as accurately as possible by means of simbols (letters) the sounds of the spoken, living language, and thus incidentally to record its history. Its province is not, as is often mistakenly supposed, to indicate the derivations of words from sources that ar inaccessible except to the learned, or to perpetuate the etimologic gesses of the partly learned.

English spelling, owing to the conditions that governd the growth of the English language, now presents many anomalies. The same letter, or combination of letters, often represents many different sounds; while the same sound is often represented by many different letters, or combinations of letters.

The combination o-u-g-h, for example, represents at least 9 different sounds in the words cough, rough, tough, though, through, plough, hough, thorough, thought, bought, fought and hiccough; and the sound of e in let is represented in at least 12 other ways in the words aesthetic, bury, head, friend, heifer, foreign, Leicester, leopard, many, oecumenical, said, and says.

There ar at least 20 different ways of representing the sound of sh, as in ship, sure, issue, mansion, schist, pshaw, conscience, conscientious, moustache, nauseous, suspicion, partial, partiality, mission, ocean, oceanic, machine, fashion, and fuchsia. There ar at least 24 ways of representing the sound of a, as in fate a, aye, gay, arraign, straight, weigh, vane, vain, vein, obey, allegro, reign, champagne, gauge, demesne, gaol, Gael, dahlia, halfpenny, Maine, matinee, ballet, eh, yea and so on.

Many words contain, in writing and printing, letters that ar not sounded at all in speech, as b in lamb and debt; c in scissors; e in are, have, heart, and lived; g in diaphragm; h in ghost, school, and rhyme; u in build, honour, mould; etc.

Our spelling has become so irrational that we ar never sure how to spell a new word when we hear it, or how to pronounce a new word when we read it. Indeed, the present tendency in the scools is to disregard the fonetic basis of English spelling, and to treat the written and printed words as ideografs like Chinese, the pupils being tot to recognize a word by its appearance as a whole, rather than by a futil attempt to analize the supposed sounds of the letters composing it. Vast amounts of mony and incalculable years hav been spent in efforts, never wholly successful, to teach children to memorize the intricate and unreasonable combinations of letters that conventionally represent the spoken words of the English tung; a feat that, more than any other accomplishment, is unreasonably assumed to stamp them as 'educated.'"

At this point Mr. Carnegie looked up and glanced around the room. He saw that most of this audience already agreed with what he was saying and needed no more convincing. And, he could see that if he continued reading the entire booklet, he might even lose some of this audience, so he acknowledged that it was getting late and he closed the handbook. But, he concluded by telling us that the handbook already identifies most of the difficulties within our spelling system and offers many suggestions for simplifying it. He assured us that we need not focus too much of our effort on repeating that research effort but indicated that we should, instead, focus our energies on a strategy that would convince influential people to start using simplified spelling. He suggested that if sport and cinema celebrities began using simplified spelling, thousands of fans would immediately follow their example. He further predicted that if people with large social media followings would begin to use even a few simplified words, their followers would soon do likewise. He said that we just need some daring innovators to show the way and millions will almost immediately begin to follow.

As he spoke, I felt something tingle through my body. It seemed to be a combination of fear and daring at the same time, if that's possible. I don't believe I have ever felt something quite like it before. I think it was an urge to actually start using some simplified words right away, but I was still a little fearful, and certainly didn't want to change too many words all at once. But, I decided at that moment I would continue to experiment with a few more spelling changes to see wich ones I liked and which wonz I didn't.

Carnegie concluded his speech by thanking us for coming to the conference and for any contribution we thot we could make to the cause. Then he closed his remarks by telling us something we didn't expect. He said that he would not be attending the second day of the conference because he and some good friends had decided to climb Temple Mountain near the conference, the highest peak in the area. They planned to place a cairn on the summit. He said they had informed the local press of their planned climb in order to draw some media attention to the spelling reform objectives of the conference.

Carnegie then explained that Banff, Alberta sits at an elevation of 4,537 feet above sea level. They would place a cairn at this conference and do the same at each of the following conferences in the series. The next language conference would be held in Denver, Colorado, also known as "The Mile High City," at 5280 feet. From there, conventions would be held in other cities each one a little higher than the last, in Bolivia, Argentina, India, and China, with the final meeting to be held in La Rinconada, Peru, with the reputation of being the highest city in the world, located at an elevation of 16,700 feet. That's almost as high as the Everest base camp, so high in fact that participants coming to the city to attend the final conference, would need to acclimatise or risk suffering from edema.

Why go higher and higher for these meetings, and why place a cairn at each of the locations? Carnegie explained that the reason was to suggest, symbolically, that the conferences were reaching out to an ever larger global audience and that the spelling reform ideas presented at each location would flow down from the conferences to people in the surrounding areas eventually reaching everyone in the entire world.

I liked the idea of spreading the word as far and wide as possible; and Carnegie further stressed that these conferences were hoping to appeal to authors, editors, publishers, business people, artists, radio and television hosts, bloggers, celebrities, teachers, students, entrepreneurs, travellers, backpackers, virtually anyone that would recognize this as a worthy cause - something worth fighting for. Thousands? No. Millions of people would be needed - millions willing to lead the way by adopting new spelling conventions that better match English pronunciation. And because most people are followers rather than leaders, the conferences will hopefully attract many brave and intelligent people who are not afraid to lead out.

As Carnegie concluded his remarks he directed our attention to his hiking companions who were standing near the back of the room, all geared up with backpacks, tents, ground pads, sleeping bags and everything they would need for the night and the climb to the summit in the morning. Symbolically, they were well equipped, not just for the weekend climb but for the months and years of spelling reform challenges that lay ahead. As I looked at them I felt a kind of excitement, a desire to be a part of the adventure. Then I realized that I could be part of it. I wouldn't need to climb the mountain with them that night to be part of the adventure. But, I could still join them in the challenge of changing the way billions of people currently spell. Again, I made a mental commitment in my mind to play some part in this interesting and challenging adventure.

Still, I thot it was a little strange for them to leave so late at nite. Surely, they would not make it far enuf up the mountain to justify leaving in the dark rather than getting a comfortable sleep and opting for an early alpine start in the morning. However, it was already strange enuf that Andrew Carnegie would be at the conference in the first place, so I didn't really question their motive or methods; and even tho I didn't feel quite ready, I could also set out that nite to try some nu spelling options.

When Carnegie finished his speech, I wanted to shake his hand and see if he would recognize me from our previous encounters in my dreams or from our brief eye contact at the restaurant that morning, but so many people were crowded around him, asking questions and getting him to sign copies of the handbook, that I finally gave up and resolved that I would try to meet up with him some other time.

# The First Night

As I returned to my room, I thot a little more about some possible simplified spelling changes I might try. I was not sure where to begin or exactly how to proceed. I also thot about Carnegie and the other climbers who would be somewhere out on the mountain as I was crawling into my comfortable bed. I felt good about starting to use a few simplified spellings. It even seemed somewhat exciting to sound out English words and to experiment with spelling options that mite come closer to how the words are actually pronounced. Sort of like doing something a little rebellious but not bad enuf to get into any real trouble. I rolled it over and over in my mind. There would be no ticket, no fine, no jail term, no problem; unless of course yu hav to pleeze a fussy teacher or impress a boss or employer. But, in those cases yu could always revert back to the style your picky teacher, employer or particular audience prefers.

Tradition and custom have always dictated the way we spell. But traditions can change and probably should – especially if they are faulty. I also liked the idea of doing something that would please Andrew Carnegie and possibly help him feel like all that money he spent on spelling reform was not completely wasted. Maybe I was getting a little carried away. Maybe I wuz trying to change too meny wurds too fast, but with thoz harmless, rebel thots running thru my mind, I drifted off into a peaceful sleep.

As I slumbered, I began to dream that I was floating in the air high above the ground. Below I could see hills and valleys, green fields and forest fountains. Then suddenly, on a rocky ridge I spotted some brightly colored material that contrasted sharply with the natural surroundings. Like a pigeon, I was able to drop down for a closer look. As I approached the scene, I realized that I was looking at the campsite of the mountain climbers that departed from the conference the night before, but in my altered dream time, it was clearly the next morning, because the sun was high and everything below was easily visible. I was excited to see the campers and felt like I wanted to join them, so I dropped down even further and zoomed in as if landing at their campsite. But, my excitement quickly turned from joy to a state of puzzled confusion. It looked as if the entire camp had been covered with water from some kind of bazzar flash flood. Their gear was scattered about and washed up against trees and bushes. The tent was completely flattened and still. It was so heavy and still dripping with moisture that I could make out the forms of the people who were lying motionless under the tent material that clung to them like plastic wrap.

The dream became a nightmare as I knelt down beside the flattened tent and could see the faces of each person pressed against the fabric with their eyes and mouths wide open, seeing and breathing nothing. It was so horrifying that the shocking scene woke me up and I was relieved to find that it was just a terrible dream.

It took me a while to fall asleep again as I lay there thinking about the images of those poor hikers gropping for the air they couldn't find. They had obviously suffocated when their tent was soaked with water and became a hundred times heavier than normal, making it impossible to escape. Anyone who has laid a wet cloth over their face knows that when water soaked the fabric of the tent, it would have been too heavy to lift and impossible to suck air thru the tent wall. That kind of clastrofobic drowning, on a remote mountainside, in the dark, was about as creepy a death as I could imagine. Even tho I nu it was just a dream, it took a while before I was able to drift off to sleep again, as I lay comfortably in my warm, dry bed.

There is no way of noing just how long after that dream I had slept when I herd someone pounding on my door. I woke up and looked at the door. "Oh no, not this again, I thot, unsure if it was real or just another dream. When the nock came again it was so loud and ernest, that I thot it must be real, but I had not forgotten what happened last nite, and I wazn't anxious to look foolish again. Still, something compelled me to get out of bed and try it one more time. Because of that creepy dream, however, I was more than a little spooked, so I looked around for some kind of wepon. All I could find was a shoo. So, I picked it up, leened my hed near the door and asked who wuz ther.

"It's me, Carnegie" was the reply. "And yu can get rid of that stupid shoo. I am not here to harm yu."

