Schools to rethink 'i before e'
Ian Jackson
"The spelling mantra "i before e except after c" is no longer worth
teaching, according to the government."
"The i before e rule is not worth teaching. It applies only to words in
which the ie or ei stands for a clear ee sound. Unless this is known,
words such as sufficient and veil look like exceptions."
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8110573.stm>
With the present scandal about the excessive expenses claimed by the
Members of Parliament, are those in 'high places' having difficulty
spelling "receipt"?
--
Ian
HVS
> According to the BBC news:
>
> "The spelling mantra "i before e except after c" is no longer
> worth teaching, according to the government."
>
> "The i before e rule is not worth teaching. It applies only to
> words in which the ie or ei stands for a clear ee sound. Unless
> this is known, words such as sufficient and veil look like
> exceptions."
>
><http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8110573.stm>
I found the saying marginally useful as a child, but it's such a weak
"rule" with so many exceptions that I can't imagine dropping it would
undermine kids' spelling skills.
It also struck me a few years ago that a large number of people seem
to have learned only the first line of the saying -- and not the bit
about "neighbour and weigh", which at least covers a number of the
main exceptions -- which makes it an even less useful rule of thumb.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
Ian Jackson
<use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> writes
an "i" ("height"), and some as the "ai" in "air" ("their"). However, off
the top of my head, I think of any where an "ei" following a "c" doesn't
have the "ee" sound, or where the correct spelling is "...cie....". Any
suggestions? I'm sure there are some exceptions, but I do feel that it
is a pretty good rule.
--
Ian
Mike Page
Ceildh
niceish
species? All with good reasons, I grant you.
--
Mike Page
Google me at port.ac.uk if you need to send an email.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>According to the BBC news:
>
>"The spelling mantra "i before e except after c" is no longer worth
>teaching, according to the government."
>
>"The i before e rule is not worth teaching. It applies only to words in
>which the ie or ei stands for a clear ee sound. Unless this is known,
>words such as sufficient and veil look like exceptions."
>
They could try teaching the fuller version of the menmonic. Per
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_before_E_except_after_C
A British version is:
when the sound is ee
it's i before e
except after c
There are British and American views on the AUE website:
Mark Wainwright:
http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxibefor.html
Bob Cunningham:
http://alt-usage-english.org/I_before_E.html
><http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8110573.stm>
>
>With the present scandal about the excessive expenses claimed by the
>Members of Parliament, are those in 'high places' having difficulty
>spelling "receipt"?
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Egbert White
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:42:01 +0100, Ian Jackson
><ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>According to the BBC news:
>>
>>"The spelling mantra "i before e except after c" is no longer worth
>>teaching, according to the government."
>>
>>"The i before e rule is not worth teaching. It applies only to words in
>>which the ie or ei stands for a clear ee sound. Unless this is known,
>>words such as sufficient and veil look like exceptions."
>>
>They could try teaching the fuller version of the menmonic. Per
>Wikipedia:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_before_E_except_after_C
>
> A British version is:
>
> when the sound is ee
> it's i before e
> except after c
I understand that in modern BrE the many plurals of words ending in
'-cy,' like 'frequencies' and 'fancies,' are clearly spoken with an
'ee' sound by lots of speakers. Then there's 'seize,' the singular
word 'species,' 'Sheila,' and sheikh.' (A shorter Oxford says 'shake'
for 'sheikh,' but it also says 'sheek.')
>There are British and American views on the AUE website:
>Mark Wainwright:
>http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxibefor.html
>
>Bob Cunningham:
>http://alt-usage-english.org/I_before_E.html
>
>><http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8110573.stm>
>>
>>With the present scandal about the excessive expenses claimed by the
>>Members of Parliament, are those in 'high places' having difficulty
>>spelling "receipt"?
--
Egbert White | "He whom the gods love dies young, while
WAmE | he is in health, has his senses and his
| judgments sound." (Titus Maccius Plautus)
Evan Kirshenbaum
> There are some words where "ei" is pronounced as "a", others where it
> is an "i" ("height"), and some as the "ai" in "air"
> ("their"). However, off the top of my head, I think of any where an
> "ei" following a "c" doesn't have the "ee" sound, or where the correct
> spelling is "...cie....". Any suggestions? I'm sure there are some
> exceptions, but I do feel that it is a pretty good rule.
