Please note: This website has no control over the ads placed here by Google AdSense or Tripod. Caveat emptor.

Simpler Spelling
Word of the Day
Archive of Discussions
July-September 2014

Click here for today's suggestion.
Click here to return to the archive index.
Click here for a list of possible future words.
Click here for the principles that govern the selection of words.

Tuesday, September 30, 2014:  "tennure" for "tenure"

The present spelling is ambiguous, and can be seen as having a long-E or short-I sound in the first syllable and the stress on the second syllable (tee.núer or ti.núer). It actually has a short-E in the first syllable, the syllable that bears the word's stress. To show those two things plainly, let us write: "tennure".

Munday, September 29, 2014:  "shooss" for "schuss"

We have today a word that is hard to make clear as to pronunciation, due to the fact that there are two OO-sounds in English, one long, as in "food", the other short, as in "good". As you can see from these sample words, which differ by only one letter, there is no way that a reader can know whether an OO is long or short.* But we can at least make very plain here that the sound is not short-U (as in "fuss", "truss", and "discuss"). If we reform words with a long-OO to show them to have that sound (as by adding an H ("poohl"), or a silent-E after a following consonant ("poole"), readers will come to understand words without one of those indicators of long-OO as having a short-OO.

The other problem with today's word is that SCH is ambiguous, and should ordinarily be seen as having a K-sound ("school", "schedule", "schematic"). Here, however, it has an ordinary SH-sound, so we can drop the C, save ourselves a letter (which is always to the good), and make the sound plain: "shooss".
____________________

* There actually is a second pronunciation of today's word with a long-OO, or long-U without initial Y-glide, as ever you may wish to conceive of that sound. But that is uncommon, and the sole auditory pronunciation at Merriam-Webster Online has a short-OO.

Sunday, September 28, 2014:  "refferee" for "referee"

RE- is a frequently seen prefix that is ordinarily pronounced with a long-E. That's not the sound today, which is a short-E. To show that, let's double the R: "refferee".

Saturday, September 27, 2014:  "peddigree" for "pedigree"

A single-D leaves unclear whether the E before it is long or short. It's short. To show that, we need merely double the D: "peddigree".

Friday, September 26, 2014:  "otovva" for "ottava"

Today's word from music* looks as tho it should rhyme with "Ottawa" (ót.a.wa), but it's very different (oe.tóv.a). To show its actual pronunciation, we should rewrite it: "otovva".
____________________

* Merriam-Webster:  "at an octave higher or lower than written — used as a direction in music".

Thursday, September 25, 2014:  "meninjeoma" for "meningioma"

Today's medical word* has an NG, which is highly ambiguous, and an IO to represent a combination of the long-E and long-O sounds.

NG could be pronounced as in "sing", "finger", "ingrained", or "injest" (sing, fíng.ger, in.gráend, in.jést). And IO could be pronounced as in "iota", "Iowa", or "idiot" (ie.yóe.ta, íe.ya.wa, íd.ee.yat), whereas here it is actually pronounced like EO in "Leo".

Two little alterations will make the pronunciation clear: "meninjeoma".
____________________

* Merriam-Webster:  "a slow-growing encapsulated typically benign tumor arising from the meninges and often causing damage by pressing upon the brain and adjacent parts".

Wensday, September 24, 2014:  "hollandaze" for "hollandaise"

AISE is a dopy and inefficient way to write what sounds like a long-A followed by a Z-sound, as in "daze", "craze", and "ablaze". S in place of Z? Why? And why an -E, when AI is reasonably clear without more (as in "paid", "stain", and "acclaim")?: "hollandaze".

Tuesday, September 23, 2014:  "glaibrus" for "glabrous"*

Today's traditional spelling is very unclear. The two-letter consonant cluster BR powerfully suggests (nay, mandates) that the A before it takes its short sound, whereas it is actually long. To show the proper sound, we need to do so within the spelling of the vowel itself. We could do that by writing AE, AI, or AY.  AE for long-A is unusual in traditional English, so not the best choice. AY is clear, but unusual midword, so is also not the best choice. AI is reasonably clear, and is the usual way that a long-A is shown midword ("paid", "staid", "mislaid"**). Let's use that.

As regards the OUS at the end of this word, there is no OU-sound there, so should be no OU written there. Rather, we can — here as in hundreds of other words — clarify the sound by dropping the O and saving ourselves a letter: "glaibrus".
____________________

* Merriam-Webster:  "smooth; especially : having a surface without hairs or projections".

** I like the Merriam-Webster definition for "mislaid": "to put in an unremembered place". The human memory is an amazing thing, but now and then we pay insufficient attention, at the time, to where we put something, physically or electronically, and that can cause enormous problems.

Munday, September 22, 2014:  "falaishus" for "fallacious"

The letter sequence A-L-L ordinarily has an AU-sound, as in "all", "mall", and "reinstall". That is not the sound here, which is a schwa. We may not alas, be able to make that sound entirely clear, given that if we drop one of the L's, as we should, some readers might see the remaining AL as having a short-A, as in "pal", "alimony", and "alexandrine". But many readers will understand that they need to look further into the word to know what sound to assign to the A before the L (a schwa). Once they do look further on, they will encounter one ambiguity, and two absurdities, a CI for the SH-sound and an OU where there is no OU-sound.

