Anybody who claims that either version is 'wrong' needs a bloody good slap around the face
and a history lesson. Both are perfectly valid and credible: 'honor', for example, is the elder and the
original version, but 'honour' is a remnant of our Anglo-Saxon pronunciation. To deny 'honour' is to
deny the word's etymological leap into English; to deny 'honor' is to deny its linguistic source.
The words would be easily recognisable to any native Latin speaker (despite the minor problem
of them being non-existent). It would be common sense to see that they are the same word. We
have no problem recognising the words Japanese absorbs from Western languages: it's plain to
see that 'intaanetto' is 'Internet' modified to allow Japanese to pronounce it, in the same way that
'culur' was the Anglo-Saxon's new 'color'. Nothing irks me more than self-assured gits telling people
that 'colour' and 'honour' is incorrect when each was firmly established in English a thousand years
or more before modern America was even discovered. No matter how it's spelt, 'culur' is still the
best Anglicisation — I've never heard anybody saying 'coh-lorr'. Had it not been for the Vowel Shift
in the 14th Century, we would probably be spelling it without 'o's.
I think that loanwords shouldn't necessarily be identical to their original foreign forms: we need a
unique spelling to assimilate the word into our language, so that it isn't regarded as a 'foreign' word.
Once 'color' has become 'culur', it isn't easily mixed up with the Latin. It becomes an English word
and can start to evolve back into its original form once it is firmly anchored. So we get 'colour', which
is halfway between 'culur' and 'color', and finally 'color'.
If it's shoe-horned into the language, it won't become 'English'. It'll always be a foreign word. You can
tell the words that have achieved 'English' status, because they're the ones that you have to remind
people about. You always get the people asking what bungalow is in two or three of the languages
of India (pro tip: it's baṅgalo and baṅglā).
I can keep using fantastique in an English sentence all I want, but somebody is going to ask me why
I'm using French words in place of a perfectly good Anglicisation. Even the most simple person can
see it's almost identical to 'fantastic' and will probably automatically translate it to that, but the difference
is that we know it's French because of its spelling.
There's a good argument for both sides of the argument, but as somebody who treasures our heritage
and finds it fascinating how we can understand texts written hundreds of years ago, I would prefer it
that Britain doesn't give in to pressure and keeps its spelling rules. It's a reminder of how its people
formed its language, which America tries desperately to hide. America doesn't need to remind people
of Anglo-Saxon history because they purposefully changed to the Latin forms to distance themselves.
They were a new people who didn't need to use Anglo-Saxon remnants and who could be open to
new cultures. Considering what a melting-pot of culture America has become, it's better for them.
/ linguistic student blabbering and general off-topic.