Skrivet gant Peter Kolb: The problems with reforming French are the same as with reforming Danish, Faeroese, English or any language with an historical spelling system: - the spelling serves a social function by distinguising between educated people (who master it) and uneducated people (who don't). Of course, educated people will resist any change (with a pretty ideological rationalization) whereas uneducated ones are... well uneducated. - litteracy is pretty high, so reforming the spelling amounts to forcing more than 50 million people to learn a brand new spelling system. They will resist it for the same reason they would resist esperanto or interlingua : the cost of learning is real and immediate while the benefits are only long-term (most of them can use the established system even if imperfectly) - using a new spelling, significantly different from the old one, means cutting oneself from the body of established litterature (not only novels but also practical books, legal codes, archives, administrative decision). Only a tiny fraction could be translitterated. Beside, the difference between spoken and written french is such that one generation after the change you would have to learn a different language to read them. Granted Lenin and Mao did it, but their population was mostly illiterate. - people cling to the old system because it is hard to master. The only situation where a french speaking could change its spelling would be a breakaway province (say britanny or corsica) trying to get rid of French. Then the cutting off from established litterature and the rest of the french speaking world would be an advantage.