Oct. 4, 2002

Luvved the article: (Mnopspteiche? Relax for a Spell).

Ken O'Brien
St. John's, N.L.

Oct. 1, 2002

Good morning,

I read the article Mnopspteiche? Relax for a Spell with interest, being a keen follower of what is happening to the English language – especially here in Canada.

When I started public school, the spelling books only acknowledged "program" as an American variation of "programme" in an addendum at the back of the books, certainly not as a viable alternative for use in Canada. Much has changed since then, unfortunately. I say unfortunately as I see the thoughts and practices of the United States being inflicted on our way of life, way of thinking; and, yes, even our way of writing and speaking. That influence was strong enough from American television alone, but since the advent of American word-processing programmes, we are fighting a losing battle. Even when such a software programme offers "English-Canadian" as an alternative to the default "English-U.S.," most people do not bother to change that default; thus they are informed that words such as "centre," "labour," "programme," and "catalogue," just to mention a few, are being spelt incorrectly.

In recent years, not only has our spelling been attacked, but our pronunciation, as well. This brings me to the point of my letter. It was with regret that I noted that your article included, in its list of "homophones" for the "oo" sound, the word "stew." This is a prime example of one of the worst effects of U.S. influence on Canadian English. The "ew" of "stew" is properly a diphthong and should rhyme with "mew" (the only example of a word containing that sound that I can safely assume will be pronounced correctly, as the alternative would turn a cat into a cow), in the same way that, in Canada, one should properly talk about "the tune heard before the CBC News on Tuesday" as opposed to the ugly American sound required for the U.S. equivalent – "the toon heard before the NBC Noos on Toosday."

I envy French Quebec. At least, there it has been recognised that language is important and there is much to lose. When it comes to English Canada, if that recognition ever comes, it will come too late.

Lorne H. Warren,
St. John's, Newfoundland

Editor’s Note: One “ew” word that doesn’t seem to cause a buzz is crew, as in crew cut. “Croo” is the common pronunciation. “Cryoo” might make some people’s hair stand on end.

If you prefer “st-yoo” (stew) to “stoo,” or “st-yoo-dents” (students) to “stoo-dents,” or “d-yoo” (dew) to “doo,” you’re not alone. But you’re not necessarily in the majority in Canada.

Scholars who study the way we talk refer to this type of missing “y” sound as “yod dropping,” and it’s been happening in this country for a very long time. Millions of people say “noo” (new) instead of “n-yoo,” for instance. In a 1998 article in the Journal of English Linguistics, University of Toronto professor Jack Chambers estimates that “Canadians have been yod droppers” for at least 70 years, and “presumably longer than that.” (Surveys weren’t conducted before the 1920s.)

Some of us use a blend of sounds in our speech. We may, for instance, say “tyoos-day” (Tuesday) instead of “toos-day,” but then turn around and prefer “toon” (tune) to “tyoon.” It’s easy to argue that this enriches our language, adding a little variety to the brew – which rhymes with “clue,” as in “ooh-la-la.” But more than a few might say phew (as in bad stench), and phooey.

Oct. 1, 2002

First of all, let me say how much I enjoy the feature Words: Woe & Wonder. It's usually much better than other columns out there, especially the ones written by that self-important William Safire in the New York Times.

But I digress.

In your column (note the useless "n") Mnopspteiche? Relax for a Spell, you highlighted the common problem with the i-e/ei letter combinations:

Guidelines have been drawn up with limited success over the years. The most famous is probably “i before e except after c” (brief, believe, receive, receipt) – which actually doesn’t work very well unless you remember the next line, “or when sounded like ‘a’ as in neighbour and weigh” (heinous, freight, vein, sleigh).

In school I was taught only (not only taught) the first line, which, as you wrote, doesn't work very well without the second line.

But then you brought up the problem I first noticed when my dad was working at a school called Humber Heights:

But even after committing the longer rhyme to memory one can ‘leisurely’ find exceptions and rapidly ‘seize’ upon the conclusion that such simple rules are ‘either’ ‘counterfeit’ or of limited value. Consider: foreign, forfeit, their, neither, protein, caffeine, heir, and height.

However, it seems to me I remember someone telling me a third line for that same rhyme (will someone please tell me how we got that spelling of the word rhyme) that covers some of these exceptions. Perhaps your readers (or whatever you call people who read stuff on an Internet Web site) know this line and can help the rest of us poor sods who simply have to remember.