I wuzn't shure now wut tu du. Of course, I dropped the shoo and asked him wut he wanted. He sed we needed to talk and asked me to please open the door. It wuz very strange, but when a billionare asks yu tu du sumthing it's kind of hard not tu comply. So, even tho I waz standing in my PJ's, and I wuzn't sure if enyone would really be ther or not, I turned the handel. As soon as I cracked the door an inch Carnegie shuved it all the way open, neerly crushing me behind it. He brushed the wall with a wet hand serching for the swich, and wen the lite flashed on he grabbed me by the collar of my Pajamas, starred strate into my eyes and said,

"Yu ar changing too many words too fast. People don't like it when they ar hit with a flash flood of change. It's just way too heavy for them to handle all at once! That's the seven million dollar mistake we made back in the early nineteen hundred's. We tried to change too much too fast. George Bernard Shaw made a similar mistake with his improved alphabet. It was well thot out, logical, and a beautiful sistem, but it was too overwhelming and required too much new lerning. Twain also suggested starting over with a whole new alphabet, but he was only joking, as he often did. Brigham Young and Benjamin Franklin also created excellent new alphabets for the 40+ sounds of the English language, but the public always has a very hard time accepting such radical changes overnite. Beleve me; I found out the hard way."

Then he let go of my collar, brushed it apologetically and broke down, sobbing. Not like a child, but as you would imagine a very wealthy man mite do, who had just lost everything. His clothing was soaked with rain and soiled by dirt and leaves, as if he had walked a long way, thru the woods, unprotected in a rainstorm. As odd as it mite seem to receive such a strange visitor in the middle of the nite, especially when he had grabbed me like he did, his weathered condition and broken spirit generated no fear, but only sympathy. He hadn't meant to hurt anyone; quite the opposite; he had only been trying to make the world a little better.

Soon his sobs turned to shivering from the cold, and I suddenly felt delinquent for not realizing sooner that he needed some dry clothing. I quickly handed him a towel and offered to find some dry things in my suit case. He wiped his face and hands with the towel but declined my offer of clothing. He said there was no time and too much he needed to tell me.

Then he grabbed me again and said, "If yu had been there at our campsite tonite you would know what I mean."

The shirt grabbing was uncomfortable and unnecessary, so I asked him to please please let go, sit down and tell me what happened. He, stopped for a moment, apologized, sat on a chair, and began to explain the situation.

"Becaus it has been raining for the past several days, we set up camp early last nite in a little gulley beside a stream. In the middle of the nite I herd something in the forest hi above our camp. A low rumbling sound like rocks rolling down a hill. As I lay in my sleeping bag listening, the sound grew louder. I looked around at my companions who I could just barely see by the moonlite penetrating the tent. All of them were sound asleep and seemed completely unaware of the growing rumble outside the tent. Finally, I decided to crawl out and hav a look around. Just as I emerged from the tent, a wall of water came crashing down the valley and hit our tent from behind. All the rainfall this week must have weakened the shoreline of a mountain lake hi above us and burst the banks sending a flash flood ov water rushing over everything. It was terrible. I was washed away from the tent, downstream and into a stand ov trees. Our tent moved too but not nearly so far. Everyone inside was asleep when the wall of water hit; and the wate of ther bodies must hav kept it fairly pinned to the ground as the water rushed over it. Luckily the wave of water subsided almost as quickly as it came, so that I was able to make my way back to the tent just moments after the wave passed. But when I got there it was terrible. They were all trapped inside. There was still some water everywhere and the tent was partly submerged. I could see my friends inside struggling to move, but their sleeping bags were completey wet and soggy, and the tent material was so heavy upon them that it would hardly move. I could see them fighting for air and so I tried to lift it off their faces to form a pocket of air, but the fabric clung to them like a suction cup, and the material stuck to their faces like duct tape. I tried to rip into it with my bare hands but it was impossible to start even a tiny tear. I patted my pockets for a nife. I didn't have one, so I looked around for something sharp - anything that would cut even a tiny hole in the material wher ther mouths wer gaping for air, but I couldn't find anything. It was dark and everything was wet, heavy, and dull. I looked around in a panic for someone to help me, anyone, but there was no one that could help.

Within moments, all their fitful struggling and desperate gasping for air stopped and they all lay motionless. I screamed in the darkness but my cries only echoed thru the dark forest and then I burst into tears.

I lay there, with my face on the wet tent, crying for another half minute then I clawed at the tent with my fingers like a mad animal, but nothing could penetrate that membrane. Finally, I jumped up and ran down the mountain, back into town and found my way to your door."

I never interrupted his terrible story, even tho I had already seen most of it in my recent nitemare. I just sat silently staring at this poor broken man who had built a billion-dollar steel company, the Carnegie Hall for the performance of the worlds most beautiful music, and countless libraries and foundations to benefit his fellowman, devastated becaus he couldn't tear a tiny hole in the fabric of a camping tent, to save his frends.

After a long pause he spoke. "It is too late for us now. We were all dead anyway. But yu ar alive. Living in a new, modern world, where yu could finish the work we started. Just don't try to change too much too fast. It's too heavy. Just make some tiny spelling reform holes at first and be satisfied with the little breathing room they mite create. Take a look at the work done by the Australian linguist, Harry Lindgren in the 1970's. I think he understood what I am trying to say. His spelling reform SR1 is an excellent example of how simple changes to the current sistem could be very successful, but most people today hav never even herd of his work."

I sat motionless on my bed as Carnegie stared out the window toward the mountain. I broke the silence by suggesting that we shoud call someone. He turned to me and sed, "It doesn't matter. We were all dead before the conference even started; and the whole climbing thing was just symbolic anyway. I didn't understand, but I responded by confessing that I had seen it all in a dream just moments before he pounded on my door and asked him what it all meant.

He didn't act surprised at all that I had seen the campsite tradgedy in my dream, but simply sed, "The dream can hav several different interpretations for different people. For me, it represents my efforts and the efforts of other spelling reformers. We tried our best to correct some of the mistakes that hav occured as English has developed and evolved thru the centuries. Languages naturally become corrupted over time and we just tried to fix some of the errors in the English language, to make it better for our children and easier for our international frends, but no one was ther to help us when we needed help the most. That's why I feel like my efforts were nothing more than a seven million dollar spelling mistake.

Whenever others hav tried to reform English spelling, a big wave of opposition hits. When that happens, someone needs to make some tiny holes in the heavy canvas of prejudice and tradition or the well intentioned effort struggles for a while, then it dies. When I called out for help, no one seemed to hear or surely someone would hav helped." He paused for a moment, then sed, "Maybe yu herd my cries. Maybe yu can help. Maybe yu can make a few holes in the heavy fabric of opposition to the current spelling reform initiative this conference is trying to advance. But because yu also saw the disaster in your own dream, perhaps yu need to figure out yor own interpretation."

Then he smiled and said that he would leek the news of the disaster to the same media people he had asked to cover the climb in the first palce, indicating that perhaps we mite get even better media coverage now that people had been killed in such a dramatic way.

He thot again for a moment then sed, "Becauz of this disaster, I will not be able to speak at the conference tomorrow nite, as planned, but yu wil still be giving yor closing remarks at the conference. Maybe yu can inspire someone to help us. I am not sure if spelling reform can be saved or not. After what I saw last night I don't have much hope, but maybe if you can convince even a few people to modify the spelling of one or two of the most troublesome words in our ritten language, yu mite be able to open a tiny hole in the tuff fabric of opposition to spelling reform.

A hundred years ago, when we formed the Simplified Spelling Board, we could see that changing English spelling was a Herculian task. We thot that the only way to accomplish such an undertaking was to rally the most powerful and influential people we could find."

He pulled a wet copy of the handbook from his coat and pointed to several pages of names of very high profile people that had joined the spelling reform efforts of the previous century. Then he said, "A more useless body of men never came into association, judging from the effects they produced. Instead of taking just twelve words and urging their adoption, they undertook radical changes from the start that they were never able to make."

The look on Carnegie's face and the way he made that statement, gave me the distinct impression that he had also said that same thing about a hundred years ago. Then he went on, "Today the world is very different. With modern technology, the difficult task of braking old spelling conventions that hav become virtually written in stone can be accomplished by anyone with a computer or smartphone. Ordinary people anywhere on the face of the Earth can now send text messages using any spelling style they want, without fear of retaliation or censorship. Finally, people who have been forced to follow ridiculous spelling rules just because someone in scool sed so, can now begin to brake the old patterns ov antiquated writing and start something nu and better."

Carnegie then showed me the names of many influential people that had joined the spelling reform movement in his day befor the advent of modern communication technology. I quickly skimmed over the list of historical figures that Carnegie showed me in the hotel room that nite. It was an impressive list of names of real people hoo were committed to spelling reform in the early 1900's. The list can be found in the _Handbook of Simplified Spelling_ published in 1920 showing government officials, linguists, scolars, university professors, teachers, librarians, authors and influential business people from the United States, England, and Australia. Including but not limited to the following individuals:

E. Benjamin Andrews, chancellor of the University of Nebraska; O. C. Blackmer, fonetician and publisher at Oak Park; David J. Brewer, justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; himself, Andrew Carnegie, businessman; Samuel L. Clemens better known as "Mark Twain"; Melvil Dewey author and library economist known for the Dewey Decimal System stil in use in libraries even in the digital age. Isaak K. Funk, editor and publisher of the Standard Funk and Wagnall's Dictionary; Lyman J. Gage, former Secretary of the Tresury; Richard Watson Gilder, editor of The Century Magazine; William T. Harris, U. S. Commissioner of Education; George Hempl, professor of English in the University of Michigan, and professor of Germanic filology in Stanford University; Thomas Wentworth Higginson, author;

Henry Holt, publisher, editor, and author; William James, professor of filosofy in Harvard University; David Starr Jordan, president and chancellor of Stanford University; Thomas R. Lounsbury, professor of English in Yale University; Francis A. March, professor of English in Lafayette College; Brander Matthews, professor of dramatic literature in Columbia University; William W. Morrow, judge of the U. S. Circuit Court; Charles P. G. Scott, etimological editor of the Century Dictionary; Homer H. Seerley, president of Iowa State Teachers College; Benjamin E. Smith, editor of the Century Dictionary; Charles E. Sprague, financier and author; Calvin Thomas, professor of Germanic languages and literatures in Columbia University; E. O. Vaile, formerly editor of the Educational Weekly in Chicago; William Hayes Ward, editor of The Independent.

Elected to the board twelv months later were: William Archer, author and critic of London, England; Henry Bradley, associate editor of the Oxford English Dictionary, formerly president of the Philological Society; Frederick J. Furnivall, founder and director of the Early English Text Society, etc., formerly editor of the Philological Society's Dictionary, which is now the Oxford English Dictionary; Alexander H. Mackay, superintendent of education in Nova Scotia; William F. MacLean, Member of Parliament and editor of the Toronto Ontario World; William H. Maxwell, city superintendent of scools, New York; James A. H. Murray, editor of the Oxford English Dictionary, formerly president of the Philological Society; Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States; Walter William Skeat, professor of Anglo-Saxon in Cambridge University and author of the Etymological Dictionary, formerly president of the Philological Society; Andrew D. White, former president of Cornell University; Joseph Wright, professor of comparativ filology in Oxford University and editor of the English Dialect Dictionary.

