English spelling reform is the collective term for various campaigns and efforts to change the spelling of the English language to make it simpler and more rationally consistent. There exists a small-scale movement among amateur and professional linguists, but one with a long history and some mixed successes.

Supporters assert that the many inconsistencies and irregularities of English spelling lead to severe difficulties for learners.^{[citation needed]} They believe this leads to a lower level of literacy among English speakers compared with speakers of languages having a spelling system that more faithfully conforms to how the language is spoken, and have, since at least the time of George Bernard Shaw, pointed out costs to business and other users in retaining traditional spelling, which can be worked out by the casual observer as cumulatively massive.^{[citation needed]}

English does in fact have a very poor phonemic orthography^{[citation needed]}, or correspondence between how the words are written and how they are spoken. This is due in part to changes in commonly accepted dialects of English from older pronunciations.^{[citation needed]}

There is opposition to spelling reform from traditionalists who feel that something is to be lost from simplifying the spelling of English — this can range from numinous 'old world' sensibilities to feared concrete financial losses by opposing vested interests (notably printers, and purveyors of rival solutions or palliative measures such as shorthand, remedial literacy and synthetic phonics).^{[citation needed]}

Contents 1 History 2 Arguments for reform 3 Obstacles 4 Criticism 4.1 Writing conveys Meaning, not Phonemes 4.2 Cognates in Other Languages 4.3 Whose Accent? 4.4 False Friends 5 Spelling reform campaigns 5.1 Conforming to the basic Roman alphabet 5.2 Augment or replace the basic Roman alphabet 6 Advocates of reform 7 See also 8 References 9 Further reading 10 External links

History

There have been two periods when spelling reform of the English language has attracted particular interest.

The first of these periods was between the middle of the 16th century to the middle of the 17th when a number of publications outlining proposals for reform were published^[1]. These proposals generally did not attract serious consideration because they were of too radical a nature or were based on an insufficient understanding of the phonology of English. However, more conservative proposals were more successful. James Howell in his Grammar of 1662 recommended minor changes to spelling, such as changing logique to logic, warre to war, sinne to sin, toune to town and true to tru^[2]. Many of these spellings are now in general use.

The second period started in the middle of the 19th century and appears to coincide with the development of phonetics as a science^[3]. Early pioneers at this time were Isaac Pitman and Alexander Ellis. Although their own efforts to create a phonetically-based orthography were not successful, they and their fellow enthusiasts did succeed in arousing widespread interest. By the 1870's the national philological societies of Great Britain and America chose to consider the matter. After the International Convention for the Amendment of English Orthography that was held in Philadelphia in 1876, societies were founded such as the English Spelling Reform Association and American Spelling Reform Association^[4]. The Simplified Spelling Board was founded in the USA in 1906. Andrew Carnegie, a founding member, supported the SSB with annual bequests totalling more than US$300,000^[5].

Proposals created at this time had mixed success. In 1876 the American Philological Society adopted a list of ten or so spellings such as are to ar, catalogue to catalog, give to giv and through to thru^[6]. The Simplified Spelling Board created a more extensive list of 300 words. The Simplified Spelling Board word list was adopted by Theodore Roosevelt, who ordered the Government Printing Office to start using them in 1906. However, the US Congress voted against this^[7]. Some of these spellings are in common use today in American English, such as axe to ax, anaemia/anæmia to anemia and mould to mold. Others such as mixed to mixt and scythe to sithe were not adopted^[8].