The sound of the A in the middle of the word is unclear. To make clear to readers that it is long-A, we need to write AE, AY, or AI. Midword, AI is most common, so let's use that.

CI does not form the SH-sound of "shush" (compare "facing", "sciatica", and "citation"). The simplest and clearest way to show the actual sound is by writing SH. Let's do that.

As regards the OU in the last syllable, there is no OU-sound  there (as in "louse", "houses", or "titmouse" — which is a bird, not a type of mouse, but is pluralized as tho it were: "titmice"!). Rather, the sound is schwa, which we can show plainly by dropping the letter O, which accords us the further advantage of saving ourselves a letter, which is always to the good: "falaishus".

Sunday, September 21, 2014:  "etcettera" for "et cetera" and "etcetera"

There are two small problems in today's word/s. First is the question of whether there should be a space between the two elements, or if they should be pushed up against each other in a single word. Since almost no one can tell you what the difference between the two forms is (as one word, it is a noun; as two words, it is an adverbial phrase), there's no point in having two spellings.

Second, the pattern E_E (E-consonant-E) often signals that the first-E is long ("meter", "esthete", "athlete"), but the sound of the E before the T here is short-E. To show that, we need merely double the T: "etcettera".

Saturday, September 20, 2014:  "divice" for "device"

The prefix DE- is often pronounced with a long-E ("deny", "delay", "defer"), but here, it takes a short-I, so we should write an I: "divice".

Friday, September 19, 2014:  "casovva" for "cassava"

This Food Friday, let's address the name of the plant from which tapioca derives. The present spelling has a double-S, whereas it should have a double-V, because the reader is entitled to see a double consonant as a cue to stress the syllable before it. The other problem in today's word is that the second-A should be an O, because the sound is short-O, which is here regarded as "broad"-A, but before a double consonant should be seen as a regular short-A: "casovva".

Thursday, September 18, 2014:  "bateek" for "batik" and "battik"

Sometimes we have to take a stand against uncouth pronunciations. This is one such case. Today's word derives from Indonesia and has, in its preferred form, one T. The pronunciation should be ba.téek, and all sophisticated speakers say that. But there is a secondary, pointlessly-anglicized pronunciation, báa.tik, which has its own anglicized spelling, "battik". Fine. Let us suggest powerfully in spelling that the pronunciation preferred by educated people is ba.téek, and indicate as well that people who want to say báa.tik should use the alternate spelling "battik", even tho if this actually began as an English word, it would probably be spelled "battick" or "battic" (no K, like "picnic"). For people in general, however, the spelling should guide them to the educated pronunciation: "bateek".

Wensday, September 17, 2014:  "alude" for "allude"

There are three things wrong with this short word. First, ALL ordinarily takes an AU-sound, as in "all" itself, "ball", and "call". That is not the sound here. Second, a double-L actually should mark the vowel before it as short, but the A here isn't short either, but a schwa.  And third, a double consonant often signals that the syllable before it takes the word's stress, but here, the second syllable takes the stress.  If we drop one of the L's, everything else will fall into place. The reader will know to pronounce the A as a schwa, and a schwa cannot be stressed, so the reader will know to stress the second syllable: "alude".

Tuesday, September 16, 2014:  "euveeitis" for "uveitis"

This medical term, for inflammation of the eye, presents a couple of problems. First is how to pronounce the first letter of the word. It could be said without an initial Y-glide, as long-OO, and the hundreds of millions of people that are always learning English might not know to pronounce a Y-sound before that sound, as should be done. To cue that use, we can write EU.

EI is ambiguous, and many readers would see it as a single sound, be it pronounced as long-E or long-I, as in the two common pronunciations to "either" and "neither". Here, neither of those pronunciations holds. Rather, the EI represents two distinct sounds, in two distinct syllables, yùe.vee.íe.tis. To show that, we need to show the long-E clearly, whereupon the short-I that follows will also be made plain. The way to do that is to double the E: "euveeitis".

Munday, September 15, 2014:  "taboohlee" for "tabooli" and "tabbouleh"

There are two OO-sounds, long as in "hoot" and short as in "foot". There is no way the reader can know which is which, unless something more is shown, for instance, a silent-E after a following consonant, as in "goose" and "loose". There is no place for us to put a silent-E in today's word, but we can add an H, as in "ooh" or "pooh", which should do.

The -I in the spelling "tabooli" is misleadingly ambiguous, in that a number of words that end in -I are pronounced with a long-I sound: "alibi", "stimuli", "thesauri". That is not the sound here, which is long-E. We might show that by -Y, but that too is ambiguous: "dry", "magnify", and the verb"[to] multiply". A -Y also often signals an adjective ("airy", "scaly", and "brawny", whereas this word is a noun. A much better way to show long-E unambiguously is by writing double-E.

The alternate spelling "tabbouleh" is utterly preposterous, a French version of an Arabic word that doesn't even sound, in English, as that French spelling should sound, ta.búe.lae. In English, we need a clear spelling that reflects English conventions: "taboohlee".

Sunday, September 14, 2014:  "sardonnic" for "sardonic"

The O could be read as short, esp. by new readers or readers learning English in non-English-speaking countries. Let's make it easy for them to know that the O is short, by doubling the following-N: "sardonnic".