Elected to fil the vacancies thereafter occurring were: Henry M. Belden, professor of English in the University of Missouri; Elmer E. Brown, chancellor of New York University; Richard E. Burton, professor of English literature in the University of Minnesota; Nathaniel Butler, professor of Education in the University of Chicago; George W. Cable, author and sociologist; Hermann Collitz, professor of Germanic filology in Johns Hopkins University; George O. Curme, professor of Germanic filology in Northwestern University; Charles Henry Davis, consulting engineer; Gano Dunn, president of the J. G. White Engineering Corporation; Oliver F. Emerson, professor of English in Western Reserve University; David Felmley, president of Illinois State Normal University; Irving Fisher, professor of political economy in Yale University; William Trufant Foster, president of Reed College; Hamlin Garland, author; Charles H. Grandgent, professor of Romance languages in Harvard University; Emil G. Hirshch, professor of Rabbinical Literature in the University of Chicago, and editor of the Reform Advocate; Hamilton Holt, editor of The Independent; Edwin M. Hopkins, professor of English language in the University of Kansas; H. Stanley Jevons, lecturer in economics and political sience in the University College of South Wales and Monmouthshire and later professor of economics in the University of Allahabad, India; William Williams Keen, surgeon and sientist, Philadelphia; John R. Kirk, president of the First District Normal Scool, Missouri; Fred J. Miller, formerly general manager of factories, the Remington Typewriter Company, and Major in Ordnance Department of the U. S. Army; Henry Gallup Paine, secretary of the Simplified Spelling Board; Edward O. Sisson, president of the University of Montana; David M. Sloan, principal of the Provincial Normal College, Nova Scotia ; Robert Stout, Chief Justice of New Zealand; John S. Pl Tatlock, professor of English filology in Stanford University; Frank W. Taussig, professor of political economy in Harvard University and chairman of the United States Tarif Commission; John Cresson Trautwine, Jr., engineer, Philadelphia; Thomas G. Tucker, professor of classical filology in the University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Edward J. Wheeler, editor of Current Opinion. Other supporters of reformed spelling were Walter Skeat, F.J. Furnivall, James Murray, Gilbert Murray, Walters Ripman, Baden-Powell, and Sir George Hunter of Messrs Swan Hunter."

When I finished reading the list, Carnegie just stared at me and said, "This long and impressive list was just the members of the board. It did not include the many hundreds of other important people that supported the movement. Nor did it include members of the _Simplified Spelling Leag_ , which continued the work after the board disbanded in 1920. _The English Spelling Society_ was organized in 1908 and fortunately it still operates quietly from headquarters in London England. You shoud join it, or the sister organization, _The American Literacy Council_ , in the United States."

Carnegie took off his wet coat and hung it over the back of a chair. I again realized that I had been inconsiderate of his mountain ordeal and asked if he wanted to take a warm shower. He looked at me strangely and then declined. He said there was a little more he needed to discuss before morning came, when he would have to leave. Then he went on.

"The problem is that many intelligent people are afraid to make perfectly sensible spelling changes for fear of ridicule. Curent spelling norms are so intrenched in English society that to make a spelling "mistake," even tho ther actually is no such thing, is one of the worst sins an educated person can commit. People hav been convincd so strongly that ther is only one proper way to spell a word that spell checking has become an essential part of digital operating sistems.

Others are somewhat willing to make spelling changes but only if some authority (which also doesn't exist) officially pronounces that such changes have been authorized. So, the only way that English spelling improvement will ever come about is when a few brave people start to cut some tiny 'holes' in the heavy fabric of English spelling traditions and the opposition to spelling reform."

He stared off into space as if he were looking back into time, then slowly turned back to me and continued, "Maybe trying to improve spelling wasn't such a mistake but maybe my timing was just off by about a hundred years. I got into the steel business just when America was starting to build railroads, bridges, oil dericks and sky-scrapers. Even tho we could see the need to improve spelling at the time, the information and communication technology to complete the job had not been invented yet. Perhaps my mistake was trying to start the spelling revolution in the industrial age rather than in the Information age. Maybe I was just a little ahead of my time. But, the communication tools yu hav at yor finger-tips today could change everything. I recognized the opportunites of the steel age and capitalized on them. I hope yu are smart enuf to recognize the opportunities of the Information Age for spelling reform. The time for change has arrived and maybe now my seven million dollar spelling mistake can finally be corrected.

And maybe the seven million wasn't a complete waste either. I feel good about the ground work we did with the spelling board. With the expertise of some of the foremost linguistic experts of our time, we were able to carefully catalog many of the inconsistencies, redundancies and idiosyncrasies of the English spelling system, and suggested well formulated rules for the modification of the sistem and offered 300 logical examples of spelling improvements. Yu will find them all rite here in the _Handbook_. You don't need to re-invent the English improvement wheel, We hav already done most of that work for yu. We also addressed every imaginable objection to spelling reform with intelligent arguments for the needed reformations."

I quickly made a mental note, thinking that I might be able to mention some of this in my closing comments at the end of the conference.

Then he slowly turned around and said, "We used scholars in language and education to lay the foundation of a better spelling sistem but now yu need to find ordinary people to bring it to life. Just a few tiny openings mite be all yu'll need to get the revolution started. If celebrities and high profile media personalities will embrace it, that would be fantastic, but if they don't, then perhaps a few courageous people from the general publick with the desire to make a positive change in the world mite be enuf to start tipping the scales."

From that moment on he didn't need to say much more. I had his _Handbook of Simplified Spelling_ in my possession and I had a better idea of what I mite say in my closing remarks the next day. I could sense that this mite be our last meeting. I wanted to spend more time with Andrew but also realized that I was lucky to have met him in the first place.

He picked up his coat and moved toward the door. I wanted him to stay. He almost turned the handle, but then he seemed to sense my apprehension, my fear of failure, my sense of being left alone in a battle that was too big for me to win. Before he opened the door, he turned and asked if I had read _The Hobbit_ and _The Lord of the Rings_ and of course I said I had. He then told me that Bilbo, Frodo, and his companions all felt like the mission Gandalf sent them on was too big for them to tackle. But they gathered up their courage and headed out anyway, not sure from day to day how far they would get. He said my task was very similar to theirs except that I mite be able to enlist an army of support on social media; many more than the little band the hobbits were able to gather in Middle-Earth. He said he would continue to try to help as best he could, just as Gandolf had tried from time to time to help the group from the shire but that most of the work had to be done by those who would eventually join along the way.

I told him I liked that analogy and asked if he couldn't stay and say a few more encouraging words before he left. Carnegie seemed to understand my need for a little more guidance and further encouragement. He paused in the doorway and saidd he knew it was the middle of the nite and that I needed to get some sleep if I was going to be any good at the conference the next day, but that if I really wanted to talk, he had much more to share.

It's true, I was worried about sleep too and my speech the next day, but I thot that the more time I could spend talking to Carnegie, the better prepared I would be to speak. I also didn't think I would be able to sleep very well anyway after such a strange, midnite visit; So I begged him to stay a little longer if he could.

He took a seat again and asked if I knew anything about the American Revolution. I said I thot I knew a bit about it, but asked what it had to do with spelling reform.

He replied, "Well, think of it as an analogy rather than factual history. When the early revolutionaries in America declared independence from England, the mother country didn't like it. That is similar to someone today declaring independence from traditional spelling. Conservative people are usually slow to embrace change. Teachers for example mite say, 'That's not right' or 'Look it up in the dictionary.' University professors my not accept papers unless they are written in old English style. Well, that is pretty much the same reaction the mother country had when the Americans declared independence. Did she just let the new world go without a fight? No, she sent thousands of brightly colored troops over to remind the rebels of the rules. But the revolutionaries already nu the rules; they nu how things were 'supposed' to be according to the king. That was the problem. They didn't want to follow the old rules of taxation without representation and submission to absent authority that didn't understand local needs, so they rebelled and stuck by their guns.

What followed was a bloody battle between the authorities and the subjects. The powerful British soldiers thot they would make quick work of the young American ruffians, but they miscalculated how the revolutionaries would fite. Everyone who studies history knos that the British troops lined up in neat orderly rows and fired in unison at the rebels. This kind of battle formation was in keeping with old rules and traditions of engagement. But the rebels didn't keep those rules either. They wer scattered all over the place, dressed in clothing that blended in with the surroundings, hidden under bushes and behind trees. Breaking those military 'rules' must have been very frustrating to the orderly troops.

To reform English spelling is going to be a big fite too, and fairly similar to the American Revolution. It won't be easy. To win, yu may need to take an approach similar to that of the revolutionaries: take a few shots at traditional spelling hidden safely away from the direct line of fire, fiting back from a relatively safe position.

When we organized the Simplified Spelling Board we made the mistake of lining up scolars and trying to change spelling in a formal traditional way, as expected. Imagine what may have happened if the American revolutionaries had lined up across from the British troops in the same kind of military fashion. They would have probably lost the war if they had tried to fite back in that mannar; and that is also probably why our spelling reform efforts failed in 1919. We probably went about it the rong way.

Oh sure, we thot we were making some headway. The President of the United States even joined the spelling reform cause, but rather than support a good idea, the opposition parties took advantage of the situation and turned public opinion against spelling reform. Keep that in mind as yu go forward in modern times. Some hi profile people will see the good in this effort and may even support it, but others who fear public ridicule mite not hav the courage to embrace something so nu and innovative.

A few brave revolutionaries in modern times mite be able to resist the old, established spelling order, if they take some cover using social media and digital communication sistems as a screen for protection. A few good texters and bloggers could make spelling changes one word at a time, like sharpshooter from the woods and bushes, if yu see what I mean."

I did see what he was trying to say and I told Carnegie I liked that analogy too, I quickly scribbled a reference to it on a notepad for my speech the next day.

Then Carnegie got up and walked across the room to the window again. Even tho it was still dark, he looked out, pauzed and then while still facing the window he asked, "Have yu ever seen a butterfly flap its wings?"

Well of course I had so I said, "yes."

"Have you heard of the butterfly effect?"

Again, I said, "yes," but with a little less conviction, because I had heard the frase but didn't remember exactly what it meant.

"Well, the notion is that perhaps something as small and insignificant as the flap of a butterfly wing in Brazil would barely disrupt the air, but it could start a chain of reactions that would eventually lead to a tornado in Texas." He pauzed again and stroked his white beard. "Do yu think one person making one tiny spelling change in San Francisco, Boston, Sidney, Toronto, or London could possibly start a chain of reactions that could eventually lead to a spelling change throughout the entire world - impacting millions of people, children and adults, for the better, now and well into the future?"