Arguments for reform

Advocates of spelling reform make these basic arguments:^{[citation needed]}

• Pronunciations change gradually over time and the alphabetic principle that lies behind English (and every other alphabetically written language) gradually becomes corrupted. Spelling then needs to adapt to account for the changes^{[citation needed]}.
• Unlike many other languages^{[citation needed]}, English spelling has never been systematically updated and, as a result, today only partly observes the alphabetic principle. The irregular nature of English spelling has created a system of weak rules with many exceptions and ambiguities. The different pronunciations of the combination ough in words like through, though, thought, thorough, tough, trough, daughter and laughter could be seen as barriers to reading comprehension^{[citation needed]}, and common misspellings of accommodate, conscientious, occurrence, opponent, existence and personnel could be seen as barriers to writing mastery^{[citation needed]}.
• Some words in English are homographs with different pronunciations that vary according to context, such as bow, desert, live, read, wind and wound. Ambiguous words like these make it necessary to learn the correct context in which to use the different pronunciations and thus increase the difficulty of learning to read English.
• A new system that creates a closer relationship between phonemes and spellings would eliminate most exceptions and ambiguities and make the language easier to master for children^{[citation needed]} and non-native speakers without putting undue burden on mature native speakers.
• Some exceptions in English spelling are the result of attempts by scholars to "correct" older spelling by adding silent letters to reflect the word's Latin or Greek origin, or create a false correlation with those.^{[citation needed]} The word island is not related to isle, for example, and was once spelled iland^[9] (compare with the corresponding Dutch word eiland). Similarly, doubt and debt have never been pronounced with a /b/ sound.
• Spellings do change, regardless of conscious public resistance, just slowly and not in any organized way. Music was spelt as musick until the 1880s, and fantasy was spelt as phantasy until the 1920s^[10].
• Most reform proposals would reduce the number of letters per word on average.

Obstacles

There are a number of barriers in the implementation of a reformed orthography for English:

• Public resistance to spelling reform has been consistently strong, at least since the early 19th century, when spelling was codified by the influential English dictionaries of Samuel Johnson (1755) and Noah Webster (1806).
• English vocabulary is largely a melding of ancient Latin, Greek, French and Germanic terms, which have very different phonemes and approaches to spelling. Some reform proposals tend to favour one approach over the other, resulting in a large percentage of words that must change spelling to fit the new scheme.
• The unusually large number of vowel sounds in English and the small number of vowel letters make phonemic spelling difficult to achieve without resorting to unusual letter combinations, diacritic marks or the introduction of new letters.
• The variety of local accents makes it difficult to agree upon spellings which take into account most accents. Furthermore, some words have more than one acceptable pronunciation, regardless of dialect (e.g. economic, either). Spelling reform may solve this issue by continuing to allow multiple pronunciations of a standard spelling, as happens today with the modern standard spelling of such words, or by allowing multiple acceptable spellings for such words. Other spelling reform proposals impose a new spelling that is based on a particular pronunciation.
• Some inflections are pronounced differently in different words. For example, plural -s and possessive -'s are both pronounced differently in each of cat(')s (/s/), dog(')s (/z/) and horse(')s (/ɪz/). The handling of this particular difficulty distinguishes morphemic proposals, which tend to spell such inflectional endings the same, from phonemic proposals that spell the endings according to their pronunciation.
• The English language is the only language in the top ten major languages that lacks a worldwide regulatory body with the power to promulgate changes to orthography. The establishment of such a body may be necessary before any co-ordinated efforts to reform English spelling can be undertaken globally.
• Some words are spelled so differently when compared with their pronunciation — such as tongue and stomach — that changing the spelling of such words would noticeably change the accustomed shape of the word. Similarly, the irregular spelling of very common words such as is, are, have, done and of makes it difficult to respell such words to remove the irregularity without introducing a noticeable change to the appearance of English text. Such difficulties tend to create acceptance issues.
• Spelling reform may make classic literature harder to understand and read correctly in its original form. (However, relatively few people choose to read classic literature in the original spellings as most of it has been republished using modern spellings.)
• Spelling reform may reduce the flexibility of puns and plays on words in English literature but may create new opportunities based on the new spelling. Such puns would resemble the puns of spoken English more because the spellings would be closer to pronunciation.
• An unknown amount of cost may be incurred when introducing spelling reform, by the need to teach all those already literate the new spellings and by having to republish books and other materials using the new spellings.^{[citation needed]}
• For people profoundly deaf since birth or early childhood (who might already find reading and writing very challenging), each change of spelling would be arbitrary, as they would be unable to use sounds as a guide, and they would thus have to unlearn and learn each case individually.^{[citation needed]}

Criticism

Writing conveys Meaning, not Phonemes

The central criticism of many purely phonemic proposals for spelling reform is that written language is not a purely phonemic analogue of the spoken form. Writing is intended to convey meaning to the reader. Some of the most phonemic spelling reform proposals respell closely-related words less similarly than they are at present, such as electric, electricity and electrician, or (with full vowel reform) photo, photograph and photography.

