Originally posted by Eladar
It seems to me that they could make reforms rather easily by allowing for the traditional and new spellings.
Seems easy enuff to me.
However, as sh76 implied in his post, there might have to be a whole variety of new spellings to cope with the fact that there are a whole spectrum of different pronunciations in modern English. In a way, one of the virtues of our present system is that it's neutral as regards different dialects. If we reform spelling, what should take precedence - US or UK English? Should coffee be spelt "kofi" the way a Brit pronounces it, or "kaufi" the way a New Yorker pronounces it? "Sore" and "saw" are homophones in British Received Pronunciation, as well as in the accents of Australian and New Zealand, but not in Scots or most North American speech. British RP has a long vowel in "bath", "task", "castle" and so on, but Northern English speech has a short vowel (I spent half my childhood in Newcastle upon Tyne, and although I basically speak RP, I still pronounce the name of that city with a short "a" ).
To accept new phonetic spellings without favouring particular branches of spoken English would mean accepting as wide a variety of spellings as there were in Shakespeare's time. Surely it was because that situation was highly confusing that standardisation occured in the first place!