Then Carnegie continued, "I think English spelling changes will happen, but perhaps they need to begin as gently as the flapping of a butterfly's wing. I beleve that if a few people here and there were willing to make just a few simple spelling improvements, without a lot of official fan fare, that little-by-little, all those tiny efforts mite add up to some big, lasting changes down the road.

Perhaps the Simplified Spelling Board tried to create a tornado right from the start, by getting university scholars, educators and even the President of the United States to mandate immediate and universal acceptance of a new sistem. But, of course, people don't want to be forced like that. They don't like to be told what to do."

But, the world is much different now and the tables ar turning the opposite way. Now, in a modern, progressive world, we ar being told that we can not change a single letter in a single word, and modern citizens shouldn't like that kind of oppression either. Can you imagine how silly it would sound if someone told us that we had to continue using the DOS operating system on our modern computers? Most people today don't even know what DOS looks like, becauz digital sistems have progressed so much. You certainly couldn't post your latest Facebook or Instagram pics using DOS, or Windows 3.1 or Mac OS 9. Those operating sistems were great in their day, but now they ar considered obsolete. People are so accustomed to upgrading their computers and smartphones that it would be ridiculous to expect them to keep using the same old operating system, forever, just because others wanted things to stay the same – to be standardized. So, why shoud there be so much resistance to upgrading the English spelling sistem?

Can you imagine someone telling people they cannot upgrade their computer hardware or software? What if people were told they couldn't upgrade their smartphones to a newer and better OS? That would be obsurd. So, why, in the world, should anyone stand by and let others tell them that they must continue to use outdated spelling conventions like through, tough, sigh, sign, and laugh, when they make little phonetic sense, they confuse children, and frustrate adults all around the modern world.

No one is forced to upgrade their computer operating sistem, they do it by choice. And that is as it should be. People should be free to upgrade their computers, smartphones, homes, appliances, cars, and even their clothing whenever it makes sense to do so. No one is forced to buy a new smartphone or tablet. But they would not like to be forced to keep their old one either.

Shoudn't it be the same with spelling. No one shoud be forced to make spelling changes and no one shoud be told that they cannot make some simplifications when it makes good sense to do so. You could call the new sistem Nu Inglish if you wanted to distinguish it from the older version. People could decide if they want to upgrade to the new spelling sistem or stay with the old. If some people ar more comfortable with the old way of doing things - fine. Let them.

Our current spelling sistem, which is only about 600 years old, shows us that the sound of the letter _a_ can be made in a dozen different ways, such as in the words: _plate wait weight straight great vein reign table dahlia champagne_ and _fete_. Canadians here at the conference say it too, but they spell it _e-h_." We both laughed and he went on.

"Millions of people all around the world struggle with homonyms that look different but sound the same, like _reed / read_ , _red / read_ , _heart / hart_ , and _meat / meet_. They also struggle with homographs that look the same but sound and mean something quite different, like _read / read_ , _bow / bow_ and _tear / tear_. Should people be forced to spell the word _thought_ with the letters _ought_ rather than just simply spelling it _thot_?

The truth is that we already have the freedom to upgrade and improve our ritten language becaus even tho most people don't realize it, there really ar no official rules for the writing of our spoken language. The problem is that most people hav been told differently and so they ar afraid to change the sistem. Thankfully, we ar beginning to see some changes becaus of text messaging and social media. In these settings people feel more comfortable experimenting with simplifications of English spelling. At present most of these modifications ar seen only in casual communication, but over time we will probably see some of these changes make their way into more formal writing formats. I beleve we ar seeing some of the chain reactions of the flapping of millions of butterfly wings already."

After another long pause, staring into space, Carnegie stroked his beard again and said, "Maybe I hav been too hard on the Simplified Spelling Board. Yes, the timing was probably wrong, but maybe our efforts were just some of the the early flapping of butterfly wings that didn't seem to be doing much. Maybe we were expecting a tornado too soon, without realizing that it would take a while longer to develop into a storm. Back then, the only way for people to see a piece of personal writing was in a single letter, written with pen and paper, mailed thru a slow moving delivery sistem, intended for only one person's eyes to see. Handwritten letters were exchanged between parties only a few times a year. Now, however, people send hundreds of text messages every day and post comments online that can be read by millions all at exactly the same time, all around the world, and replied to within seconds. That seems like much more than the minut flapping of a single butterfly wing."If one person sends a text message today, changing the word _thought_ to _thot_ , or _bought_ to _bot_ , who would not feel free to reply in the same way? The responders would not be forced to use the nu Inglish if they didn't want to, but they would feel more at liberty to do so if they wished."

I had to agree.

Carnegie then walked over to his wet coat that was hanging on the chair, reached in and pulled out his pocket watch. I hadn't seen one of those in years. He looked at it, shook it and put it back, then turned to me and continued.

"Hav yu ever read Henry the Fifth, by Shakespeare?"

I replied that I had read it but couldn't remember the whole story. I asked him why.

"Well, if yu ar giving the closing remarks at the conference tomorrow, yor situation reminds me of the famous motivational speech the king gave before the battle of Agincourt.

The king was walking among his weary troops the nite before the battle. Their numbers wer greatly reduced and they sat by tiny campfires trying to comfort themselves noing that in the morning they would face a fresh army that hopelessly outnumbered them in men, horses, wepons and strength. Shakespeare wrote centuries after the historical battle, the words the King mite hav spoken to encourage his men before the uneven match, which actually took place in 1415.

France and England at that time were often at war, taking and retaking possession of various territories and cities. At times territories were ruled by the French and at other times they wer ruled by the English. (Which explains why we find so much French influence in the English language today.)

Anyway, King Henry the Fifth was yung but very karismatic in his leadership. France had taken over several cities that had been previously ruled by England, claiming that only they had the authority to rule. King Henry disagreed and began to reclaim several ov these cities in Northwestern France. When the English troops were reduced in number from many battles and the ravages of dysentery, a powerful French army blocked the English infantry from returning to England and challenged them to fite, beleving that they would easily defete the English in their reduced and weakened state.

The Proloque to Act IV describes the scene the nite before the final hopeless battle, as the English troops were douting their ability to survive against such a formidable foe. (It is also interesting to observe how the spelling of some words have changed since Shakespeare's day. The older spelling reflects how people spoke in his period and shoud be preserved in that form, to give us a historical record of the language in use at the time, just as English today shoud reflect our own unique time in history.) Here is the description of the English camp scene before the dawn of battle:

ACT IV PROLOGUE

Now entertain conjecture of a time

When creeping murmur and the poring dark

Fills the wide vessel of the universe.

From camp to camp through the foul womb of night

The hum of either army stilly sounds,

That the fixed sentinels almost receive

The secret whispers of each other's watch:

Fire answers fire, and through their paly flames

Each battle sees the other's umber'd face;

Steed threatens steed, in high and boastful neighs

Piercing the night's dull ear, and from the tents

The armourers, accomplishing the knights,

With busy hammers closing rivets up,

Give dreadful note of preparation:

The country cocks do crow, the clocks do toll,

And the third hour of drowsy morning name.

Proud of their numbers and secure in soul,

The confident and over-lusty French

Do the low-rated English play at dice;

And chide the cripple tardy-gaited night

Who, like a foul and ugly witch, doth limp

So tediously away. The poor condemned English,

Like sacrifices, by their watchful fires

Sit patiently and inly ruminate

The morning's danger, and their gesture sad

Investing lank-lean; cheeks and war-worn coats

Presenteth them unto the gazing moon

So many horrid ghosts. O now, who will behold

The royal captain of this ruin'd band

Walking from watch to watch, from tent to tent,

Let him cry 'Praise and glory on his head!'

For forth he goes and visits all his host.

Bids them good morrow with a modest smile

And calls them brothers, friends and countrymen.

Upon his royal face there is no note

How dread an army hath enrounded him;

Nor doth he dedicate one jot of colour

Unto the weary and all-watched night,

But freshly looks and over-bears attaint

With cheerful semblance and sweet majesty;

That every wretch, pining and pale before,

Beholding him, plucks comfort from his looks:

A largess universal like the sun

His liberal eye doth give to every one,

Thawing cold fear, that mean and gentle all,

Behold, as may unworthiness define,

A little touch of Harry in the night.

And so our scene must to the battle fly;

Where--O for pity!--we shall much disgrace

With four or five most vile and ragged foils,

Right ill-disposed in brawl ridiculous,

The name of Agincourt. Yet sit and see.

Carnegie could see that I was confused. I liked Shakespeare. I had taught and studied it in scool, but I didn't understand how it related to spelling reform or more particularly to my speech tomorrow nite. O, sure I could see that some spelling changes had occurred since Shakespeare's time, but I didn't need to see the entire play to get that point.

Carnegie read my mind becaus he stopped and said, "Don't yu get it? This is just another analogy. When yu and others at this conference start to use simplified spelling in public yu ar going to feel weak and outnumbered just like the army of King Henry V. They could clearly see how far outnumbered they were by their foes. Yu will feel like yor puny efforts to simplify spelling ar going to be as ineffective as this tiny band of weak soldiers camped against a fresh and well armed foe that will wipe yu out without even trying. But listen to the rest of the story and I hope it will give yu the courage yu will surely need to win the war ov spelling reform."

Carnegie then posed himself as if on the stage of an Elizabethan theatre but first spoke to me as an aside: "To give you a sense of the despair among the troops, Williams, a commander, looks at the light of dawn breaking in the East and says,

'We see yonder the beginning of the day,  
but I think we shall never see the end of it.'

And later Williams asks the King if he realizes how grave their situation really is by adding,

'But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place;' some swearing, some crying for a surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left. I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle; for how can they charitably dispose of any thing, when blood is their argument? Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the king that led them to it; whom to disobey were against all proportion of subjection.'

And then the King, noing how grave ther situation really was, and yet not wanting to cower away from what he beleved to be a noble cause, offered this humble prayer,

'O God of battles! steel my soldiers' hearts; possess them not with fear; take from them now the sense of reckoning, if the opposed numbers pluck their hearts from them. Not to-day, O Lord, O, not to-day,.'