It is common in other languages for some words to be spelt irregularly to clarify meaning even in languages with an otherwise highly regular phonemic orthography, such as Italian and Spanish. In Italian, anno [year] and hanno [I have] are distinguished in spelling but pronounced identically. Similarly, Spanish distinguishes the identically-pronounced se [third person reflexive pronoun] from sé [I know], and Greek distinguishes η [the] from ή [or].

English contains many non-homographic homophones, which some of the more radical spelling reform proposals would eliminate. Such reforms may introduce more ambiguity than they remove. Highly phonemic proposals that do not distinguish words like two, to and too would obscure meaning even though they write the phonemes clearly.

Cognates in Other Languages

Because English is a West Germanic language that has borrowed vocabulary heavily from distant and unrelated languages, the spelling of a word often reflects its origin. This gives a clue as to the meaning of the word by providing a historical marker for the origin, useful for readers to see relationships within and between languages. For example, Latin- or Greek-based word parts are often reducible to their meaning. Even if their pronunciation has deviated from the original pronunciation, the written form of the word is a record of the phoneme, so derived words give clues to their own meaning, but respelling them could obscure that relationship. The same is true for words inherited from Germanic whose current spelling still resembles its cognates in English's sister languages Dutch and German, which a phonetic spelling reform could obscure in some cases, such as light/German Licht, knight/ German Knecht; ocean/French océan, occasion/French occasion. Those spelling reform proposals that respell words phonetically may thus obscure the connection between English and the Romance and Germanic languages, as well as Latin and Greek^[11].

However, it is possible for cognate words to end up with more similar spellings as their spellings in other languages after a spelling reform. One way this may occur is if a spelling reform in English allows the spelling of such words to catch up to historic reforms in other languages. For example, respelling isle as ile would give a spelling identical to the 1990 spelling reform in French, which changed isle to île in the 18th century, and then changed île to ile in 1990. Another example would be a respelling of connoisseur as connaisseur aligning its spelling with the spelling of the French word which was respelled in French after a spelling reform in 1835.

Also, spelling reforms in other languages do not pay any particular attention to keeping words aligned with the spellings in English, such as the spelling of the English loan word punch being changed from punch to ponch in the French spelling reform of 1990^[12]. Over time, the spelling of cognate words in different languages can be expected to diverge, in much the same way that existing cognate words are generally spelt and pronounced differently in different languages.

Whose Accent?

Another criticism of spelling reform is that many proposals generally do not take into account the main variants, dialects and regional accents by choosing to spell words to match the pronunciation in a particular accent. For example, the first syllable in the pronunciation of the word simultaneously can rightfully be as the first sound of psychic /sɑɪ/, or as the first sound of cymbal, /sɪ/, yet SoundSpel purports siemultaeniusly as the spelling, indicating preference of the former. Many reform proposals ignore or overlook distinctions in regional accents that are still represented in the orthography, such as the distinguishing of fern, fir and fur that is maintained in Irish and Scottish English, or the distinction between toe and tow that is maintained in a few regional accents in England.

Some spelling reform proposals sidestep the accent question by advocating some form of free spelling, where one can spell a word how one pronounces it. Such proposals run into difficulty with those words where one word in one accent may be pronounced identically to — and therefore spelt the same as — a different word in another accent. For example, the usual pronunciation of passable in Received Pronunciation is essentially the same as the pronunciation of possible in General American^[13]. Such overlap would make it more difficult to read books published in a different accent to one's own.

Some proposed spelling systems attempt to solve the accent issue by allowing some degree of variation in spelling for words with variant pronunciations. For example, Wijk (1959) suggested the use of the digraph aa for the British pronunciation of words in the BATH lexical set like past and craft (with the result being paast and craaft) but a for the American pronunciation^[14]. Before the introduction of standard dictionaries, many words had several variant spellings. Variant spellings still exist in English spelling today, for example banjos/banjoes, volcanos/volcanoes and zeros/zeroes^[15]. Other words have variant spellings due to variant pronunciations, such as dwarfs/dwarves and aluminium/aluminum. Thus, a reformed spelling system that allowed some variant spellings would not establish a precedent in English spelling. On the other hand, it would create a precedent to create variant spellings for entire lexical sets to cater to different accents. Furthermore, such pronunciations can often be predicted from the context of the surrounding letters^[16]. Thus, creating variant spellings in the manner proposed by Wijk are not essential.

