XplanaZine

English spelling has a checkered history (or should I say chequered?). A few weeks ago I did a write-up about a great little spellcheck tool that you can install on your machine and use to spellcheck webforms - so much writing online happens via webforms these days, without the ability of the word processor to intervene.
Yet at the same time, it is clear that the new technologies of writing - wildly democratic, highly idiosyncratic - are probably going to wreak havoc with English spelling in the years to come. Which is ironic, given that it was the advent of another technology - printing - which stabilized English spelling - at least temporarily!
I had two different digital experiences yesterday which reinforced this strange pendulum of English spelling: one has to do with “baby” English printing, and the other with English “baby” names.
Baby English printing. I spent much of yesterday putting up new materials at my Aesop website, including a new cross-index for a 15th century printed version of Aesop. Any printed book from the 15th century is considered a very early example of printing, so much so that 15th-century printed books are called incunabula, or “baby things”. Instead of calling those early printed books “primitive” we call them “babyish”. In any case, here’s an example of an Aesop’s fable from 1484:

In tyme passed was a dogge that wente ouer a brydge / and held in his mouthe a pyece of flesshe / and as he passed ouer a brydge / he perceyued and sawe the shadowe of hym / and of his pyece of flesshe within the water / And he wenynge that it had be another pyece of flesshe / forthwith he thought to haue take it / And as he opend his mouthe / the pyece of flesshe fylle in to the water / And thus he lost hit / Ryghte soo is of many / for whanne they thynke to robbe other / they lese theyr owne and propre good / wherfor for the loue of a vayn thynge men ought not to leue that whiche is certeyn.
Check out that spelling! (or should I say: spellynge!) Some people look at these fables and say it’s “Old English” - when this is not Old English; it’s not even Middle English. It’s modern English. Really! But with very funky spelling. Here is how it would look in modern spelling:

In time past [there] was a dog that went over a bridge and held in his mouth a piece of flesh [= meat] and as he passed over a bridge he perceived and saw the shadow of him and of his piece of flesh within the water. And he weening [= thinking] that it had [to] be another piece of lesh, forthwith he thought to have [to] take it. And as he opened his mouth, the piece of flesh fell in to the water and thus he lost it. Right so [it] is of many, for when they think to rob [an]other, they lose their own and proper good, wherefore for the love of vain thing, men out not to leave that which is certain.
Now when Caxton was assembling his printed text, he obviously did not have a spellchecker. But even worse: he did not have a dictionary. So he could only base his spelling on how he spoke and on other texts that he had seen (very few, since this was a not a world inundated in writing as our world is). So he spelled as he spoke, while also relying on the analogies between one word and another. If you know that “they” is spelled “they”, then why don’t we spell “their” with the letter y: “theyr”? Caxton did! Looks good to me!
With the advent of printing, and dictionaries, and schooling, and other ways in which writing was institutionalized, spelling became more and more standardized.
But now there are new technologies, and lots of writing that happens outside traditional institutions. So here is the modern pendant to Caxton: baby names.
English baby names. Have you ever taken a look at the “Most Popular Baby Names” website at the Social Security Administration? I had never looked at it before, but it was written up in the New York Times yesterday. These are spellings that would have done Caxton proud!
The boys’ names are still very Biblical (not surprising: the printed Bible is a very serious written institution!). So there are lots of Jacob’s and Isaiah’s and Joshua’s and Samuel’s and Benjamin’s and Noah’s, all “correctly” spelled, i.e., spelled the way that they are usually spelled in printed Bibles. When a guy is named “Michael”, he is named Michael (although there are also a few Micheal’s).
But look at what is happening on the girls’ side for babies born in the year 2002, based on the top 500 names list (and even for names that are ranked in the 400’s, there are still hundreds and hundreds of babies who have received that name - the #500 boy’s name was Coby, with 456 little Coby’s born in 2002, and the #500 girl’s name was Ryleigh, with 556 little Ryleigh’s who will be celebrating their first birthday sometime this year). Variant spellings are everywhere:

• Makayla is #50, with Mikayla at #124, Michaela at #205, Mckayla at #458, and Mikaela at #489 (and there is the French Michelle, at #57).
• The #2 name for girls is “Madison” (wow, how did that happen?), but Madisyn is #419 and Madyson at #447.
• Ashley is a big favorite at #6, but Ashleigh shows up at #279, and Ashlee at #355 (note also Ashlyn at #161 and Ashlynn at #348).
• Hailey is #33, but with Haley running close behind at #35, Hayley at #195, Haylee at #251, Halle at #314, Hallie at #356, Hailee at #374, and finally Haleigh at #423.
• Jasmine is another very popular name at #26, but there is also Jasmin is #185, Jazmin at #209, Jazmine at #234, Yasmin at #351, and Yasmine at #460.
• Savannah is #40, but Savanna is #237.
• Cheyenne is #128, but Cheyanne is #433.

There are so many factors at work here, but what struck me was just the proof this gives us that language is alive and well in people’s mouths, beyond the control of any dictionary or any spellchecker. Names are the ultimate personal space: you cannot tell somebody that their name is spelled “wrong” (or that their mom spelled their name wrong). Your name is your name: you don’t look it up on a dictionary; you look it up on a birth certificate, which is where the Social Security website is getting its information.
I really liked Rob’s discussion of voice recognition technologies the other day: I wonder at what point the collision between audio data and written data is going to cause a real cultural crisis? Will it reach the point that for every single personal name in the language, the computer will have to ask you “Can you spell that for me please?” Am I Laura? or Lora? or Lara? After all, I spell it Laura, since my parents used the “correct” name. But I say “Lora” and my mom says “Lara”… go figure! (And when I lived in Poland I was La-u-ra, with three syllables, since Laura is not a Polish name and they didn’t have a clue what to do with it.)
Computers would like for us to use standardized spelling, but at the same time technology is going to unleash rampant freedom in the spelling world. What a great technology paradox! And I suspect that names are just the beginning, a sign of things to come…
After all, the last time I was at the airport, I used a LuggageCarte for my luggage… in the same way that I can name my daughter “Madison” or “Madisyn” or “Madyson” (it’s up to me!), the manufacturers of luggage carts are going to feel free to call their cart a carte…
So watch out spellcheckers: here comes the new millennium. (Try spelling that one without your spellchecker by the way…)