Saturday, September 13, 2014:  "reespectful" for "respectful"

The two-letter consonant cluster SP may cause some readers, esp. outside the old-line English-speaking countries, to think that the E before it is short, whereas it is actually long. To show unambiguously that the first-E takes its long sound, we should double it: "reespectful".

Friday, September 12, 2014:  "picontay" for "picante"

This Food Friday, let's fix a term from Spanish for "very hot and spicy". In English, a final-E might be silent ("entente", "dilettante"), or as a long-E ("ante", "vigilante"). Here, however, it is pronounced as a long-A. To show that, we need to write it plainly. -AY is clear.

The other problem with today's word is that the A before the N does not have the expected short-A as it does in "ante" and "vigilante". Rather, the sound is "broad"-A, which is another name for the short-O sound. Let's use O instead: "picontay".

Thursday, September 11, 2014:  "mis-hap" for "mishap"

The SH here does not take the usual SH-sound. Rather, the S and H retain their separate sounds. To show that, we need to insert a hyphen. Altho American English dislikes hyphens midword, Britain has no such irrational bias. Plainly there are times when nothing else will do. "Misshap" wouldn't work, because the similarly spelled word "misshape" has an SH-sound. Some speakers also try to articulate an S-sound before the SH-sound, tho the listener may not hear it. Other speakers don't even try to put both an S- and an SH-sound into "misshape/n". In any case, neither "mishap" nor "misshap" would be clear, which leaves us little choice to make things clear but by inserting a hyphen. Our purpose in this website is not to make spellings shorter, but to make them clearer, simpler for being unambiguous, and thus easier to use: "mis-hap".

Wensday, September 10, 2014:  "fracshuss" for "fractious"

TIOUS is a preposterous way to spell something that sounds like "shuss" (albeit with a schwa rather than full short-U). We may have, for now, to consent, if grudgingly, to the continuation of TION for what sounds like "shun" (but again with a schwa rather than full short-U) because it is so very frequent. But TIOUS is not nearly so frequent, so we can eliminate it, preparatory to taking on TION, which must eventually be done.

Altho it is tempting to write a single-S at the end of today's word ("fracshus"), that might be seen, esp. by readers outside the old-line English-speaking countries, as the plural of a hypothetical word "fracshu", and induce some readers to think it is said fráak.shuez. To preempt that possible misreading, let's just double the final-S: "fracshuss".

Tuesday, September 9, 2014:  "ellijible" and "ellijibillity" for "eligible" and "eligibility"

A single-L renders unclear the sound of the initial-E in today's words, which could be long, or, in some dialects, treated as tho a short-I ("elect", "eviscerate", "enunciate").* The initial-E here is short. To show that unambiguously, we should double the following-L.

We have the same general problem as regards the third-I in the noun, which is also followed by a single-L. Altho few readers are likely to see that as long-I, we could nonetheless usefully double that L also, to show that the primary stress of that six-syllable word falls on the fourth syllable.

The last problem, with both these related words, is that a G is used to represent a J-sound. Why? Why shouldn't everyone on planet Earth be able to read every G as having G's unique sound (as in "give" and "get"), which is conveyed by no other letter?  If the sound is J, let us always write J: "ellijible" and "ellijibillity".
____________________

* I regard as AFFECTED, or British, the substitution of short-I for long-E in places like these. But lexicographers tend to be priggish and pretentious snobs, who draw arbitrary and unnecessary distinctions between, for instance, the first-I in "irritate" and long-E. Some dictionaries use î (a circumflex accent over the letter I) for this sound, but it is, for most cultivated — but not affected — speakers, indistinguishable from long-E. Perhaps lexicographers wish to pretend that British and American English aren't so different. But if they wish to show only one pronunciation, why would they choose the MINORITY pronunciation (short-I) over the MAJORITY pronunciation (long-E)? (To their credit, Merriam-Webster does show a long-E for the initial-E in "enunciate". But even M-Wshows a short-I for the initial-E in "elect" and "eviscerate". Why? The sounds are identical in all three words.) Altho the name of this language remains "English", that does NOT mean "British", but refers to the Old English term "Englisc", the language of the Angles, which originated in Germany before the Angles and Saxons migrated to Britain. Some 70% of all native speakers of English reside in the United States, and even the editor of Britain's Oxford English Dictionary acknowledged years ago that Britain does not control the usage nor future of the "English" language; the United States does. (English Canadians also speak American English, with only tiny variations. Altho Canadians occasionally use the term "North American English", that is only Canadian-nationalist grandiosity.) There is no need to accommodate British "clipped" English in reforming the absurd spellings of "English", and it is offensive to tell (North) Americans that 'proper' speech clips long-E down to short-I.

Munday, September 8, 2014:  "dessicate" for "desiccate"

The traditional spelling of this word doubles the wrong consonant, as would cause readers to believe that the second syllable takes the stress, whereas it is actually the first that is stressed. The present spelling also lets readers think that the DE- takes a long-E or, in "clipped" speech, short-I sound, as in "defeat", "detest", and "deliver", whereas the actual sound is short-E, as in "effort", "excite", and "end". To show that, we should in any case double the following-S, which is, happily what we need to do anyway to show that the first syllable is stressed: "dessicate".