False Friends

Many reform proposals attempt to make too many changes to English orthography at once and do not allow for any transitional period where the old spellings and the new may be in use together. The problem is an overlap in words where a particular word could be an unreformed spelling of one word or a reformed spelling of another, akin to false friends when learning a foreign language.

For example, a reform could propose to respell wonder as wunder and wander as wonder. However, both cannot be done at once because this causes ambiguity. During any transitional period, is wonder the unreformed spelling of wonder or the reformed spelling of wander? Other similar chains of words are device → devise → *devize, warm → worm → *wurm and rice → rise → *rize.

Spelling reform campaigns

Most spelling reforms attempt to improve phonemic representation, but some attempt genuine phonetic spelling, usually by changing the alphabet or introducing an entirely new one.

Conforming to the basic Roman alphabet

Common features:

• They do not introduce any new letters or symbols, thus facilitating ease of transition away from the traditional orthography.
• They rely upon familiar digraphs.
• Most do not introduce diacritics (accents), which are not favored by English speakers and can be problematic for computer use.
• They attempt to retain the appearance of existing words.
• There is an increased regularity to the spelling rules.

Notable proposals include:

• Basic Roman spelling of English
• britic: created by Reginald Deans, and advocated by some movements within the Simple Spelling Society
• Cut Spelling: Mostly drops superfluous letters and redundancies, such as 'ph'.
• Interspel: proposal by Valerie Yule, designed to be implemented in stages.
• NuEnglish: Created by Bob Cleckler^[17]
• Regularized English: Created by Axel Wijk and published in 1959, this proposal retains almost all of the common spelling patterns in English words, including igh and ough, but seeks to make spelling more regular by reducing each spelling pattern to only one pronunciation^[18].
• SoundSpel: Regularization scheme offered by the American Literacy Council.^[19]
• SR1: Step one of a proposed 50 stage reform plan.

Augment or replace the basic Roman alphabet

Among other things, these proposals seek to eliminate the extensive use of digraphemes in the English use of the standard Roman alphabet, such as "sh", "ch", voiced "th", voiceless "th", "zh", "ph", "ng", "nk", "gn" and "kn". The impetus for removing digraphs is grounded in the desire to have each letter represent a single sound. In a digraph, the two letters do not represent their individual sounds but instead an entirely different and discrete sound. Alphabet changes allow an increased regularity to the spelling rules.

• Benjamin Franklin's phonetic alphabet
• Shavian (revised version: Quikscript): created for George Bernard Shaw's reform contest.
• Deseret: Developed for the Mormon church.
• S32 alphabet
• Unifon
• OR-E: Orthographic Reform of the English Language
• Nooalf Revolution Augmented Latin alphabet. It is heavily biased towards American pronunciation.
• Qixpel: Use of numeral keys to represent some sounds of English, and replaces w and y with u and i, as favoured by Mont Follick (see Advocates of reform below).

Advocates of reform

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be and removed. (June 2009)

A number of respected and influential people have been active supporters of spelling reform.