I was going to say something on the order of
I'm sure that many agencies could find in their policies for
emergencies exceptions in reasonable sufficiencies.
but I wasn't too happy with it, so I'll just note that the plurals of
words that end in "-cy" are all exceptional.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Usenet is like Tetris for people
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |who still remember how to read.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Ian Jackson
<mike...@ntlworld.com> writes
>niceish
>species? All with good reasons, I grant you.
>
--
Ian
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<eggw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I understand that in modern BrE the many plurals of words ending in
>'-cy,' like 'frequencies' and 'fancies,' are clearly spoken with an
>'ee' sound by lots of speakers.
Yes. There seems to be greater stress on the "-ies" than I'm accustomed
to. It's as though the spelling were "-ease".
Ildhund
> Egbert White wrote:
>
>>I understand that in modern BrE the many plurals of words ending
>>in '-cy,' like 'frequencies' and 'fancies,' are clearly spoken
>>with an 'ee' sound by lots of speakers.
>
> Yes. There seems to be greater stress on the "-ies" than I'm
> accustomed to. It's as though the spelling were "-ease".
Ditto. Perhaps there's some sort of misplaced analogy with
"parenthesis" > "parentheses", "series" et sim, where a marking of
the ending as a plural seems necessary in speech.
--
Noel
Egbert White
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 07:42:01 -0700, Egbert White
><eggw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>I understand that in modern BrE the many plurals of words ending in
>>'-cy,' like 'frequencies' and 'fancies,' are clearly spoken with an
>>'ee' sound by lots of speakers.
>
>Yes. There seems to be greater stress on the "-ies" than I'm accustomed
>to. It's as though the spelling were "-ease".
As opposed to traditional RP, as shown in an older Concise Oxford,
where the '-ies' is pronounced more like the 'izz' of 'fizz'? FWIW,
though, my older COD does show 'species' with the 'fees' vowel as an
alternative to the 'fizz' vowel.
--
Egbert White | You can fool some of the people some of the
WAme | time -- and that's enough to make a decent
| living. (W.C.Fields)
Egbert White
And 'specie,' 'Coin money as opp. to paper money.'
>>All with good reasons, I grant you.
>>
>As you say, all with good reasons.
Actually all with the same reason: the i before e rule is worthless,
even with the 'ee' sound restriction.
Someone has said that the rule can be actually harmful, and I agree.
If I had never heard of the rule, I would spell 'seize' correctly,
like I do other words, simply because I remembered how to spell it,
but because of the silly rule I may find myself wasting time to wonder
momentarily why it isn't spelled with 'i' before 'e' because there's
no preceding 'c.'
--
Egbert White | i before e except after c ... or not.
WAmE
James Silverton
> Actually all with the same reason: the i before e rule is worthless,
> even with the 'ee' sound restriction.
> Someone has said that the rule can be actually harmful, and I
> agree. If I had never heard of the rule, I would spell 'seize'
> correctly, like I do other words, simply because I remembered
> how to spell it, but because of the silly rule I may find
> myself wasting time to wonder momentarily why it isn't spelled
> with 'i' before 'e' because there's no preceding 'c.'
As someone who works with the "looks right" method, I find the "i before
e" rule useful because it makes me think about the spelling. Of course,
most word processors have spelling checkers and I wonder if schools
disapprove of them? Does anyone handwrite any more except when jotting
down memos and writing personal notes of condolence etc.? Despite my
atrocious writing, I still think condolences are best handwritten, even
if I compose them with a word processor first.
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
Skitt
> Actually all with the same reason: the i before e rule is worthless,
> even with the 'ee' sound restriction.
>
> Someone has said that the rule can be actually harmful, and I agree.
> If I had never heard of the rule, I would spell 'seize' correctly,
> like I do other words, simply because I remembered how to spell it,
> but because of the silly rule I may find myself wasting time to wonder
> momentarily why it isn't spelled with 'i' before 'e' because there's
> no preceding 'c.'
I never paid attention to any spelling rules. I pay attention to how words
are spelled. I manage to do a fair to middling job, it seems.
--
Skitt (AmE)
it ain't brain surgery, ya' know.
R H Draney
The rule must die, if only to put paid to this:
"weird" 90,500,000 Google hits
"wierd" 8,260,000
....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
Mark Brader
>>> even with the 'ee' sound restriction.
I'm not very fond of it myself. I think it's easier to just remember all
the words.