Sunday, September 7, 2014:  "cartblonsh" for "carte blanche"

This French phrase has become, for all practical purposes, a single English word — so much so that some people have changed the pronunciation of the second element to anglicized sounds, saying the CH as tho it were the English-CH (as in "church"), not the English-SH pronunciation of French-CH. Some people also pronounce the A in the second element as an ordinary short-A (as in "at" or "batch") rather than a "broad"-A, which is the same sound as English short-O (as in "pond" and "otter"). Cultured speakers of English will have none of that, but will retain the original French sounds except for the un-English nasalization of the A before the N.

No one has trouble with the first element of the original French phrase, "carte", but know to pronounce it as tho it were written "cart", and ignoring the -E as silent. So let's drop the needless -E.

To guide people to that correct and refined pronunciation, which employs "broad"-A and an SH-sound in the second part, we need to show it in clear English conventions, including closing up the two-word phrase into a single word, which is the way it functions: "cartblonsh".

Saturday, September 6, 2014:  "beckerel" for "becquerel"

CQU for a simple K-sound is dopy, inefficient, and un-English. After a short vowel, the customary spelling of a K-sound followed by E or I is CK, so let's write that: "beckerel".
____________________

A becquerel is a unit of radioactivity in the International System of Units

Friday, September 5, 2014:  "aich" for "aitch"

Not many people know that "aitch" is the way the name of the letter H/h is spelled, but it is. We don't need a T to show the sound of that word: "aich".
____________________

My thanks to both "space..." and "garden..." for this suggestion.

Thursday, September 4, 2014:  "euvea" for "uvea"*

This is a pretty good spelling, except that some readers might not see the U as having an initial Y-glide, which it does. To show that clearly, we can write EU, as in "euchre", "euphemism", and "eugenics": "euvea".
____________________

* Anatomical term for "the middle of the three layers of the eyeball".

Wensday, September 3, 2014:  "shanghi" for "shanghai"

AI should be pronounced like long-A ("paid", "claim", "abstain") or flat-A ("airmail"). Here, it represents long-I, which is absurd. To show a long-I at the end of a word, -I alone will do fine ("alibi", "alkali", "fungi"): "shanghi".

Tuesday, September 2, 2014:  "reespectiv" for "respective"

The two-letter consonant cluster SP could be read as marking the prior vowel, E, as short, but it's actually long. To show that, we should double the E.

At the end of the word, -IVE should be said with a long-I, as in "drive", "thrive", and "alive". But the sound is actually short-I, which we can show plainly by dropping the final-E: "reespectiv".

Munday, September 1, 2014:  "pannoplee" for "panoply"

There are two small problems with today's word. First, a single-N leaves unclear whether the preceding-A is long or short. It's short, so let's double the N to show that.

The second problem is that -PLY is ambiguous, sometimes being pronounced with a long-I ("apply", "reply", "multiply" — the mathematical process) and other times with a long-E or, in "clipped" dialects, short-I ("simply", "crisply", and "multiply" — the adverbial form of "multiple"). To show that the sound here is long-E, we should replace the -Y with -EE: "pannoplee".

Sunday, August 31, 2014:  "monoppoly" for "monopoly"

It is easy for new readers of English (for instance English-speaking children and non-English-speaking immigrants in English-speaking countries, and learners of English elsewhere in the world) to misread this word as being pronounced món.oe.pòe.lee, but it is actually pronounced ma.nóp.a.lèe. To show that, we need merely double the P: "monoppoly".  

Saturday, August 30, 2014:  "leesh/ed" and "unleesh/ed" for "leash/ed" and "unleash/ed"

EA is very ambiguous ("bead", "bread", "rhea", "creation", and "Sean" are pronounced beed, bred, rée.ya, kree.yáe.shan, and shaun, respectively). The sound here is a simple long-E, which is most clearly written EE. So let's write that: "leesh/ed" and "unleesh/ed".

Friday, August 29, 2014:  "galivant" for "gallivant"

ALL most commonly takes the AU-sound of "haul", whereas here the sound is short-A, as in "alchemy" and "albacore". To show that, we need merely drop one of the L's, which saves us a letter as well, which is always to be desired, if we can do so without losing clarity: "galivant".

Thursday, August 28, 2014:  "fybroma" and "fybrommatus" for "fibroma" and "fibromatous"

The two-letter consonant cluster BR should be read as marking the preceding vowel short, but the I is actually supposed to be long. To show a long-I sound before a consonant cluster, we need to mark the sound within the spelling of the vowel, which we can do by employing Y, which is often, midword, pronounced as long-I, including before BR ("hybrid"). The rest of the base word is fine.

In the adjective, the O switches from its long sound in "fibroma", to its short sound in "fibromatous". How is the reader supposed to know that? You're just supposed to be born knowing. Not good enuf. To show that the O is now short, we need to double the M.

The third issue with today's pair of related words is that the last syllable contains an OU, but no OU-sound. If we drop the O there, the reader will know to supply the right sound, a schwa: "fybroma" and "fybrommatus".

Wensday, August 27, 2014:  "egzault" for "exalt"

X is a hugely overloaded letter, with five sounds: KS as in "extent"; GZ as in "exist"; KSH as in "luxury"; GZH as in "luxurious"; and Z, as in "xylophone". How is anyone to know which sound is to be read in any given word? The default must be KS. When a different sound is intended, we need to consider substituting a clearer spelling, here, GZ.