Now at the risk of wearing out my welcome, I would like to ask a question that has troubled me even before it was brought up by the aforementioned William Safire.

When I try to teach English to people in Taiwan, it's really difficult to explain why we say "Please dial the number." Especially when most people here have never seen a dial phone and don't know what a dial is.

And why, when we use cell phones/mobile phones, do we still say "She hung up on me" when there is no hook to hang the phone on?

And when your cell phone keeps ringing all the time, what is it doing if it's not ringing off the hook?

And is it even "ringing" when it's playing a computer-generated series of tones that sounds like Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D Minor? If its not ringing, what is it doing?

Of course not all questions about telephone English have been brought on by the advent of mobile technology. I still want to know why:

• we "answer" the phone when it's not asking a question;

• we say "hello" when we answer the phone. I read somewhere that Alexander Graham Bell wanted people to say "ahoy!";

• people from Hong Kong to Halifax always say "bye bye" instead of "goodbye" or something else when they end a telephone conversation.

Just asking. Perhaps you could write about this in a future column.

Thank You

Stephen A. Nelson
Editor, Writer, and Teacher
Taipei, Taiwan

Editor’s Note:

(1) There are various versions of the “i before e” doggerel. One is:

Write ‘i’ before ‘e’
Except after ‘c’
Or when sounded like ‘a’
As in ‘neighbour’ and ‘weigh’

And except ‘seize’ and ‘seizure’
And also ‘leisure’
‘Weird,’ ‘height,’ and ‘either’
‘Forfeit’ and ‘neither’

But even this longer rhyme doesn’t cover all the exceptions. In their 1999 book Sleeping Dogs Don’t Lay, Richard Lederer and Richard Dowis propose something more encompassing, although less catchy:

‘i’ before ‘e’
When the sound is long e
With some exceptions.

‘i’ after ‘e’
Especially after ‘c’
When the sound is long ‘e’
With some exceptions

(2) Thanks for the good suggestion about a column on relics from evolved technology. In 1991, one of the authors above made a similar observation about phones:

”We use to dial telephone numbers and dial up people and places. Now that most of us have converted from rotary to push-button phones, how do we make telephonic connections? Do we still dial them? We might continue to use this word, but dials are round and we are not really dialing.

So we search for a verb that rings the bell (except that telephones no longer ring; they chirp) and is right on the button: ‘Sorry, I must have pushed the wrong number’; ‘I think I’ll punch up Doris’; I’ve got to index-finger the Internal Revenue Service’; Press ‘M for Murder’– all these verbs are too suggestive, aggressive, or absurd.”

Richard Lederer
The Miracle of Language

Sept. 30, 2002

Really interesting article. (Mnopspteiche? Relax for a Spell)

Enjoyed reading it.

Just a short comment. You wrote:

“Based on e-mail we get, many people do seem interested in maintaining consistency.”

That's cuz most of the people that u get emails (e-mails?) from are pedants!

The emails that I get (both personal and work related) are full of things like: ur, tonite, thinkin, etc.

Pedants actively protest against any change. Normal people however, just use the language to communicate and usually do it in the most efficient way. I don't see a need for a regulatory body for simplifying the writing of the English language simply because it's a live language and does change and get simplified by itself over time. People who are afraid of these changes should realize that preventing these changes not only doesn't preserve the language, but also suffocates it.

As far as I've seen, the Internet has increased the pace of these changes a bit because it's allowed a higher percentage of people to communicate through written language (Web & email). Normal people prefer simplicity. Not too difficult to spell, also not too unfamiliar and far from the "known original". The interaction between these people (which has increased because the Internet) accentuates their will and changes the language gradually.

Regards,

Babak Taati
A CBC fan
Burnaby, B.C.

Sept. 28, 2002

I have a story about an ESL (English as a Second Language) teacher that could further accentuate your point about spelling.

She is a friend of my mother, and was trying to teach the -ough ending to her class. Her examples included rough and tough.

The next week, a beaming Middle Eastern student of hers burst into the class with a gift for everyone because he had found an example of the -ough ending that was not mentioned in class – doughnuts (which he proudly pronounced as “d-uff-nuts.”

Brett Tremblay
Toronto

top | main index | archived letters | contact us