Carnegie stopped his recitation of the play and looked up into an empty corner of the room. He stood completely still as if he were listening to something far away. Then he turned to me with a gratifying smile and explained that as he was about to recite the next few lines, which describe how a weak and tiny English army were able to muster up enuf courage and strength to overcome a large and powerful host of well rested and confident French; as he was about to deliver these lines he saw a vision pass thru his mind. It only lasted a few seconds but in that brief moment he was able to see and comprehend things that would transpire from the present, many years into the future. He said he thot he saw scenes of the tornado that would eventually result from the initial flapping of butterfly wings. He saw a huge host of people who write English in the current, traditional way resisting the efforts of a few who would begin to make changes. The traditionalists were mocking the few people begining to write in the nu Inglish style. But, as he watched the vision unfold he saw that when those few brave people continued to use nu Inglish spelling, that slowly but steadily others began to join them. He saw that before long the number of people using the nu Inglish spelling style reached a tipping point where the stubbon prejudices of the past were overcome and everyone began to adopt the nu spelling sistem.

The despair that he had felt when he left his dead companions at the site of the flashflood and stumbled dripping wet into my room, was now replaced by a look of hope and satisfaction. He paused again and smiled a more confident smile, and then asked if he could finish quoting the inspiring lines from Shakespeare's play that had brought about his vision of hope and eventual success. Of couse, I asked him to please go ahed; and told him that as he recited the lines of the play, I would also try to see or imagine the vision he had just seen.

He repositioned himself in the room, as if on stage again, and began with some lines spoken by the French commanders who arrogantly gloated over how easy they thot it would be to destroy the efforts of this weak little band of English.

Dauphin: Now, my lord constable!

Constable: Hark, how our steeds for present service neigh!

Dauphin: Mount them, and make incision in their hides, that their hot blood may spin in English eyes, and dout them with superfluous courage, ha!

Rambures: What, will you have them weep our horses' blood? How shall we, then, behold their natural tears?

Enter Messenger

Messenger: The English are embattled, you French peers.

Constable: To horse, you gallant princes! straight to horse! Do but behold yon poor and starved band, and your fair show shall suck away their souls, leaving them but the shales and husks of men. There is not work enough for all our hands; scarce blood enough in all their sickly veins to give each naked curtle-axe a stain, that our French gallants shall to-day draw out, and sheathe for lack of sport: let us but blow on them, The vapour of our valour will o'erturn them. 'Tis positive 'gainst all exceptions, lords that our superfluous lackeys and our peasants, who in unnecessary action swarm about our squares of battle, were enow (enough) to purge this field of such a hilding foe, though we upon this mountain's basis by took stand for idle speculation: But that our honours must not. What's to say? A very little little let us do. And all is done. Then let the trumpets sound the tucket sonance and the note to mount; for our approach shall so much dare the field that England shall couch down in fear and yield.

Carnegie pauzed his adaptation of the play here and looked to see if I was understanding that the attitude of this proud French army was similar to how the masses mite feel about a few people trying to change English spelling. My smile assured him that I understood well and wanted him to go on.

He nodded and said, "Okay, now we return to the English camp to see what the king can possibly say to encourage his troops in a such a hopeless situation; in which this powerful French army is about to exterminate them. The next lines of the play symbolize the few people brave enuf to start using nu Inglish spelling. The fewer the number of people that start using it, the greater the praise and recognition they will receive later on, when the masses finally acknowledge them as soldiers who didn't give up when things were very difficult, in the beginning stages of the battle. Try to envision it."

Enter the KING

Westmoreland: O that we now had here but one ten thousand of those men in England that do no work to-day!

King: What's he that wishes so? My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin; if we are mark'd to die, we are enow (enough) to do our country loss; and if to live, the fewer men, the greater share of honour. God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more. By Jove, I am not covetous for gold, nor care I who doth feed upon my cost; it yearns me not if men my garments wear; such outward things dwell not in my desires. But if it be a sin to covet honour, I am the most offending soul alive. No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England. God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour as one man more methinks would share from me for the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more! Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host, that he, which hath no stomach to this fight, let him depart; his passport shall be made, and crowns for convoy put into his purse; we would not die in that man's company that fears his fellowship to die with us.

This day is call'd the feast of Crispian. He that outlives this day, and comes safe home, will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd, and rouse him at the name of Crispian. He that shall live this day, and see old age, will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours, and say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian.' Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars, and say 'These wounds I had on Crispian's day.'

Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot, but he'll remember, with advantages, what feats he did that day. Then shall our names, familiar in his mouth as household words - Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter, Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester - be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.

This story shall the good man teach his son; and Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by, from this day to the ending of the world, but we in it shall be remembered - We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; for he to-day that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile, this day shall gentle his condition; and gentlemen in England now-a-bed shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks that fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

Carnegie looked again at me. We were probably both thinking the same thing: of the band of brothers who dare to take up this English spelling fight; and then he continued the monolog as the king turned to his cozin and asked,

King: "Dost thou not wish more help from England, coz?

Westmoreland: 'God's will! my liege, would you and I alone without more help could fight this royal battle!'

Then Carnegie picked up his coat, tossed it over his arm and started again for the door. I had the impression that, once he walked out, I would never see him again. I still didn't want him to leave. I wished he could stay longer still; to help more with my presentation; to help with the language battle coming in the days ahead, but I knew, this time, he really had to go.

He probably also knew what I was thinking because he turned one last time in the open doorway, hesitated, and then said these puzzling words. "This war will not be won with one battle alone; after this conference, you must study the story of Joan of Arc. Her victories in leading the French armies were even more unlikely and yet more decisive in reclaiming cities from the English than those of Henry the Fifth that I have told you about tonite. Her story will inspire you to keep going forward when this cause seems hopeless. _"_ Then he stepped out and slowly closed the door.

I looked at the silent door for a moment, then walked across the room to the window and gazed up at the mountain side. It was still too dark to see clearly, but I made up my mind that from that moment on, I would begin using nu Inglish with a little more determination and a little less fear. Then I crawled back into bed and for the rest of the nite I dreamed of Joan of Arc.

# The Second Morning

'Maid of Heaven' by Frank Craig

At daybreak, I went to the restaurant again becauz I had been asked to meet with some of the conference organizers for breakfast. As I waited for them to arrive, I sat ther thinking about all the things Carnegie had sed last nite and wondered if it was real or just another elaborate dream; maybe I was losing my mind.

As soon as they arrived at the restaurant they, nervously asked if I had heard the news or seen any of the media images that morning. I looked puzzled and asked what they wer talking about. One of them then pulled out a portable device and brot up the local news. There it was. The footage on the media clip showed an arial view, taken from a helicopter, of the campsite wher all the linguistic mountain climbers had perished. It was the same gastly scene from my nitemare and the tragedy that Carnegie had experienced. The footage, taken at daybrake, clearly showed how a flash flood had washed over the adventurer's tents and suffocated the victums as they tried in vain to escape.

Looking at the aftermath footage one could only imagine the horror the poor campers must have felt as they struggled to get out of their heavy, wet clothing and sleeping bags. The exertion required to even move under such conditions would tax their strength and increase the need for air which would not come. They would have all expired within moments, without even being able to utter a sound. They would have awoken and died within seconds in a hellish, suffocating blackness, without enuf time to even comprehend what kind of bizar fate had instantly sucked the life out of them and suffocated their spelling reform aspirations, just like that, under the silent, indifferent, glow of a full moon.

The news cast listed the following casualties: John Hart, Samuel Johnson, Benjamin Franklin, George Bernard Shaw, and Noah Webster. Carnegie was still missing and a search for his body was underway.

I could taste blood in my throat as I looked at the images even tho I nu that all of it was just symbolic imagery as Carnegie had explained, and subject to personal interpretation.

I looked up at the delegates sitting across from me. No one spoke. Everyone starred at each other for a few moments until someone finally asked what we all wanted to know – should the rest of the conference be cancelled or should it carry on? We discussed the possible options in a somber mood. As we ate breakfast, I looked over to where Carnegie had sat the day before with some of his frends. I didn't share with the others at my table that Carnegie had visited me during the nite. I didn't think they would beleve me and it wouldn't change things much anyway.

After breakfast attendees milled about in subdued contemplation. Like everyone else, I felt sad about the tragedy but the events had a different meaning for me. I still wondered if I would ever see Carnegie again. He still hadn't been found, but I sensed that his midnite visit would be his last. I felt like it was up to us now to carry on his work; like he had entrusted us with something important.

A few hours ago I wasn't even sure I wanted to be part of this group. Now, it seemed like I was expected to do my part. What was I supposed to say in my final remarks? Was I supposed to tell the others about his visit or was I supposed to keep that to myself?

The conference organizers also seemed unsure of what they should do, so no official announcement was made to indicate if the conference would continue or not. It was as if a flag bearer had fallen and the troops were momentarily left in disarray, waiting to see if someone else would take up the standard and press forward, or if the cauz was lost.

The morning minutes slowly ticked away. As the hour of commencement approached, a few people solemnly began to gather into the main conference room and to quietly sit down awaiting the opening keynote, as originally planned.

I was glad that I was the closing speaker and not the one appointed to give the opening address that morning. When the start time arrived, a charming woman in her 30's, an editor from a publishing company in Toronto, took the microphone and pauzed briefly, gaining her composure and gathering her thots as the audience sat silent and motionless awaiting her first words. The pauze increased the tension in the room and made her task even more difficult.

Then, finally, she spoke. Without any review of the tradgic events of the previous nite, which no one needed, she began to tell just a little about each member of the ill-fated party.

"One of the people who died last night was John Hart, an honest scholar and known as the first phonetician of the modern period. John wrote three books on English spelling reform including Orthographie in 1569 in which he expressed the belief that English should be written the way it is spoken and spoken the way it is spelled. Another was Samuel Johnson, whose Dictionary of the English Language in 1755 set down the first authoritative document for standardizing English spelling. In their session here at the conference yesterday, Joshua Fishman and Ofelia Garcia pointed out that before the publication of Johnson`s dictionary 'no reader coming upon an odd spelling would draw unflattering conclusions about the author's education or intelligence' as they do today.

Benjamin Franklin, and George Bernard Shaw were also found among the dead. Shaw had left a considerable sum of money in his will to support efforts for spelling reform. Noah Webster also died with the rest. Everyone is familiar with his famous dictionary, but few realize that in it, he included several suggestions for spelling reform. Many were implemented but some were not, such as, soop, aker, and thum. Why not? Well, I will leave that for you to ponder.

All the people found at the campsite early this morning were pronounced dead at the scene, except for Andrew Carnegie, who was not found at the site; and tho the prospects are grim, we are still hopeful that by some miracle he escaped and somehow survived."

The attractive speaker said many more encouraging things, then she encouraged us to continue the conference with renewed determination. Most attendees did just that, they returned to the individual conference monitor stations to watch more presentations.

I watched one or two, then I did a web search for the _Handbook of Simplified Spelling_. Carnegie had left his copy in my room the nite before, but it was so wet that it was falling apart. I began to read thru the pdf copy, which I found online. Suddenly, now, it seemed more interesting than any of the other topics at the conference. It seems a little unfair that often a person's work is not appreciated until after the author has passed away. I downloaded the document onto my tablet, read a bit more from it, and then decided to read the rest of the document back in my hotel room.