The second issue with today's word is that AL is ambiguous, sometimes being pronounced with a short-A ("alimony", "pal", "alabaster"), but other times as an AU-sound ("alder", "alright", "already"). Here, the pronunciation is the AU-sound, so let's spell it that way: "egzault".

Tuesday, August 26, 2014:  "daynoomonn" for "dénouement" and "denouement"

Today's word, as it was brought into English from French, had an (acute) accent over the first-E. English does not employ accents, so the accent must go. Some people have already accepted the alternate spelling without an accent. So far, so good.

The DE- does not take the usual sound of that prefix, which contains a long-E or, in "clipped" speech, short-I ("define", "deny", "detest"). Here, however, the sound is the same as in the word "day". So let's write it "day".

The un-English OUE is pronounced in French as is a simple long-U in English, without an initial Y-glide. That sound is often conceived of as a long-OO. So let's write OO instead.

That's still not enuf to make today's word clear, and perhaps its pronunciation cannot be made entirely clear, in that the vowel in its last syllable is nasalized. English does not nasalize vowels, so there is no standard way to indicate a nasalized vowel. To the ordinary reader of English, the -MENT at the end of today's word would be said the same as that in "development", with a schwa, not nasalized, and a sounded-T, not silent, as here. There should be no silent consonants. If it's not said, it should not be in the spelling. As for the vowel sound in the -MENT, it is actually a short-O, nasalized.

The convention in many dictionaries for showing nasalization of a preceding vowel is to write a capital-N after it. But that is for pronunciation keys, and we would not write a capital-N at the end of a word in ordinary spelling (e.g., "daynoomoN"). What we could do, however, is double the N. Given that there are almost no ordinary English words that end in NN, a reader who encounters NN at the end of a word would wonder why it's there, and perhaps conclude that it signals nasalization of the preceding vowel. But if the reader sees NN as the same sound as N, that's not so bad. Such a pronunciation would not be the same as the French pronunciation, but this is English, so perhaps an anglicized pronunciation would be better: "daynoomonn".

Munday, August 25, 2014:  "cinnematek" for "cinémathèque" and "cinematheque"

Altho some people do not use the accents of the original form of this French import, others feel obliged to do so, lest they be thought ignorant or uncultured. Let us put their minds at ease. English does not employ accents, so the accents have got to go.

There are two other problems with this word. The letter sequence CINE could be read as having a long-I. It does not. Rather, the I is short. To show that, we need merely double the following-N.

Second, there is a two-letter consonant cluster, T-H, here that is not pronounced in either of the usual ways that TH is said, as in "this" and "thing". So closely is the sequence TH associated with those sounds that they are called respectively, the (voiced: "this") and (unvoiced: "thing") TH-sounds! The sound here, however, is a simple T, so let's drop the H to make that crystal clear. 

Third, why on Earth would we use three letters, QUE, to write a simple K-sound? Worse, some people might be tempted to pronounce the QUE as an additional syllable, as in the alternative spelling for "barbecue", "barbeque". Let's end that temptation and save ourselves a couple of letters, by substituting K for the QUE: "cinnematek".

Sunday, August 24, 2014:  "barreattric/s" for "bariatric/s"

These two words for the medical treatment of obesity* are spelled poorly. AR is usually pronounced with a "broad"-A, the same sound as short-O: "bar", "carve","partner".  That is not the sound here. Rather, the A takes its short sound, as in "arrow", "barrel", and "arrogant". Notice that all those spellings employ two R's to signal that the preceding-A is short. That's a good convention. Let's use it.

There is a second short-A in these words, before the TR. We might see any vowel before a two-letter consonant cluster as short, but the TR here could start a new syllable, which would render the A before it a schwa. To show that that A takes its full short-A sound instead, we need to double the T: "barreattric/s".
____________________

* "Bariatrics" is a noun; "bariatric", an adjective.

Saturday, August 23, 2014:  "anglofile" and "anglofillea" for "Anglophile" and "Anglophilia"

PH for a simple F-sound is one of the stupidest spellings found in any language, and should be banished from the English language.

IA for the sound sequence long-E + schwa is equally indefensible. Why would we use an I to represent an E-sound? IA is, in fact, pronounced with a long-I sound in a number of familiar words, such a "dial", "alliance", and "defiant", so it is not at all clear how it is to be said here. If the sound is long-E followed by a schwa, the spelling should be EA.

In "Anglophile", the I is long. In "Anglophilia", the I before the L is short. The short-I should be indicated by a doubling of the following-L.

The NG in these words does not represent a simple NG-sound, as in "bang" and "sang", but a combination of that sound + a ("hard"-)G. That is not self-evident, esp. to the hundreds of millions of people outside the historically English-speaking countries who need to use English to communicate outside their own cultural area. Indeed, there are people within English-speaking countries who don't know when to use a simple NG as against when to use NG + a G-sound, as in "English language", and mispronounce such words without a hard-G sound. To show plainly that there is a hard-G in today's words, we should write NGG in both.

Finally, there is no reason for these words to have a capital-A. There is no country "Angland", nor language nor culture "Anglish". So let's ditch the capital-A: "angglofile" and "angglofillea".

