Somebody wrote in a FaceBook group the other day, “It would be great if [Cree] could be written phonetically.” It sounded to me like the frustration of a real speaker wishing Cree were easier to read. With apologies to the original poster, the comment prompted me to start writing, hoping to capture some new thoughts for people who still struggle with the challenge of standard spelling. (And, as always, I acknowledge that my opinions and observations are worth what you pay for them!)
Resistance to standard spelling for Cree is as old as … standard spelling for Cree. Avoiding it is a pretty common among speakers who expect to read Cree as effortlessly as they speak. For some, it may evoke unpleasant memories of a school system that let them down. Regardless, reading is a skill that must be taught. It doesn’t come naturally in any language.
What interested me in this case were the responses of some of the student/speakers who are making genuine progress in their own Cree language reclamation, using standard spelling as part of their toolkit. (And I thank each of them for permission to share their comments here.)
Les Skinner wrote: It [SRO] is written phonetically. It’s actually the English alphabet that isn’t phonetic. Just learn what sounds the symbols represent, and you can actually say any word and say it correctly.
Bill LeBlanc wrote: When the decision was made by scholars and linguists among elders and fluent speakers, at a time when saving the language was vital, SRO was chosen as the standard to better replicate the sounds of the spirit markers, the syllabics, the cahkipêhikanak.
Once you grow accustomed to speaking and reading in SRO to distinguish long vowels from short vowels, it really does come quick. Anishinaabe chose to use the double vowels which really is no different. But phonetics sounding methods aren’t effective either.
Take the word kîsikâw for instance: would you then spell it keesihkow?
- How do you distinguish the short “I” in there without putting an “h” in there?
- And THEN how do you create the long “a” sound without using an “o”?
My point is, unless you’re going to read syllabics, SRO is the best bet. And it works. In just one year I could sight read SRO smoothly.
Claudine Bull wrote: I used to agree with you, until I learned more. Cree sounds are not phonetically the same as their English counterparts.
There are a few examples, but ayinânew, spelled “phonetically” “eye-now-neigh-oh” isn’t even phonetic, it is using all kind of complex spelling rules (bossy e [that is, a phonics rule where the silent e at the end makes a “long” vowel sound], eigh=long a sound). The difference is you learned the rules for that system at a young age.
The beautiful thing about Cree is the sounds often only have one way to spell it, once you learn the phoneme/graphemes (SRO).
Or another great example is the word mîciso, to spell it as if it were English sounds: me-tsoh is tricky because it’s not exactly like that, Cree has some consonants (especially the “c”) that are not examples made in English words.
ahkamêyimo, our language is so beautiful!
Neil Redcrow wrote: whenever people write phonetically every person writes the words differently so there’s never any consistency, if people just took the time to learn SRO all the dictionaries and resources are useful
Aaron Fay wrote: “phonetically” means “using english sounds”. nêhiyawêwin has its own (not english) sounds, and so needs its own spelling system.
Each one of these new-generation language warriors seems to be arguing that standard spelling works. In fact, it even helps!
To a linguist (like me), writing phonetically means using the special symbols of the International Phonetic Alphabet. The word nêhiyâwêwin looks like this: [nehi:’jɒwewɪn]. If you dislike SRO, real linguist-style phonetics is no improvement.
Meanwhile, to an editor (also like me) it’s frustrating when clients insist on “phonetic” spellings for Cree words, as a crutch for English readers. I’ve started calling them “faux-netics”, using the French word “faux” which means “false, fake, artificial”. Because generally, people expect those spellings to look more like written English. But using English spelling for Cree words (well, really, even for English words) is hopelessly ambiguous, and (honestly) drives me mad. Because, unlike Cree SRO, which is predictable and consistent, English spelling is a hot mess!
Beyond the very sound explanations our student/speaker friends gave online (no pun intended), here’s the thing about English: Words like “through”, “though”, “bough”, “cough” and “enough” all use the same “ough” string to make five different vowel sounds. And the “gh” is silent three cases out of five! Meanwhile, “bough” rhymes with “bow” but not “bow” which rhymes with “beau”. And what about “sow”, “sow” and “so”?
My own observation (uninvited as always): English speakers have been dealing with “standard” English spelling since about 1750. Roughly 375 years. For 300 years before that, writers wrote words “as they sounded” which really meant exactly as they pleased.
Three hundred years’ worth of English-language books were published before the idea of standard spelling even came along. After 300 years of guessing and trying to “sound it out”, standard spelling for English began to seem like a good idea. Yet still, in 2026, English speakers resent the crazy arbitrariness. Surely “through”, “though”, “bough” “cough” and “enough” should all rhyme! And what on earth is gained by maintaining silent letters, like the “k” in “know” (though it is pronounced in “acknowledge”) or the “b” in “lamb”?