I thot about Carnegie as I took the elevator to my floor, unlocked my door and checked around to make sure he wasn't in there waiting for me. Then I sat down, got as comfortable as anyone could in such circumstances, and then I continued to read. I felt impressed that this little handbook would be important to undertand even if it was a little dated. If not, why would Carnegie and others hav given so much of their time and financial resources and even their lives to publish it? Most of all, why would Carnegie care enuf about it to come back and read some of it to us at this conference?

I also concluded that if I still had to give the closing remarks, I wanted to learn a little more about the document and the history behind this movement in order to know how to best proceed into the future.

As I read the document, I often felt as if Carnegie was still somewhere very near, but I never saw him again. I read thru lunch and into the afternoon, taking a few more notes and stopping occasionally for a walk outside to think it over.

#

# My Closing Remarks

As I strolled down the streets of Banff, looked in shop windows, and smelled the evergreen mountains, I tried to rehearse what I would say in my closing remarks. Below is the speech I had planned, but as you will see later, I didn't give it:

\----- When the conference organizers asked me to speak, they sed they would like to hav an ordinary English teacher share their fellings about spelling reform before and after attending this conference. I am not sure if I qualify as an ordinary English teacher but I will tell you just a little about my background. I was born and raised in the United States, so I learned to read and write in English as my first language. I received a Bachelor of Science in Education degree from the University of Idaho with an English Major and a Spanish Minor. A few years later I began teaching Junior and Senior High School English classes. I earned a Masters Degree in Educational Technology at the University of Lethbridge and later a Doctoral Degree in Educational Leadership from the University of Montana.

My father's ancestors come from Preston England and go back several generations, so I am about as English as you can get. As an English teacher, I thot I knew something about our language, but, the truth is that before I registered for this conference I hadn't heard of English spelling reform. All my frends told me not to come here, but I am so glad I did. You mite say that my eyes were opened at this conference. I lerned a lot from the digital conference presentations. And most impressive of all, I was able to actually meet and lern some valuable lessons from the billionaire, Andrew Carnegie. Now that is something I would never have imagined possible... not in seven million years."

That was supposed to be funny, but no one laffed.

"I came here with the same attitude that 99 percent of the English speaking population probably shares. I thot English spelling was fine just the way it is. I didn't know much about its history and I certainly didn't think it needed to be changed. But after meeeting Carnegie, attending the sessions, and witnessing the events of this conference, I hav changed how I feel about English spelling. I realize now that spelling has some rich history. We can preserve that history. We don't need to change the past. We can enjoy studying it, but we are not bound to traditions of the past any more than we are bound to any other historical practices.

We don't continue to bleed patients in medicine. We don't practice slavery. We don't use the same tools to build our houses or to cook our food. We don't plough our fields with horses and we seldom send letters to our friends by hand delivered mail. Of course we can still do many of these things if we choose to, but no one forces us to adhere to ancient practices except in the case of English spelling. Here, deviation from past practice is met with humiliation and scorn.

I told you that I am a teacher. In school, we often study the unique riting styles of various authors. We enjoy the different techniques they use to communicate stories, images, and ideas to the reader in prose and poetry. We admire riters when they use fresh and effective styles and techniques. We also study various genres of literature and gravitate to those we like the most. And now, because of this conference, I can see for the very first time in my life, that style could also apply to spelling. Before coming here, I was a stubborn, die-hard advocate of 'proper spelling,' like most teachers. However, this conference helped me to lighten up a bit and to look at spelling reform with a more open mind. I realize now that there is no such thing as 'proper spelling' and that spelling could be a matter of choice; and that some spelling choices enhance communication while others actually hinder it, especially for international audiences. For example, I read this passage in the _Handbook of Simplified Spelling_ last nite.

The chief aim of the Simplified Spelling Board was to arouse a wide interest in English spelling and to direct attention to its present caotic condition; a condition far worse than that existing in any other modern European language in the belief that, when the peoples who speak English understand how imperfect for its purpose their present spelling really is, they wil be eager to aid an organized, intelligent, sistematic effort to better it, as it has been slowly betterd here and there by individual effort in the past.

The simplification of spelling is not an unconscious process, inevitable without human effort, as some suppose. Not so. Every changed spelling that is now in general use was once the overt act of a single writer who was followd at first by a small minority. There hav been many more spelling changes in the past than most people realize. In fact very few words hav escaped some change in spelling, iether for the better, as fish from fysshe, dog from dogge, or for the worse, as rhyme from rime, and delight from delite If there is to be substantial improvement in the future, somebody must be willing to point the way, to set the example, to propose the next step.

That last line suggests that someone needs to point the way. Someone needs to set the example. Someone needs to propose the next step. The time is past. We need some new quidelines for spelling.

I certainly don't feel qualified to lead a spelling reform movement, but If no one else is ready to point the way, to set the example, or to propose the next step, then perhaps I will make a few suggestions. I am not proposing that they ar the right thing to do or the best thing to do, only that they mite be something to consider. I hope that by tossing out a few ideas, someone out ther in the audience will feel impressed or inspired to do something even better – to see more clearly how Inglish spelling mite be improved.

Someone out ther needs to be as daring as Viola Desmond, as courageous as Rosa Parks, and as passionate as that fine couple, Sir Seretse Khama and Ruth Williams. Something needs to be done that is bold enuf to inspire others like the reverend Martin Luther King was inspired.

Change seldom comes easy. I foresee many troubled waters as the spelling reform movement presses forward. William Willberforce fot social and political opposition for more than 20 years in the English parlament, before the _Slave Trade Act of 1807_ was finally passed. Even tho the American revolution was victorious in the end, it was not an easy fite. But, these battles were won by brave patriots who were willing to live and die for a worthy and noble cause. It will probably take that same kind of courage and determination to change public opinion on current spelling practises.

We heared from Andrew Carnegie yesterday that yu don't need to be a millionaire or a scholar to join this cause. Yu just need to hav the courage to go out there and start making small changes rite now. I don't expect everyone in this audience to hav that kind of courage. So, as King Henry the Fifth sed in his Agincourt speech: 'he which hath no stomach to this fight, let him depart; his passport shall be made, and crowns for convoy put into his purse.'

However, even with courage, I see a couple of major stumbling blocks that need to be overcome before spelling reform can expect to gain much ground. The main obstacles to progress, in my opinion, ar the following:

1. There is a lack of understanding, that it is perfectly normal and natural for spelling to change over time – that it has changed in the past and that it is okay for spelling to continue to change in the future. I didn't understand that very well before I came to the conference, and I also don't beleve the general public really understands the history and evolution of Inglish spelling.

2. At present, ther exists a ridged, mind-set that strongly opposes even the slightest change to the current Inglish spelling sistem, even tho that sistem is far from perfect. I had that same ridgid attitude prior to coming to the conference. The general public has it too, and will need an introduction to spelling reform that is at least as convincing and effective as these conference presentations have been for me. Without a creative and persuasive education campaign, I fear that public opinion will remain firmly opposed to spelling reform.

These obstacles, while simply stated, ar formidable. I was able to overcome the first one by doing a little personal research on the history and evolution of Inglish and by coming to this conference. I hav a desire to overcome the second obstacle. I am trying to make a few reasonable spelling changes from now on, but I am hopelessly outnumbered by millions of people who no absolutely nothing about spelling reform and will surely oppose my nu spelling attempts.

How can I go back to my community and start making spelling changes when none of my associates will understand what the heck I am doing. How can I face students, parents, frends, and my employer, noing that I wil receive a hail of ridicule as soon as I spell _thought_ t-h-o-t, or _laugh_ l-a-f? What am I going to do? Will I hav the courage, resolve, and comitment to make even one or two of these simple spelling changes? I wonder.

I know that, thru their brave actions, ordinary people like William Wilberforce and Rosa Parks, were able to spark a revolution that changed the world. So, my final comments will be directed to the few individual that may be in this audience with that kind of courage. My closing remarks ar not directed to people in the mainstream. I will direct my final comments to a tiny minority – to people who can think outside the box – people who ar brave enuf to do something that most others won't like. Courageous enuf to be called rebels when they believe they are doing what is right.

Because these final comments ar intended for change makers, they may sound a little strange, even offensive or uncomfortable, to the average reader – a little dramatic, perhaps, or maybe even a little rebellious or radical. My hands ar shaking. My throat feels tight. I want to stop and sit down, but I no that if I do, It would disappoint someone that I met here at the conference – someone who made a strong impression on me. So, I am going to try to be brave. I am going to try to inspire someone out there to take on the monumental, unlikely, nearly hopeless cause of improving Inglish spelling. I am going to try to start a rebellion.

To do so, I want to tell yu about a presentation I watched here at the conference that I'm sure most of yu didn't see. It was a session with Andrew Carnegie in which he quoted several lines from Shakspear's play, "Henry the Fifth." The play shows us that even a powerful French army, like the one assembled at Agincourt in 1415, was defeated by a much smaller band of English soldiers, because they were not afraid to take up the fite for something they beleved in. I hav nothing against the French. In fact, I am even more impressed by the story of Joan of Arc, who successfully led the French in reclaiming land from the English, after the English victory at Agincourt. Joan's entire life story is an incredible example of an ordinary girl accomplishing something truly extraordinary against overwhelming opposition. At first no one beleved this simple peasant girl, but eventually thru sheer determination and an unshakeable belefe that she was doing what was right in the sight of God, she slowly gained the trust and admiration of a few civic and religious leaders. She then went on to win the admiration of military leaders and hardened troops of soldiers. As a teenaged girl, she lerned to wield a sword and defeat seasoned soldiers in hand to hand combat. Gaining increasing respect, she led the French army to reclaim cities like Orleans, Jargeau, Meung, and Beaugency. As each city was taken the French became more and more committed to her cause and the English lost more and more confidence in their own. In the open field battle at Patay, one report claimed that around three thousand English soldiers parished, while only three French soldiers died.

Somewhat like the armies that Joan of Arc led or the little band of weary English soldiers led by Henry the Fifth, we too ar surrounded here at this tiny conference in the mountains. We are huddled together like a little band of soldiers. Outside a terrible army is poised, ready to fall upon us. Or, if you prefer a metaphore from Tolkien, outside these walls awaits a monsterous dragon of spelling reform prejudice. A huge, smiling, fire breathing hydra, bearing down on us, ready to destroy us as soon as we step out into the open with our little attempts at spelling reform.

