0

My English teachers strenuously denied it, but languages are not immutable. Centuries ago, Daniel Webster regularized the American spelling of various words ("center", "draft", etc). More recently, the public literally flipped the meaning of the word "literally" through chronic misuse.

Have there been successful, intentional campaigns to change the spelling and/or meaning of words within living memory? How or why did they succeed?

Changes that happened passively because people could care less [sic] about proper usage don't count.

Foo Bar
  • 158
  • 2
    Well, there are certain parties working on such words as "fact" and "truth". – Hot Licks Mar 20 '20 at 19:58
  • 1
    @Hot Licks Parties have been banned. – Edwin Ashworth Mar 20 '20 at 20:00
  • 2
    There is 'sensational spelling', in advertising, music etc. Covered here before. What do you call words that are misspelled to add effect?. For instance, 'Blood Sugar Sex Magik', not by The Beatles. // If it becomes big enough in some way, it works. Till then, it loses you credibility / marks / jobs. – Edwin Ashworth Mar 20 '20 at 20:04
  • 3
    The new word 'flammable' was adopted because people might think 'inflammable' described something that wouldn't burn; whereas in fact the 'in' at the start of 'inflammable' is not a negative but derives from the Latin inflammare: to set on fire. The word 'entitled' has lost one of its meanings. "My essay entitled [x]" is deprecated in favour of "titled". – Old Brixtonian Mar 20 '20 at 20:22
  • 1
    Diphthongs, like æ and œ, have mostly been dropped. As have most accents. Eg. from rôle, bête noire, bric-à-brac, façade. Résumé seems to be losing its accents one at a time! The diaeresis in naïve, Noël, Zoë and Chloë is often omitted nowadays, though the Brontës keep theirs. – Old Brixtonian Mar 20 '20 at 20:23
  • 1
    Use of "literally" hasn't really changed recently, it has been used as an intensifier for statements that are not literally true for at least two-hundred years, including by respected authors. – nnnnnn Mar 20 '20 at 20:24
  • 1
    @EdwinAshworth that would qualify if any of the word's promoters actively intended to supplant the original word long term. In other words, they tried to make fetch happen, and it did. – Foo Bar Mar 20 '20 at 20:33
  • 4
    If you consider words at the heart of major social evolutions, there are lots. For example the effort (mostly successful) to make "queer" a positive description of a person rather than a pejorative one. – The Photon Mar 20 '20 at 20:51
  • 2
    "Have there been successful, intentional campaigns to change the spelling and/or meaning of words?" Not in English, no. In languages with more reasonable orthographies, however, it happens with some frequency. – John Lawler Mar 20 '20 at 21:05
  • The children's book Frindle by Andrew Clements just begs to be mentioned here. (It's a completely fictional example, although if enough people read it...) – PlutoThePlanet Mar 20 '20 at 21:27
  • 1
    'Sensational spelling' is not typically intended to change the standard spelling, as that would defeat its purpose: if the spelling became standard, it would cease to be sensational. – jsw29 Mar 20 '20 at 22:15
  • In Britain, the playwright Bernard Shaw advocated spelling reform. – Kate Bunting Mar 21 '20 at 08:50

0 Answers0