• Orrmin, 12th-century Augustine canon who distinguished short vowels from long by doubling the following consonants, or, when this was not feasible, by marking the short vowels with a superimposed breve accent.
• Thomas Smith, a Secretary of State to Queen Elizabeth I, who published his proposal De recta et emendata linguæ angliæ scriptione in 1568^[20].
• John Wilkins, founder member and first secretary of the Royal Society, early proponent of decimalisation and a brother-in-law to Oliver Cromwell.
• William Bullokar was a schoolmaster who published his book English Grammar in 1586, an early book on that topic. He published his proposal Booke at large for the Amendment of English Orthographie in 1580^[21].
• Charls Butler, British naturalist and author of the first natural history of bees: Đe Feminin` Monarķi`, 1634. He proposed that 'men should write altogeđer according to đe sound now generally received,' and espoused a system in which the h in digraphs was replaced with bars.
• Benjamin Franklin, American innovator and revolutionary, added letters to the Roman alphabet for his own personal solution to the problem of English spelling.
• Samuel Johnson, poet, wit, essayist, biographer, critic and eccentric, broadly credited with the standardisation of English spelling into its pre-current form in his Dictionary of the English Language (1755).
• Noah Webster, author of the first important American dictionary, believed that Americans should adopt simpler spellings where available and recommended it in his 1806 A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language.
• Isaac Pitman developed the most widely used system of shorthand, known now as Pitman Shorthand, first proposed in Stenographic Soundhand (1837).
• U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt commissioned a committee, the Columbia Spelling Board, to research and recommend simpler spellings and tried to require the U.S. government to adopt them;^[22] however, his approach, to assume popular support by executive order,^[22] rather than to garner it, was a likely factor in the limited progress of the time.^[23][24]
• Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson was a vice-president of the English Spelling Reform Association, precursor to the (Simplified) Spelling Society.
• Charles Darwin FRS, originator of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, was also a vice-president of the English Spelling Reform Association, his involvement in the subject continued by his famous physicist grandson of the same name, below.
• John Lubbock, 1st Baron Avebury, close friend, neighbour and colleague of Charles Darwin, also involved in the Spelling Reform Association.
• H.G. Wells, science fiction writer and one-time Vice President of the London-based Simplified Spelling Society.
• Andrew Carnegie, celebrated philanthropist, donated to spelling reform societies on the US and Britain, and funded the Simplified Spelling Board.
• Daniel Jones, phonetician. professor of phonetics at University College London.
• George Bernard Shaw, playwright, willed part of his estate to fund the creation of a new alphabet now called the "Shavian alphabet."
• Mark Twain
• Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell
• Upton Sinclair
• Melvil Dewey, inventor of the Dewey Decimal System, wrote published works in simplified spellings and even simplified his own name from Melville to Melvil.
• Israel Gollancz
• James Pitman, a publisher and Conservative Member of Parliament, invented the Initial Teaching Alphabet.
• Charles Galton Darwin, KBE, MC, FRS, grandson of Charles Darwin and director of Britain's National Physical Laboratory (NPL) in World War II, was also a wartime vice-president of the Simplified Spelling Society, thus maintaining a family tradition (see Charles Darwin, above).
• Mont Follick, Labour Member of Parliament and linguist who assisted Pitman in drawing the English spelling reform issue to the attention of Parliament. Favoured replacing w and y with u and i.
• Isaac Asimov
• HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, one-time Patron of the Simplified Spelling Society. Stated that spelling reform should start outside of the UK, and that the lack of progress originates in the discord amongst reformers (although his abandonment of the cause was coincident with literacy being no longer an issue for his own children).
• Robert R. McCormick (1880-1955), publisher of the Chicago Tribune, employed reformed spelling in his newspaper. The Tribune used simplified versions of some words, such as "altho" for "although".
• Edward Rondthaler, 103 year-old commercial actor, chairman of the American Literacy Council and vice-president of the Spelling Society.
• Reginald Deans, the creator of bRitic.
• John C. Wells, London-based phonetician, Esperanto teacher and former professor of phonetics at University College London: current President of the Spelling Society.
• Valerie Yule, a fellow of the Galton Society, vice-president of the Simplified Spelling Society and founder of the Australian Centre for Social Innovations.
• Doug Everingham, doctor, former Australian Labor politician, health minister in the Whitlam government, and author of Chemical Shorthand for Organic Formulae (1943).
• Steve Bett, former professor of typography and computer graphics (Austin, Texas), communications consultant and moderator of global discussion on English spelling reform and related topics.
• Jack Bovill, press officer of England's Pensioners Party and current chairman of the Spelling Society, who has given numerous radio interviews about English spelling around the UK in recent years.
• John Gledhill, professor of linguistics at Coventry University, membership secretary and treasurer of the Spelling Society.