Friday, August 22, 2014:  "toxicollojy" and "toxicolojjic/al/ly"for "toxicology" and "toxicologic/al/ly"

The sound of the G in this word is not the unique sound of the letter G, as in "gift", "goofy", and "gravity", expressed by no other letter. Rather, the sound is that of the altogether different letter J, as in "just", "judge", and "jerk". We have that letter. Why would we not use it for its sound? Let's replace the G in both these words with J. Indeed, to show that the O before the J-sound in "toxicolojical" is short, let's double the J. 

The desire to show the relationships between words has caused us to spell some words badly, as does not show the differences in pronunciation between related words. That is what we have here. And it's so unnecessary, because similar spellings, easily pronounced, retain their ties to each other. If we can understand that they are related when we hear them said differently, we will equally be able to understand they are related when we see them spelled phonetically.

"Toxicology" and "toxicological" have different syllabic stresses, on the third syllable in "toxicólogy" but fourth in "toxicológical" and its derivatives. To show the proper stresses, we can double the L in "toxicology" but double the J in its adjectival and adverbial derivatives: "toxicollojy" and "toxicolojjic/al/ly".

Thursday, August 21, 2014:  "shmo" and "shmoes" for "schmo/es" and "shmo/es"

There are two spellings for this now-unusual slang term, one with SCH and one with only SH. SCH could be read as having a K-sound, as in "school" (and my last name, "Schoonmaker"). So let's just drop the C, OK? We should write only: "shmo" and its plural, "shmoes".

Wensday, August 20, 2014:  "reppertory" for "repertory"

The prefix RE- often or even ordinarily contains a long-E sound. Not here. To show that the E here is short, we need to double the following-P: "reppertory".

Tuesday, August 19, 2014:  "peddicab" for "pedicab"

We have, here again, a single consonant that leaves unclear whether the preceding vowel is long or short. In that it's short, we should double the D: "peddicab".

Munday, August 18, 2014:  "monnocle" for "monocle"

A letter sequence of vowel + single consonant + vowel will be seen by many new readers, esp. outside the old-line English-speaking countries, as representing a long vowel before the single consonant ("oboe", "odometer", "cohort"). The sound here is actually a short-O, which we can make much clearer simply by doubling the N: "monnocle".

Sunday, August 17, 2014:  "fybrus" for "fibrous"

A two-letter consonant cluster such as BR should mark the preceding vowel short, but here, the I is long. To show a long-I sound midword, Y would be better (as in "dynamic" and "hybrid".

The second problem with today's word is that it contains an OU but no OU-sound. Let's drop the misleading-O: "fybrus".

Saturday, August 16, 2014:  "eppic" for "epic"

A single consonant between vowels leaves unclear the sound of the vowel before it. Is it long, as in "depict", "sepia", and "ebola", or short, as in "trepidation" and "epithet"? It's short, and altho there are many words in which the letter sequence EPI contains a short-I, we can make the sound absolutely clear simply by doubling the P: "eppic".

Friday, August 15, 2014:  "delliteereus" for "deleterious"

The prefix DE is ambiguous. The typical reader is likely to see it as having a long-E or, at worst, short-I sound in an unstressed syllable. Here, however, the first-E is short. To show that, we need to double the following-L.

The second-E represents a schwa so close to short-I that we might as well write it with I.

ER is also ambiguous, and might be read as in "her" or "perilous". The sound here, however, is long-E. To show that, we should double that E.

The last problem in today's word is that it contains an OU, but not OU-sound. If we drop the O, the sound will be clearer. And we'll have saved a letter, which is always to the good.: "delliteereus".

Thursday, August 14, 2014:  "cabreole" for "cabriole" and"cabreolay" for "cabriolet"

These two words of similar form have very different meanings. "Cabriole" is a kind of curved leg on a piece of furniture; "cabriolet" is a type of automobile or carriage. We are not here concerned with definitions, but only sounds.

The only problem with "cabriole" is that an I is used to represent a long-E sound. Why would we use an I to represent an E-sound? We have an E. Let's use that for this sound here.

"Cabriolet" has an additional problem, a silent-T. If a letter is silent, why is it in the spelling? Let's drop it, OK, and replace it with -AY, which is the sound of the last syllable: "cabreole" and "cabreolay".

Wensday, August 13, 2014:  "balistic/s" for "ballistic/s"

ALL and AL are spellings that we can never be completely clear about, in that each has various pronunciations ("ball", "balloon", "ballast" (baul, ba.lúen, báal.ast); "balance", "bald", "baloney" (báal.ans, bauld, ba.lóe.ne). But ALL is probably going to be seen by most readers as having an AU-sound, which is not the sound here. So let's drop the second-L: "balistic/s".

Tuesday, August 12, 2014:  "airdale" for "Airedale"

The E in the middle of today's word (the name of a breed of dog) might lead some readers to think it is pronounced in three syllables, ái.ra.dàil. It is not, but only in two syllables, like the familiar words "air" and "dale" placed one after the other. Since that is the way the word sounds, that is the way the word should be spelled.

As to the capital-A, we don't capitalize "schnauzer", "poodle", or "mutt", so we don't need to capitalize: "airdale".

Munday, August 11, 2014:  "thumnail" for "thumbnail"

I don't know why there is a silent-B in the first element of this compound word, since in Old English, where it originated, there was no B. Wherever it came from, let's send it back: "thumnail".