>>> If I had never heard of the rule, I would spell 'seize' correctly....
> The rule must die, if only to put paid to this:
>
> "weird" 90,500,000 Google hits
> "wierd" 8,260,000
Well, if it helps, you can always remember that "weird" has a weird
spelling, and to "seize" is improper, whereas a "siege" is a military
operation and must be conducted according to the rules.
--
Mark Brader First, the next time you buy a house, get one that
m...@vex.net costs exactly $100,000. It makes the math easier.
Toronto -- John Gilmer
Mark Brader
> Ditto. Perhaps there's some sort of misplaced analogy with
> "parenthesis" > "parentheses", "series" et sim, where a marking of
> the ending as a plural seems necessary in speech.
How is the ending of plural "series" marked in speech? I am not aware
of any distinction from the singular, despite the resulting confusion.
(We really should *not* have imported those 5th-declension nouns with
their Latin plurals intact!)
--
Mark Brader | "I wish to inform you now that the square peg is now
Toronto | in square whole and can be voguish for that your
m...@vex.net | payment is being processed..." --seen in spam
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Robert Bannister
Simply change to "I before E is wrong after C".
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> "Noel":
>> Ditto. Perhaps there's some sort of misplaced analogy with
>> "parenthesis" > "parentheses", "series" et sim, where a marking of
>> the ending as a plural seems necessary in speech.
>
> How is the ending of plural "series" marked in speech? I am not aware
> of any distinction from the singular, despite the resulting confusion.
> (We really should *not* have imported those 5th-declension nouns with
> their Latin plurals intact!)
"seer-riz" and "seer-reez".
--
Rob Bannister
Mark Brader
>>> Ditto. Perhaps there's some sort of misplaced analogy with
>>> "parenthesis" > "parentheses", "series" et sim, where a marking of
>>> the ending as a plural seems necessary in speech.
Mark Brader:
>> How is the ending of plural "series" marked in speech? I am not aware
>> of any distinction from the singular, despite the resulting confusion.
>> (We really should *not* have imported those 5th-declension nouns with
>> their Latin plurals intact!)
Rob Bannister:
> "seer-riz" and "seer-reez".
Huh. As I implied, not so here.
--
Mark Brader | "Have you got anything without Spam in it?"
Toronto | "Well, there's Spam, egg, sausage, and Spam.
m...@vex.net | That's not got *much* Spam in it." --Monty Python
Egbert White
Sometimes.
The multitude of plurals ending in '-cies,' with the 'ie' pronounced
like 'ee,' scream refutation.
--
Egbert White
WAmE
ProfQ
example: full-stop close quotation marks (.") taken over from the
Americans who tend to impose their brand of English on the wider
English-speaking world and everyone adopts it as being "correct". We
were taught "close quotation marks full-stop" (".) or (",) as the case
may be; "which" in place of "that"; "it's" in place of "its", and I
recently saw "i'ts"
I before E except after C is fundamental English, British English, and
after all, Britain (or is it now BRITTEN?) is the originator of the
language, and if Britain/BRITTEN changes things, there is no hope for
future purity of our language.
Those who advocate dropping fundamental spelling rules are not doing
anyone any favours. Call me a purist if you must, but I am
wholeheartedly against any further degradation of my home language.
ProfQ
C, then neither will change to neether, and the ramifications of such
juvenile decisions will be felt throughout (threw-out??) the entire world.
"Jack Bovill, of the Spelling Society THAT advocates simplified
spelling, said Saturday he agreed with the decision".
NO, NO, NO, a million times NO.
In fact, we could have a great deal of fun rewriting the English
language, thus: I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht
I was rdanieg. The phanomneal pweor of the hmuan mnid. Aoccdrnig to
rscheerach at Cmabirgde Uinrevtisy, it deosn't mttaer in what oedrr the
ltteers in a word are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and
lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you
can sltil raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos
not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig, huh?
Yaeh and I awlyas tghhuot slpelnig was ipmorantt!
I rest my case!
Evan Kirshenbaum
> In South Africa, we have our own adulteration of the language; for
> example: full-stop close quotation marks (.") taken over from the
> Americans who tend to impose their brand of English on the wider
> English-speaking world and everyone adopts it as being "correct".