See also

• English orthography
• False etymology
• Phonemic orthography
• Regional accents of English
• Spelling reform
• Simplified Spelling Society
• American and British English spelling differences

References

1. ^ Wijk, Axel (1959). Regularized English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. pp. 17-18.
2. ^ Wijk, Axel (1959). Regularized English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. p. 18.
3. ^ Wijk, Axel (1959). Regularized English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. p. 18.
4. ^ Wijk, Axel (1959). Regularized English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. p. 20.
5. ^ Wijk, Axel (1959). Regularized English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. p. 21.
6. ^ http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/spell/histsp.html
7. ^ http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/spell/histsp.html
8. ^ http://www.johnreilly.info/trlist.htm
9. ^ island — Answers.com
10. ^ "English Language:Orthography". Encyclopædia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/188048/English-language/74808/Orthography. Retrieved on 3 July 2009.
11. ^ Wijk, Axel (1959). Regularized English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. pp. 63-64.
12. ^ http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Annexe:Rectifications_orthographiques_fran%C3%A7aises_de_1990 Rectifications orthographiques françaises de 1990 (French)
13. ^ Wells, John (2000). Longman Pronunciation Dictionary (2nd edition). England: Longman. ISBN 0582364671.
14. ^ Wijk, Axel (1959). Regularized English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. p. 144.
15. ^ George Davidson, Improve Your Spelling, ISBN 0-141-01977-8
16. ^ Wijk, Axel (1959). Regularized English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. p. 144.
17. ^ literacy-research.com
18. ^ Wijk, Axel (1959). Regularized English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
19. ^ Saundspel
20. ^ Wijk, Axel (1959). Regularized English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. p. 17.
21. ^ Wijk, Axel (1959). Regularized English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. p. 17.
22. ^ ^{a b} "House Bars Spelling in President's Style" (PDF). New York Times. 1906-12-13. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9B07E6DC1331E733A25750C1A9649D946797D6CF&oref=slogin. Retrieved on 2007-12-17.
23. ^ John J. Reilly. "Theodore Roosevelt and Spelling Reform". http://www.johnreilly.info/alt20.htm. Based on H.W. Brand's, T.R.: The Last Romantic, pp. 555-558
24. ^ Daniel R. MacGilvray (1986). "A Short History of GPO". http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/history/macgilvray.html.

Further reading

• Righting the Mother Tongue: From Olde English to Email, the Twisted Story of English Spelling, by David Wolman. Collins, ISBN 9780061369254. [1]

External links

• Wyrdplay.org has an extensive list of current spelling reform proposals.
• "English accents and their implications for spelling reform", by J.C. Wells, University College London
• History of Spelling Reform
• Noah Webster on English spelling reform
• The OR-E system: Orthographic Reform of the English Language
• Some spelling reform schemes

Categories: English spelling reform | English language | Linguistics lists

 

 

See Also:

• British English
• Australian English

 

What Links Here:

 

Recently Viewed Pages:

• English Spelling Reform: Encyclopedia
• Na Eto: Blogs
• Ntxe: Images
• Company Information: Compaq: Videos
• Pacar: Blogs
• Noe Vi: Blogs
• Vez Mais: Images
• Real: Images
• Mago: Blogs
• Togel: Blogs

 

Most Popular Pages:

• Buy a Recreational Vehicle: Current Inventory
• Togel: Blogs
• Mago: Blogs
• Perawan Bugil: Blogs
• Askep: Blogs
• Smp Negeri: Blogs
• La Feria, Texas: Toc
• Buy a Recreational Vehicle
• Lkig: Blogs
• Armada Buka: Blogs

Related 'English Spelling Reform' Searches:

related terms:	Spelling Reform	English Spelling Reform	English Language	English Spelling
	Simplified Spelling	Phonemic Orthography	Citation	Spelling Reform Proposals
	Phonemic Proposals	Mixed	Languages	English Orthography

---

top user searches:

---

or search for "English spelling reform" in:		Web:		The Entire Web	Web Directories
		This Site:		Page Titles	Karr Network Sites*	This Site	RV Parts
		News:		Headlines	Weather	Events	Blogs
		Reference:		Encyclopedia	Dictionary	eTexts	Quotes
				Local Map	Discussion Groups	Answers	Wikirectory*
		Multimedia:		Images	Videos
		Shopping:		General Merch.	Consumer Opinion	Auctions	Classifieds

 

---

The Entire Web Web Directories Related* Sites This Site RV Parts Karr Network Sites* Page Titles Headlines Weather Events Blogs Encyclopedia Dictionary eTexts Quotes Answers Local Map Videos Images Social Networking Discussion Groups General Items Auctions Classifieds Consumer Opinion

Inventory RV Service RV Parts Financing Insurance Buying an RV Selling an RV About Us Sitemap