Sunday, August 10, 2014:  "sacro-iliac" for "sacroiliac"

Altho the recent tendency in the United States is to delete most hyphens mid-word, some other countries are quite content to leave a hyphen if omitting it would confuse the reader as to how something is pronounced. That is the case here, where the reader might think the OI should be pronounced as in "noise" and "point", or, to use the three-letter sequence in "sacroiliac", "foil" and "boil" (fói.yal, bói.yal). The actual pronunciation is neither of those, but two syllables dividing between the O and the I. We really do need a hyphen there to make that clear: "sacro-iliac".

Saturday, August 9, 2014:  "keenwah" for "quinoa" and "quinua"

This word comes to us from Quechua thru Spanish. If it had originated in English, with that spelling, it would be said kwi.nóe.wa. But it originated in a South American Indian language and was given its spelling by the Spanish, to represent the pronunciation kéen.woq (where Q is silent, intended only to close the O-sound to show that it is short). As is the case with some other words or names that are written oddly in Spanish, such as "Joan Miró" and "Quechua" itself, the pronunciation of the OA (or, in Quechua and "quinua", UA) is actually a W-sound followed by a short-O or schwa. The way to show that sound sequence in traditional English is WA or, if the final sound is a strong short-O or "broad"-A (the same sound), WAH.

The QU takes a Spanish value too, what is in English a simple K-sound, with no W-sound after it. So we should write K, not QU.

The I also takes the sound a stressed-I has in Spanish, which is English long-E. That is most clearly written, for speakers of English, as EE. So let's use that.

Putting this all together, we can turn the very un-English word "quinoa" into the very English: "keenwah".

Friday, August 8, 2014:  "panchetta" for "pancetta"

This Food Friday, let's deal with a type of Italian bacon, spelled in the Italian fashion and intended to be pronounced in the Italian fashion as well, with the C being read as having the CH-sound in "church". In English, however, C is not the way to spell that sound. CH is: "panchetta".

Thursday, August 7, 2014:  "oppulent" for "opulent"

The O is short, but you wouldn't know that from the single-P that follows it. We need to double the P: "oppulent".

Wensday, August 6, 2014:  "mezon" for "meson"

This word from science (for a subatomic particle) has four pronunciations because of its absurd spelling. The two most common pronunciations have different sounds for the E, short and long, but both assign a Z-sound to the S. If the sound is Z, the spelling should be Z: "mezon".

Tuesday, August 5, 2014:  "leenyent" for "lenient"

This word has two pronunciations, because some people see the I as representing a syllable while others see it as representing a consonantal Y-sound. The pronunciation in two syllables is probably more common, and saves a little effort and time. To guide readers to the two-syllable pronunciation, we can replace the I with Y. Mind you, people who want to say three syllables can perfectly well see the Y as representing a third syllable, as almost everyone sees "Tokyo" as having three syllables, even tho in Japanese it has only two. The other matter we can address is making plain that the first-E is long, by doubling it: "leenyent".

Munday, August 4, 2014:  "indommitable" for "indomitable"

A single-M leaves unclear the sound of the O before it. Is it long? Is it short? Compare "domicile" and "homicide", each of which has two pronunciations, one with a short-O and the other a long-O. We need to show that in this word, the O is short, which we can do easily by doubling the M: "indommitable".

Sunday, August 3, 2014:  "feuzhun" for "fusion"

Almost everything about this traditional spelling is wrong. The reader cannot know that there's an initial Y-glide as part of the U, and that the U is long. And SION should be pronounced in two syllables, exactly like the word to itself "Sion".

If we write EU in place of the U, that shows at once that there is an initial Y-glide and that the U's sound is long.

As for the second syllable, to show that it is only one syllable, we need to rewrite it as to show as well what it actually sounds like: "feuzhun".

Saturday, August 2, 2014:  "extereor" for "exterior"

Why would we use an I to represent a long-E?: "extereor".

Friday, August 1, 2014:  "defectiv" for "defective"

Here we have again a short-I that should be long, because there is an E after a single consonant right after the I. The solution here is different than that for yesterday's word, where we doubled the following consonant. Rather, we don't add a letter but take one away: "defectiv".

Thursday, July 31, 2014:  "cinnema" for "cinema"

The pattern vowel-consonant-E ordinarily indicates a long vowel ("ape", "eve", "ice", "ode", "uke"). In "cinema", however, the I is short and the E belongs solely to the second syllable (unlike the case with the word "solely" itself, where the E belongs to the first syllable). To show that the I is short, we need merely double the N: "cinnema".
____________________

My thanks to "fishstick..." for suggesting reform of today's word, tho I chose a slitely different solution.

Wensday, July 30, 2014:  "bronkeal" for "bronchial"

The CH in today's word does not represent the CH-sound (as in "church"). Rather, it represents a K-sound. We have a K. Why wouldn't we use it?

Further, the I represents neither of I's sounds, long and short, but a long-E. Why would we use an I to show an E-sound? We have a letter E. Let's use it: "brongkeal".

Tuesday, July 29, 2014:  "apeer" for "appear"

A double-P should mark the preceding-A as short, but the sound is actually schwa. To show that, we need merely drop one of the P's. That will also save us a letter, which is always to the good.