I think I can safely speak for the vast majority of Americans in
saying that we don't have any interest at all in how South Africans
punctuate English. If you guys choose to pay atention to how the vast
majority of native speakers of the language (i.e., Americans) use it
and emulate our example, look to your own reasons for doing so.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If all else fails, embarrass the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |industry into doing the right
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |thing.
| Dean Thompson
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Egbert White
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:09:05 +0200, ProfQ <pse...@intelligence.info>
wrote:
>In South Africa, we have our own adulteration of the language; for
>example: full-stop close quotation marks (.") taken over from the
>Americans who tend to impose their brand of English on the wider
>English-speaking world and everyone adopts it as being "correct". We
>were taught "close quotation marks full-stop" (".) or (",) as the case
>may be; "which" in place of "that"; "it's" in place of "its", and I
>recently saw "i'ts"
>
>I before E except after C is fundamental English, British English, and
>after all, Britain (or is it now BRITTEN?) is the originator of the
>language, and if Britain/BRITTEN changes things, there is no hope for
>future purity of our language.
If I understand you correctly, what you seem to be saying is that you
would like to be faithful to the traditional i before e rule for
sentimental reasons even though it's obvious nonsense even for BrE.
>Those who advocate dropping fundamental spelling rules are not doing
>anyone any favours.
Anyone who could effect the banishment forever of the i before e rule
would be doing a great favor to kids who have to learn it in their
early years, then later have to find out the hard way that it's
worthless and can even be harmful in that it could lead an innocent
child to write things like *"frequenceis," *"tendenceis," *"protien,"
*"caffiene," or *"sieze."
>Call me a purist if you must, but I am
>wholeheartedly against any further degradation of my home language.
Apparently, you are as well dead set on defending staunchly the
degradation it has already suffered. "Purist" is not the right word;
"reactionary" would be better.
--
Egbert White
WAmE
Robert Bannister
> ProfQ <pse...@intelligence.info> writes:
>
>> In South Africa, we have our own adulteration of the language; for
>> example: full-stop close quotation marks (.") taken over from the
>> Americans who tend to impose their brand of English on the wider
>> English-speaking world and everyone adopts it as being "correct".
>
> I think I can safely speak for the vast majority of Americans in
> saying that we don't have any interest at all in how South Africans
> punctuate English. If you guys choose to pay atention to how the vast
> majority of native speakers of the language (i.e., Americans) use it
> and emulate our example, look to your own reasons for doing so.
>
But are you native speakers of "our" language?
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
I would suggest that the child would have to be completely stupid to
apply this rule to "-cies" words, since another rule has priority.
"Caffeine", "seize" and a few others are complete oddities, and it's not
to difficult to learn a few exceptions.
Indeed, barring names, "seize" is probably the only one in common use,
unless we omit the "pronounced as ee" part and pronounce
"either/neither" with an "ee".
What is wrong is calling it a rule; it is a useful guide and nothing more.
--
Rob Bannister
Evan Kirshenbaum
Well, if you don't consider the language that the vast majority of
people who call their native language "English" speak to be your
language, I certainly don't see why you'd worry about how we use the
language we speak. I wouldn't think it would interfere with your
language any more than the way Parisians speak French would.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |On a scale of one to ten...
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |it sucked.
R H Draney
>
>I would suggest that the child would have to be completely stupid to
>apply this rule to "-cies" words, since another rule has priority.
>"Caffeine", "seize" and a few others are complete oddities, and it's not
>to difficult to learn a few exceptions.
>
>Indeed, barring names, "seize" is probably the only one in common use,
>unless we omit the "pronounced as ee" part and pronounce
>"either/neither" with an "ee".
>
>What is wrong is calling it a rule; it is a useful guide and nothing more.
You can dress it up and call it an heuristic....r
John Lawler
<ianREMOVETHISjack...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> According to the BBC news:
>
> "The spelling mantra "i before e except after c" is no longer worth
> teaching, according to the government."
>
> "The i before e rule is not worth teaching. It applies only to words in
> which the ie or ei stands for a clear ee sound. Unless this is known,
> words such as sufficient and veil look like exceptions."
>
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8110573.stm>
>
> Members of Parliament, are those in 'high places' having difficulty
> spelling "receipt"?
> --
For what it's worth, Language Log (in the person of Geoff Pullum of
Edinburgh) is already on it.
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1525
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue
A better name for "Education" is "lying to children".
-- Sir Terry Pratchett