That army or the fearsome beast will eazily defeat us here in Banff and at each and every one of our future conferences, if we let it intimidate us with its shear size and fearsome smoldering power. It rises high into the air expanding its huge scaley chest, creating a vortex as it inhales all available oxygen, grass, dust, and the branches of the evergreen trees on the mountainside; anything it can use for fuel when it exhales a blast of fire that will incinerate our efforts and cauterize our futile hopes of spelling reform, unless we ar brave enuf to stand our ground, out in the open, continuing to draw our bows and shoot a few straight arrows directly at its most vulnerable and indefensible heart.

Ok, maybe I am getting a little too carryed away with the metaforic imagry of the battle that awaits those who dare to begin the improvement of Inglish spelling. But, the battle of King Henry the Fifth at Agincourt was real. Shakespeare did not concoct a fictional tale just to entertain his audience. Joan of Arc's battle at Patay was just as real and even more inspiring. The battle to improve Inglish spelling will be just as real. To win, we will need to be as determined as Henry the Fifth and as fearless as Jeanne d'Arc. The American Revolution was a battle, just as real as those of Harry The King and the Maid of Heaven. The American patriots were out-numbered and ill-equiped but somehow they managed to win the war of independence against tremendous odds. How did they do it? Well, for one thing, they did not follow the traditional rules of engagement. They fot like daring frontiersmen and found fresh new ways to out-manuver their foes. How did the English and French prevail? They had to resort to unusual strategies in order to win when they were weakened and outnumbered.

After I heard Mr. Carnegie's presentation, I did some research on the historical facts surrounding the English battle at Agincourt in 1415, and the French victory at Patay in 1429 to see what unique strategies they used to win such unlikely victories. I think we can lern some practical lessons from how the English won at Agincourt. It is true that the English were outnumbered at least 4-to-1 (much more by some accounts) but their victory cannot be soley attributed to the inspirational Saint Crispin's Day speech given by their brave, king just before the battle. No doubt, a motivational speech would have been necessary, before such an undertaking, but ther wer also some other interesting factors that contributed to the surprising outcome. As I list them, I hope yu wil see how they compare metaphorically to our battle of improving English spelling.

First of all, the successful English wer led by a yung, modern, energetic king who employed fresh new military tactics. The French, on the other hand, prided themselves on adhering to ancient, traditional fighting methods. One of the creative inventions, by the outnumbered, English was to put up a bulwark of sharpened poles pointing toward their enemy. This barricade was situated on the flank of wher the main battle would take place. The English then placed all of their long-bow-men behind those sharpened poles. The French horsemen could not ride through that fence of pointed timbers, so they could not penetrate the archer's ranks nor scatter their lines. The bowmen, then, standing on protected ground, were able to shoot continual volleys of arrows into the advancing French troops.

The English raised the battle cry but then waited for the French to attack becauz they knew that, in order to engage the enemy, the French would need to cross through a field that was hemmed in by thick woodlands on either side. That field had been recently ploughed and rain had softened the freshly turned soil so that the advancing French were forced to slog through the mud. As they marched forward, the French sank nearly to their knees in the muddy soil, causing them to become exhausted by the time they reached the first line of fresh English soldiers. The French knights-in-arms also wore heavy amour, weighing nearly 60 pounds, making their progress extremely slow and difficult; while the lighter, free moving English archers on the flanks continued to vexate the sluggish advance of the French through the mud. To compound the difficulties of the French soldiers on the front lines, the second and third lines of French knights were unaware of the slow progress thru the muddy field in the front; and becauz those in the back were tormented by the continual barrage of arrows from the English bowmen, they pressed forward with such violence and confusion that they began to trample down their own slower moving comrads in the front. In this confusion, living Frenchmen, who had not been killed, or even wounded by English arrows, were nevertheless pushed down into the mud. Many French knights suffocated inside their own helmets, in the muck, before they even reached the English, because they were unable to rise as the masses behind them pressed forward and trampled them down with the other dead. The French were so worn out, bewildered, and reduced in number by the time they reached the English frontlines, that they were not able to protect or defend themselves against the English blows.

In a similar way, I believe the cumbersome nature of some current English spelling will eventually contribute to its own downfall, but not until the battle cry is sounded and olde English spelling style comes under attack by a number of brave bowmen launching a volley of nu Inglish spelling options into the fray, causing the opposition to blunder through their own muddy field as they try to defend or justify troublesome, current spelling anomalies.

I beleve that the details of the decisive victory at Patay can also teach us some valuable lessons that mite apply to Inglish spelling reform. Before the arrival of Jeanne d'Arc on the scene, the French armies and the people themselves were discouraged and felt helpless against the strong hold that the English had on many of their territories. But, an innocent and pure young maiden was able to inspire them by her humble example and unyealding faith. One-by-one she gained a small following that began to beleve in her. Magistrates and Generals laffed at her initially, but her simple faith and perseverance slowly impressed more and more people. At the tender age of 17 she became the leader of the French army. Despite the opposition of coarse men, she demanded that all of the soldiers and officers clean up their vulgar language and take communion. She made the men bath and ordered the prostitutes out of the camps. Her demands to change these traditional behaviors, were shocking to nearly everyone, and were met with a lot of resistance, but she stood firm and insisted. Because of these changes, a miracle happened at Orleans. When the Maid arrived, the wind changed directions, and boats were able to sail across the Loire River, bringing food and supplies to the French citizens under siege. That changing of the wind was both literal and symbolic of the change in direction the Hundred Year War was taking. Just as miraculously and insipationally, Joan of Arc led troops to retake towers, bridges, villages and cities. With each victory the cause grew in strength and determination while at the same time the English strongholds began to waver. By the time of the battle at Patay, the French armies had grown in their own strength and determination that the English commander Arthur de Richemont surrendered their position near Patay and fled in disarray. Joan of Arc rushed to join the battle but could scarcely keep up as other French commanders La Hire and Jean Poton de Xaintrailles conducted a 'mopping up' of disorganized English along the road of retreat.

I beleve that the clean-up of Inglish spelling could follow a similar pattern. The stronghold that tradition has on the current spelling system seems hopeless, but if one ordinary person like Jeanne d'Arc would come along and lead the way with unwavering determination, I beleve that one-by-one we could gain a little ground here and there until by some miracle, or a few, we could eventually accomplish the impossible.

I see two possible strategies for taking on the formidable task of changing long standing English spelling traditions. The first would be to take a few of the most common words we use such as the words _you_ and _are_ , and to change them to _yu_ and _ar_. These two words _ar_ so common in everyday communications in text and email messages, that the changes, if accepted even by a few, would be repeated many many times each day by those who have adopted the nu spelling forms, allowing them to be spread quickly and broadly thruout the world.

For us to rush forward with radical sweeping changes to our current spelling system might be like slogging into the mud. It may be smarter to hold back a little by making just one or two minor spelling changes that would tempt the enemy to enter the muddy field of spelling debate and force them to defend current spelling rules as they attack the proposed changes.

The Second strategy would be for a dictionary publishing company or an educational organization to select an uncommon, obscure, or unpopular word – one with a particularly difficult conventional spelling, and to officially declare a spelling change for just that one word. The organization would then urge the English-speaking world to adopt that one spelling change to the troublesome word.

By choosing an obscure word that few people would care about, and one that is presently difficult to spell in the first place, the organization would meet with much less resistance for the suggested spelling change; and could, at the same time, establish some sense of authority for advocating spelling changes. The organization would not really have any official authority to make spelling changes, but, by the same token, no one would very likely challenge their assumed authority to make a reasonable change to an unpopular word.

I believe the second strategy could be more effective than some of the unsuccessful spelling reform initiatives that hav failed in the past. I have often heard radio programs announce that a new word has been added to this or that dictionary. These are public interest stories that people seem to enjoy. No one really objects when a dictionary announces that a certain word has been 'officially' added to the language. Sometimes online dictionaries also report interesting facts like the word that was searched online more often than any other word that year. The public appreciates these announcements, because they ar fun and interesting. I believe it would be just as interesting to hear, on the radio, for example, that some spelling society or organization was 'officially' recommending or announcing the spelling change of the word _sarsaparilla_ , to _sasparila_ for example. Hardly anyone would object to such an announcement. In fact the public would most likely welcome the suggestion and begin to adopt the change because it had been 'officially' announced.

The organization would hav very little to lose by making such an 'official' announcement, but would stand to win a very strategic victory. The cumbersome, bulky nature of that unpopular word would make it as difficult to justify as a knight in heavy armour would find it hard to defend himself after slogging through a freshly ploughed and rain soaked field. Acceptance, by the public, of a welcome change to one difficult word, would be an easy, yet important victory for the spelling reform movement. And if the organization was successful in publicly announcing just that one, simple spelling change, it would set a precedent for the future. The following year, another word could be chosen by the organization and presented to the public with yet another improved spelling suggestion. Soon the public would begin to expect and welcome these reasonable and progressive changes, at which point the number of words changed could be increased.

I am not sure which of these two strategies would be most successful or if yet some other strategy would prove even better, but what I do know, is that I want to be involved in some way in the spelling battle that lies ahead of us. I want to be part of this revolution, part of the solution – not part of the problem. And, that is why I am so glad I came to this conference and lerned about this movement. From this time forward, and for the rest of my life, I hav found something I truly beleve in - a noble cause worth fighting for. And, I am going to start rite now. I don't think we need to wait any longer for public approval or social acceptance that wil never come on its own. Call it a fashionable revolution in style or a daring attack upon a fire-breathing dragon or a medieval battle of armor and longbows, it doesn't matter. I am going to start making at least a fu spelling changes rite now, tonite. I hope someone out ther will join me. Thank You. -----

As, I said, this was the speech I had prepared to give and now it was less than an hour before the final session. I didn't want to be late, so I returned to the hotel, washed my face, looked in the mirror and decided I was probably as ready as I would ever be. I took a deep breath and headed out the door.

I can not recall what was said in my introduction, because I wasn't listening. I was still trying to figure out exactly what I should say. I was also thinking about Carnegie and wishing he could take my place. I kept looking around for him to appear and rescue me but I couldn't see him anywher. Suddenly, I was at the podium, paused and then just started to speak. I can't remember exactly what I sed but I think it went something like this:

"Ladies and Gentlemen, I am so glad I came to this conference. The things I have heard and seen here have caused me to reconsider some of my opinions regrading the English language. I have been convinced that something should be done about English spelling, but it also seems obvious that, historically, the vast majority of English speaking people have found it very difficult to let go of the current conventions of the "King's English," even when it makes little or no logical sense.

I have tried to imagine a sistem of changes that would be acceptable to the public, but the longer I ponder this problem, the more I tend to believe that any proposed changes to the current English spelling sistem will probably fail, just as they have failed so many times in the past. Trying to change the spelling of English seems about as likely trying to teach a fish to fly or a bird to swim.

