I noticed that in the Spanish and Italian languages, words change spelling to reserve the pronunciation.

  • For example, in Spanish verbs have -ar, -er, and -ir conjugation classes. First person singular simple present tense verbs usually end in -o

  • "c" before "a", "o", or "u" is pronounced like "cat". "c" before "e" or "i" is pronounced like in "city" (Only in Castillian Spanish, it is pronounced like "th" in "thin").

  • The digraph "qu" before "e" or "i" has the same pronunciation as "c" before "a", "o", or "u".

  • "z" before "a", "o", or "u' has the same pronunciation as "c" before "e" or "i".

  • Very few -cer and -cir verbs end in -zo for the first person singular simple present tense.

  • While "c" often has to change to "qu" before "e" or "i".

  • Even in Italian, "c" has to change to "ch" before "e" or "i".

My questions are:

  1. How did these spelling changes develop historically? What there a practical reason to follow these spelling changes?

  2. Why haven't the Southern European languages reformed this redundancy by using "c" with the /tʃ/ sound everywhere? Latin does not follow spelling changes. Even Dutch, German, and French do not follow spelling changes.

  • 8
    What is your question about linguistics? This sounds more like a rant about how spelling ought to be. Good luck.
    – Colin Fine
    Commented Jul 24, 2020 at 20:34
  • 2
    If you want to discuss how things "should" be, then I suggest you go to philosophy site. Not on topic here.
    – Colin Fine
    Commented Jul 24, 2020 at 21:44
  • 2
    I’m voting to close this question because it seems to be asking about how spelling "should" be different. Linguistics is a descriptive science.
    – Colin Fine
    Commented Jul 24, 2020 at 21:48
  • 2
    What is an ‘orthographic pronunciation’ supposed to be? Orthography is a standardised system of spelling and has nothing to do with pronunciation. Commented Jul 25, 2020 at 11:00
  • 3
    What do you mean by “[language] does not follow spelling changes”? Commented Sep 21, 2020 at 4:15

3 Answers 3


Your question assumes that spelling reform is easy as well as desirable. A brief survey of recent attempts at spelling reform in French and German will show how difficult it is to accomplish even minor changes.

Almost all native speakers learn the standard spelling conventions of their language in their earliest years, and they are very reluctant to change, regardless of what new instructions are issued from on high. Part of this reluctance is due to the belief that "correct" spelling is a mark of education and high culture. Part is due to justifiable laziness, because the main benefit of standardized orthography is to ensure rapid and unambiguous comprehension by readers. Changes to improve "consistency" impose a cost without any benefit to the community of readers and writers.

Take the example of the Chinese government's creation of standard Mandarin (putonghua). The pinyin romanization simplified education and is broadly accepted, because it did not replace anything. Simplified characters (jiantizi) are widely accepted but they continue to provoke controversy, with occasional surges of fashion to revive the use of the complete forms. (Not to mention the continued use of the old characters in HK and Taiwan.). By contrast, the government's attempt to standardize grammar was abandoned after it became obvious that agreement on a single system was impossible.

In short, no one except a fanatic (e.g. Dewey, Shaw) is going to attempt spelling reform. For rich-country governments in particular, spelling reform is a waste of effort because it brings no electoral advantage.

  • 3
    Plenty of governments have imposed successful spelling reforms (whether for electoral advantage or not) – Azerbaijani has gone from a Perso-Arabic script to a Cyrillic script to a Latin script in three successive major spelling reforms; Irish spelling was simplified significantly in 1958; you yourself mention simplified characters in Chinese; Greenlandic spelling was simplified in 1973; etc. Pinyin did of course replace something, just not a single official standard. Electoral advantage and ‘replacing something’ doesn’t seem relevant to Romance spelling reforms or their absence. Commented Mar 19, 2022 at 19:11

It is all about the spelling conventions in those languages. "Latin does not follow spelling changes" because the alphabet Latin uses was conceived specially for the Latin language, Latin spelling was pretty much phonetic so no spelling adjustments are needed when the form of the word changes.

Spanish and Italian use the Latin alphabet which lacks special letters for some sounds that appeared in those languages after they stemmed from Latin, they are [θ] in Spanish and [tʃ] in Italian in your examples. Instead of introducing new letters for those sounds, the Romance languages adjusted phonetic meaning of the already existing Latin letters to their own needs since those new sounds developed from [k] (Latin letter c) before i and e, so Spanish [θi], [θe] and Italian [tʃi], [tʃe] are written as ci and ce which keeps the reference to the original Latin spelling ci and ce ([ki] and [ke]). Whenever the Spanish [θ] appears in other environments, not before i and e, the spelling has to be adjusted in order to explicitly mark that it is [θ] and not [k], so z is used for [θ] in this case. Similarly, Italian has to insert h to keep the ‘hard’ reading of c as [k] (and g as [g], too).

The Romance languages try to balance between phonetic and historical spelling. Introducing a purely phonetic spelling would weaken the visual connection with the parent Latin language, which those languages are obviously trying to avoid. Introducing a purely morphological spelling (which you seem to advocate) without introducing special letters for the new Romance sounds would result in unpredictable reading rules.

The question of optimizing orthography lies beyond the scope of linguistics, since linguistics studies the objective sides of the language, while orthography is purely subjective, it is just a convention, an agreement which exists during a particular period of time, and changing the spelling of the language will no way change anything in the language itself.


Both Italian and Spanish spelling are very consistent. Italian is very simple. In Italian, C before A, O and U produces a [k] sound but the ch sound before I and E. If you want a [k] sound before I and E you use Ch. Qu is just as in English. Simple! Spanish is a bit more complicated. Qu is used for [k] before I and E, and C before A, O and U. C before I and E is soft and that other soft sound is represented by Z. Cu does the English Qu thing. Better to ask, how did velar sound become palatalized before front vowels. It's very common to palatalize a velar sound. And it's nothing special in many languages. If you look across Scandinavian languages and a few other languages, velar sounds, regardless of how they are writtten are often palatalized before front vowels aswell. Better to ask about palatalization? Atleast, there are rules when to use which in Spanish and Italian.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.