Because of the existence of so many common homophones in the English language, Bullokar wanted to retain some way of distinguishing between these words in print, and if two different symbols signified the production of the same sound, this could be accomplished (Wolfe 41). His reform efforts were essentially centered around the visual word, no doubt due to the novelty of the printing press, and he attempted to develop a simple visual system for pronouncing the English language. Pitman's shorthand accomplishes the same thing, to some degree, but that was not at all its purpose nor is his system limited in such a fashion. Pitman wanted to develop a true science behind the development and codification of linguistic elements, and his phonetic shorthand system -- one of the first serious and comprehensive efforts at the development of a phonetic alphabet for English -- does largely this, having one symbol for each corresponding sound and allowing for a fair degree of approximation of pronunciations (S. Pitman; Baker 23-7). Pitman's understanding of and approach to the issue can be seen as almost directly opposite that of Bullokar's from a certain perspective -- rather than focusing on the visual elements of language, he was entirely focused on its phonics; the visual means of recording the independent phonemes encountered in the English language was secondary to his drive towards identifying these phonemes themselves.

Both Pitman and Bullokar faced rather tough uphill -- and ultimately fruitless, in many regards -- battles in their respective campaigns for the reform of the English language, but their historical and political situations again demonstrate more difference than similarity. Bullokar lived in the Early modern period of the English language, when a multitude of forces -- not the least of which was the printing press -- ended up bringing a certain measure of regularity to the language, but in a very haphazard series of fits and starts rather than along the conscious and determined lines he was pursuing. Pitman, on the other hand, faced the bureaucracy...

Neither man was successful in implementing the degree of reform he envisioned, and though both had an effect on the trajectory of the English language history shows that it was almost entirely out of their hands.
Language is not, at least insofar as its development and common usage, a scientific thing. Though linguistic theories and understandings can be of enormous benefit and use, as well as providing enormous intellectual pleasure, when it comes to the everyday understanding and use of language by the billions of non-linguists who use it, it is far more subjective, fluid, and finicky than scientific rules will allow for. The millions of English speakers around the world and the variety of dialects that they speak would not only require an inordinately large alphabet to accurately record the array of possible sounds, but such an alphabet would also ruin what makes English great. The diversity of its background and its speakers are two of its largest assets.

Works Cited

Baker, Alfred. The Life of Sir Isaac Pitman. London: Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, 1919.

Bullokar, William. Three Pamphlets on Grammar. Accessed 26 March 2010. http://ota.oucs.ox.ac.uk/headers/0025.xml

Dons, Ute. Descriptive Adequacy of Early Modern English Grammars. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004.

Pitman, Sir Isaac. A History of Shorthand. London: Ben Pitman, 1890.

Pitman, Ben. Sir Isaac Pitman: His Life and Labors. London: Ben Pitman, 1902.

Wolfe, Patricia. Linguistic Change and the Great Vowel Shift in English. Los angeles: University of California Press, 1972.