Having said that, however, I am not giving up. I am anxious and willing to support anyone who can offer a sistem of spelling reform that would succeed. In the mean time I will make the following bold suggestion. Rather than try to change the current broken sistem, I would propose the creation of a new version of English. I would call it Nu Inglish and give it these few simple rules:

1) Try to spell as you speak and speak as you spell. 2) Allow for some regional or personal variations in spelling to encourage experimentation and to facilitate progress. 3) Strive for economy, clarity, simplicity, and consensus. Adopt spelling conventions that ar most reasonable 4) Simplify grammar and punctuation and work toward verb tense regularization. If people would embrace this strategy with the rite attitude I believe Nu Inglish could be very successful, especially among the billions of people learning English as a Second Language and children who are learning to read and write in school.

The room fell into an awkward silence. What had I just done? The conference had been a great success to this point. People seemed ready and willing to join the effort to improve English spelling no matter how hard it might be. But, now I had made everyone feel terribly uncomfortable by introducing a whole new and even more radical idea. Why didn't I just stick to speech I had prepared? Where did this nu idea come from anyway? Maybe I had just blown the whole conference, angered the organizers and probably Andrew Carnegie too.

But then, just when I thot I had blown the whole thing, a man near the front stood up and began to applaud all by himself. It was awkward and embarrassing. Then, a moment later a woman near the back also stood and joined him. For a second, I thot we were about to experience one of those cheezy movie moments, where slowly just one person stands, then another, and another until finally the whole crowd is standing and applauding; but that didn't happen. Instead, most of the crowd remained silent, squirming uncomfortably in their seats until the same facilitator that introduced me, returned to the microphone and took the pressure off the uneasy crowd by cooly thanking me for my comments and asking the audience for the customary round of applause, which they politely, but briefly gave.

After my speech, a few people came forward and tried to make me feel better about what I had sed. Several people told me that they were too shy to stand up but that they thot I might be onto something and that they wanted to know more about how Nu Inglish would actually work, which made me feel somewhat better.

Later, when I got back to my hotel room, I crashed on the bed and looked up at the ceiling. Then suddenly I thot of Andrew Carnegie and wondered if he was somewher in the room. I wanted to apologize for not being able to charm the crowd with a moving speech that would have resulted in a standing ovation and start an immediate spelling reform revolution, but Carnegie was nowher to be found, not in the closet, not under the bed, not even in the hallway.

When I couldn't find him, my shoulders slumped and I frowned. I wondered if I had disappointed him. I wanted to tell him that I was sorry my speech wasn't more persuasive. I wanted to show my regrets that the battle didn't turn out like the one at Agincourt. But more importantly, I wanted to tell him that it didn't matter. I wanted to tell him that what mattered to me was that I had changed. I wanted to thank him for changing my attitude toward spelling reform - that I was committed to this cause for the rest of my life in one form or another, no matter what the rest of the crowd thinks or how they react. I wanted to thank him for helping me better understand the history of spelling reform and the work of the Simplified Spelling Board about a hundred years ago, but Carnegie still wasn't ther. I felt a little lonely, but a happy kind of lonely. I knew that joining the cause of spelling reform would not be easy or glamourous. The time I spent with Mr. Carnegie taught me that spelling reform would mean disappointment, disaster and maybe even death without success. But, it made me feel good inside just to know that I had become acquainted with Andrew Carnegie, one of the richest men the world has ever known; and that he and I were now brothers in a good cause – a cause that we beleve will benefit millions of teachers, children and Inglish language learners all around the world. It might even bring us a little closer to world peace.

Wow, to be part of a dream like that was enuf to make me happy no matter what others might think, or say, or do.

After brushing my teeth and crawling into bed, I reached over and picked up a notepad. I wrote down some general thots about the possibilities of Nu Inglish. I had intended to give my prepared speech about a spelling revolution, but the idea of Nu Inglish just seemed to pop into my head and out of my mouth while speeking at the podium. I didn't really no how it would work, so I tried to scratch out a few details.

As I scribbled a few things into the notebook, doubts again began to creep into my thinking: If some of the most brilliant people in history had failed in their spelling reform efforts, and if the billionaire Andrew Carnegie, with all his millions, sed he thot he had failed, then what on earth would make me think, even for a second, that I or anyone else could succeed?

But, regardless of my doubts, I continued to scribble a little more into the notebook as I sat up in bed, and tried to rekindle my desire to continue with some sort of spelling reform ideas. I penciled the troubling notion that the most brilliant, logical or beautiful spelling scheme will not succeed if it is not adopted by the majority. And by the same token, even a dull, illogical and cumbersome spelling system will succeed if the majority is willing to adopt it. The poor sistem we have at present attests to that sad fact. So attaining success in spelling reform is not so much a matter of finding a perfectly acceptable, flawless, spelling scheme as it is about understanding public opinion, how it is formed, and how it changes.

With that in mind, the key factor is public acceptance by the majority, rather even than the merits of any new system. So, considerable effort shoud be made to identify a reform scheme with the best chance for public acceptance; but even more effort, perhaps a hundred times more effort needs to be made in developing a plan that will persuade the public to abandon a well entrenched, currently accepted spelling system, and in its hallowed place, adopt a new unfamiliar spelling scheme.

As my eyes tired, I closed them, drifted off and dreamed of a family with a beloved member that had been a part of the household for as long as anyone could remember. This brother had committed quite a few blunders. He had broken the law, but was so charming and loved by his close family, that they always forgave him, even tho the neighbors and the broder community were not so tolerant. Suddenly there was a knock at the door. Upon opening the door a salesman or government official (I am not sure which) introduced a complete stranger that stood awkewardly on the steps. The salesman suggested to the family that this stranger, tho odd looking and unfamiliar would be an excellent replacement for their wayward brother. The salesman continued with a logical and persuasive proposition that the stranger on the doorstep would make a much more suitable member of their family and offered to immediately take their troublesome brother away. The timid replacement stood anxiously waiting on the doorstep, his eyes searching the family members inside the house for some sign of welcome – some offer to come in. No such response came from anyone in the family. Finally the awkward silence was broken by the mother who asked, "Why? Why would you ask us to give up one of our children for someone we don't even know? Even if this stranger is as well mannered as you claim him to be, we don't know that for certain and we would much rather keep the son we know than to take chances with someone so odd and unfamiliar to us."

I woke up, looked out the window of my hotel room at the rugged Rocky Mountains of the Canadian wilderness and thot: wow, replacing long standing spelling traditions with a bunch of strange nu words mite be even more difficult to accomplish than that family scenario I just dreamed about. It helped me understand why spelling reform has been such a tuff sell. It also reinforced the idea that starting a whole nu Inglish language mite be easier than trying to change the stubborn traditions of the old English language.

With that thot, I tucked my pencil into the binding of the notebook and tossed it on the floor beside my bed, clicked out the light, and pulled the blankets over my shoulders. I closed my eyes and mulled over all the events, thots, and feelings of the past few days until eventually everything faded into complete darkness.

# The Madrugada

"Joan of Arc Asleep" (1895) by George William Joy

When I opened my eyes, it took me a few minutes to figure out where I was. I looked around and saw that I was in my own bed. I couldn't remember checking out of the hotel. I couldn't remember taking the shuttle back to the Calgary International airport, or anything about the flight back home.

I didn't move more than my eyes as they scanned the ceiling and tried to collect my thots. Eventualy I slowly turned my head and looked at the bedroom door and then at the floor beside my bed. A notebook lay there with a pencil sticking out of the binding. My heart started beating as I slowly pushed the covers away and reached for the notebook. I was afraid to look inside, but I carefully opened the cover and cautiously turned the pages.

Some of the notes were written clearly and others looked like the scribbling of a small child. Some were logical and others made little sense. The ideas were written in crooked scralls and in random order all over the pages. Many of the notes were incomplete but there was no mistake... they were nearly all related in some bumbling fashion to English spelling or Nu Inglish spelling reform.

***

I spent the next few days trying to decifer the jumbled notes and to transcribe the scribbling. Some of my notes that were readable can be found in the appendix. I also went online and read all I coud find about Andrew Carnegie. He was indeed an extremely welthy man, but also remarkably generous, and kind. He beleved that we shoud all try to leave the world a better place. He founded numerous libraries, he did bild the Carnegie Hall, and yes, he actually did contribute over seven million dollars to the Simplified Spelling Society to promote a spelling reform effort that he thot was a failure. Was it a mistake? I don't think so. It inspired me to learn more about reformers like Henry the Fifth, Joan of Arc, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King. It inspired me to learn about all the brilliant minds who hav advocated the improvement of Inglish spelling. All these people hav inspired me to join the cause and do something to improve Inglish spelling. I hope it also inspired you.

While reading about spelling reform, I discovered the spelling reform organizations below. I became a member of the English Spelling Society and learned that they were planning to hold a Congress in about three months time. The congress woud be based in London, England, but delegates coud attend from remote locations all around the world thru online connections. I woud invite everyone who reads this book to consider joining these organizations and working together to find a successful solution to our current spelling problems. Let's start a revolution.

The English Spelling Society

<http://www.spellingsociety.org/>

American Literacy Council

<http://www.americanliteracy.com/>

# Appendices

This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.  
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,  
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,  
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.  
He that shall live this day, and see old age,  
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,  
And say "To-morrow is Saint Crispian."  
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,  
And say "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."  
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,  
But he'll remember, with advantages,  
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,  
Familiar in his mouth as household words—  
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,  
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester—  
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.  
This story shall the good man teach his son;  
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,  
From this day to the ending of the world,  
But we in it shall be rememberèd-  
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;  
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me  
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,  
This day shall gentle his condition;  
And gentlemen in England now a-bed  
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,  
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks  
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

Uncommon words:

sasparila - sarsaparilla

_bight_ (a bend in a rope or coastline) could be spelled bite

_sleight_ (a magician uses sleight of hand) could be slite

_banshee_ (a female spirit that warns of death) could be banshe

_affright_ (to frighten) why not drop one of the f's ?

_collogue_ (verb, to speak confidently) colog perhaps?

_diarrhoea_ (needs no definition but needs a spelling change)

_hearken_ (to listen) harken

_liquefy_ (to make liquid ) why not liquify

_shriek_ (high pitched exclamation) shreek

_acquiesce_ (to accept without protest) acquiese

_supersede_ (to take over a position) superceed as proceed

_mischievous_ ( causing trouble in a playful way) mischevious

_sacrilegious_ ( few use this word so why not _sacreligious_ )

12 spelling changes adopted by several organizations in 1920:

