to reform or not to reform that is the question.

As a communications professional I am confronted daily with how sms speak, Americanisms and just plain old fashioned illiteracy are eroding the English language.

So much so that I am in the process of resigning myself to the fact that I may have to let go of my attachment to English as she is spoke (and writ), but it is a somewhat resentful letting go it has to be said.

The old crone within was heartened, therefore, to read a recent report from the BBC that an online entrepreneur in the UK has estimated that spelling mistakes online are costing businesses millions of pounds.

Charles Duncombe says an analysis of website figures shows that a single spelling mistake can cut online sales in half because poor spelling can put off customers by sending a message of poor credibility.

He makes the point that spelling is more necessary than ever before precisely because we all live online these days where communication happens entirely by the written word. The grammar and spelling underpinning this must be lucid or communication is jeopardised.

William Dutton, director of the Oxford Internet Institute, said in the same report that in some informal parts of the internet, such as Facebook, there is greater tolerance towards dodgy spelling and grammar. "However, there are other aspects, such as a home page or commercial offering that are not among friends and which raise concerns over trust and credibility.”

But what exactly is spelling? A strange adherence to putting certain letters in a certain order – or else.

I am an atrocious speller – always have been (thank goodness good spelling is only a right click away these days) – but I still hold myself to the standard with a certain malicious delight and judge others by their ability to spell or not.

And yet it has to be conceded that English spelling is, well, eccentric to say the least.

The English Spelling Society, an organisation that has been around for a goodly amount of time, has been campaigning for 100 years to reform English spelling. They point out that English has not fundamentally changed in 1000 years. And unlike other languages, English has not systematically modernized its spelling over time.

I then discover that there have been various movements to reform spelling since the 1500s with luminaries such as Mark Twain and George Bernard Shaw at the forefront of a movement at the turn of last Century. I wish I’d known that in standard three when I was castigated for not being able to tell the difference between their and there.

Twain and Shaw were part of a more radical set that wanted not just the reform of spelling but the introduction of a whole new alphabet. In fact, Shaw went so far as to leave a considerable bequest in his will to fund the creation of a new phonemic alphabet for the English language. Essentially, they wanted to spell words like they sound and said the outcome would result, for one thing, in considerably less labour in the form of pen strokes! I know how they feel when I am trying to communicate via that tiny keypad on my swartbessie.

So, for example, instead of through, Twain advocated thru, instead of laugh, laff, instead of highland, hyland.

Doesn’t this remind you of something? We are back to sms speak.  Twain and Shaw beat us to it by 100 years!

It’s actually kind of tragic that despite their efforts to create a new English they were unsuccessful, unless you count the adoption of some phontetic spellings by the Americans. In many ways, the advent of cell phones and sms has achieved what centuries of campaigners were unable to do.

Suddenly, I find myself shaken in my conviction that correct spelling is a do or die situation. Maybe these guys have a point. I must confess that I have started to substitute “u” for “you” and “2” for “too” from time to time when working on the swartbessie (although I still feel a slight thrill of guilt when I do it).

But for now I am afraid the old crone in me still wins out. I agree with UK journalist Bill Bennet who said on his blog that spelling is important because it makes the communication unambiguous and more pleasant to read.

“If being understood is important, then worry about spelling and grammar.”

So there you have it. The only thing I am left wondering about now is what Twain and Shaw would have made of sms speak and whether or not they would have embraced smiley faces as part of their new alphabet…?