It is probably only thanks to consistent use – 375 years’ worth – that standard spelling works. It works in the sense that speakers of English dialects around the whole world are able to read and understand the same books. The written language has become a tool that helps English speakers understand one another, even when dialects and pronunciation differ wildly. If you can read Harry Potter (1997–2003), you can read Robinson Crusoe (1719) – and join millions of other English readers all around the world who have done the same. Why would we want any less for Cree?
Written Cree developed much more recently. Our earliest records of written Cree date from the 1800s. Standard spelling began right around 1970. That’s 56 years. Not very long at all.
Some people argue that standard spelling was imposed on Cree by môniyâw linguists, and reject it on that basis. But my own research shows fully fluent Cree speakers taking responsibility for developing and sharing standard spelling to help pull Cree back from the edge of extinction. And (I sincerely believe) every one of them knew that English spelling – which is a mangled mess – was the worst possible model.
Carl Urion’s 1978 doctoral thesis from the University of Alberta describes a meeting organized by a first-language speaker of Cree (most likely Sister Nancy LeClaire). It brought together Cree speakers, including an Elder, teachers and linguists to talk about how standard spelling could be introduced and promoted. Many quotes are drawn verbatim from that 1975 meeting; some are even transcribed in Cree, like this one that quotes the meeting’s convenor, clarifying the role of the môniyâwak in the room:
(Recall: this group was assembled to make decisions about a system of standard spelling that was under development. The spelling is inconsistent, yet recognizable. Not “phonetic” – but not the SRO that we know today.)
Within the meeting, they even discussed how the spelling system could be implemented. Nobody wanted to be responsible for presenting a fait-accompli. A quote from the meeting’s Elder seems to address the group’s awkward position:
In this passage, the Elder makes it clear that the purpose of the standard spelling system is to support language reclamation. Yet he also acknowledges the deeply Cree impulse to work things out for oneself, guided by free will. Is it possible that this impulse – to work things on one’s own – is part of the frustration non-reading speakers experience when they first encounter SRO?
The purpose of writing, after all, is to be read. And if your writing is unlike anyone else’s, and your spelling is made up fresh every time, your chances of being read for understanding by anyone else are seriously diminished. It makes me wonder, fifty years into the standard spelling experiment, what if we collectively concede that, we’ve got something pretty useful in SRO? Maybe we could even stop re-inventing the wheel.
Here’s another personal observation, that I offer for consideration. How many technologies do we use daily that allow us to put our personal preferences ahead of what is built in?
- We use the gas pedal and brake pedal when we drive; sometimes we even use signals! But we have no say in how vehicles are manufactured.
- We curse autocorrect again and again (for normalizing English spelling) when we text.
- The cell phones in our pockets offer latitude in colour schemes, ring tones, the apps we install, and how we choose to configure them.
But whenever we misspell something important, like an email address, or an URL, or when we enter a wrong phone number, our phones are completely unforgiving. We have no alternative but to correct our errors and try again. So much for spelling and typing exactly as we please!
Our 21st-century lives are increasingly dominated by technology, for good or for bad. What if we consider standard spelling just another technology that serves a specific purpose? Yes, it takes a little getting used to, but SRO is actually measurably simpler than English because it is based on the sounds the language uses that can change meaning (that linguists call “phonemes”). Here’s some supporting math:
- Cree has 17 phonemes; English has 44.
- SRO uses 17 symbols for those 17 sounds: one character for each meaningful sound..
- English uses 26 symbols to represent 44 phonemes: a mathematical challenge before we even begin.
With only relatively minor adjustments for dialect, SRO has held its ground for fifty years. Free will assures your right to reject it and write as you please (though you may find a smaller audience). In the same FaceBook post that launched this lengthy spiel, a thoughtful Cherokee speaker offers to make up something to help. Will people flock to a new, Cherokee-based hypothetical spelling system? Will we wait another 50 years to find out?
Based on the example of English, spelling irritation can last for centuries. Yet even grudging acceptance supports development of literacy, and literacy is profoundly important for intellectual development. SRO can create a more level playing field for language learners. It can support our progress in learning, and act as a key that unlocks access to the many books, dictionaries and online tools – all using SRO – that have been built over the last few decades.
Free will remains an important Cree traditional value, but in the case of standard spelling, how do we really benefit by spelling as we please? Fifty years of using SRO may not be very long in the grand scheme of things, but for those struggling to develop fluency and reclaim a language that was stolen, standard spelling opens door after door, leading to ever deeper understanding. For a relatively minor investment of time and effort, that’s a pretty great reward.
One Response
I feel proud and immensely grateful for SRO nêhiyawi-kiskinwahamâkosiyân. ninanâskomâwak kêhtê-ayak for standard spelling. It is a very exciting time to be learning nêhiyawêwin. Great article !