In the second syllable, EA is a bad choice for conveying a long-E sound, because EA also represents a short-E in words like "bread" and "head", and two syllables, as in "rhea" and "apnea", as well as the AU sound in the personal name "Sean". For long-E, the spelling EE is much clearer:  "apeer".

Munday, July 28, 2014:  "veelar" for "velar"

I was very surprised, when I looked this word up, to find that it rhymes NOT with "cellar" but with "dealer". The E is long, which is not adequately shown by a single-L after it, because English has multitudinous short vowels before single consonants. No, we have to show the long-E sound in the spelling of the vowel itself. The simplest way to do that is to double the E:  "veelar".

Sunday, July 27, 2014:  "soloewist" for "soloist"

OI should be pronounced as the diphthong in "foist", "hoist", and "joist". But here, it represents two vowel sounds in sequence, a long-O followed by a short-I. How is the reader, esp. a reader just learning English in a non-English-speaking country, to know that?

We need to separate the two vowel sounds with a W-glide. But "solowist" would not do, because the OW could be read as having an OU-sound. No, we need to add a second letter, an E after the O and before the W, to show that the O is long and does not combine with the W. The resulting spelling is longer, but clearer. The purpose of this project is to promote simpler spelling, that is, spelling that more clearly shows the sounds of a word, not necessarily shorter spelling: "soloewist".

Saturday, July 26, 2014:  "refferendum" for "referendum"

RE is a common prefix that commonly contains a long-E sound (or, in "clipped" dialects, short-I), as in "refer", "remain", and "repeat".  That is not the sound here, despite the presence at the start of this word of the very word "refer". No, here the sound in the RE is short-E. To show that, we need to double the F after it: "refferendum".

Friday, July 25, 2014:  "quadrill" for "quadrille"

Altho some people may argue that the final-E is helpful to  show that the word is stressed on the second syllable, there are words with a final-E on a syllable that does not bear the primary stress ("caravelle", espadrille","vaudeville"). If we approach this from the other way around, this same word with a single-L and no E at the end would be pronounced with stress on the first syllable ("quadril"). Doubling the L suggests to the reader that the second-L is there for a reason, and that reason is to show stress on the second syllable. That should suffice: "quadrill".

Thursday, July 24, 2014:  "particculit" for "particulate"

-ATE should be pronounced with a long-A, as in the word "ate" itself, "date", and "rebate". But in this word, the sound is a schwa so close to a short-I that we might as well write it with an I.* One other little problem remains, a single-C. Altho relatively few native speakers of English would be tempted to say a long-I before that C, there are now far more users of English outside the English-speaking countries than in, so we must consider their need for guidance as to pronunciation. The main issue here is syllabic stress. Which of the four syllables in this word is stressed? The second, before the C. If we double the C, we guide readers to stress that syllable, which is right: "particculit".
____________________

* There is a spelling-pronunciation with a long-A in the last syllable, but that is only because the spelling misleads readers. Once we make plain that the sound SHOULD be a schwa or short-I, the spelling pronunciation will vanish, which is a very good thing. We need to get rid of thousands of stupid spelling-pronunciations.

Wensday, July 23, 2014:  "nocturn" for "nocturne"

The final-E in this word is not just unnecessary. It is also misleading, as will cause some readers to think that the second syllable takes the word's stress. It does not. So let's just drop the E and save ourselves a letter, OK?: "nocturn".

Tuesday, July 22, 2014:  "monnograf" for "monograph"

There are two little problems in today's word. First in importance, tho it occurs at the end of the word, is the preposterous and indefensible PH for a simple F-sound. Let's write F. Since that sound falls at the end of the word, a single-F will suffice (compare "chef", "if", and "prof").

The lesser problem is that a single-N leaves unclear whether the preceding-O is long ("donor") or short ("honor"). To show that it is short, we should double the following-N: "monnograf".

Munday, July 21, 2014:  "injennuus" and "disinjennuus" for "ingenuous" and "disingenuous"

G has its own, unique sound, which is conveyed by no other letter, the voiced guttural or velar pair to the unvoiced sound of K. We should reserve G to that sound. The sound here is that of J. We have a J. We should use it for all J-sounds.

In the middle of both these words appears an E, whose sound is unclear due to its being followed by a single consonant, the N. Is the E long? Is it short? It's short. To show that, we should double the N.

At the end of both of today's words, we have another of those multitudinous OU's that do not represent the OU-sound. The O is misleading, so should be dropped. After these three small changes, we end up with: "injennuus" and "disinjennuus".

Sunday, July 20, 2014:  "gastro-intestinal" for "gastrointestinal"

OI should represent the sound in "join", "hoist", and "adroit". That's not the sound here, which actually represents two vowel sounds in sequence, a long-O, which ends the prefix "gastro-", and short-I, which starts the base word "intestinal". People in the United States, in which reside 3/4 of all native speakers of English, are averse to a hyphen in the middle of a word. Britons are much less averse to a hyphen mid-word. Everywhere, however, we should accept that if omitting a hyphen creates confusion, esp. for the billion-plus people who need to use English outside the old-line English-speaking countries, it is much better to use a hyphen. Few people will object to the three hyphens in the prior sentence. Why should they object to a hyphen in: "gastro-intestinal"?

Saturday, July 19, 2014:  "feroashus" for "ferocious"

CI does not spell the SH-sound (as in "shish kabob"). SH does. So let's replace the CI in today's word with SH.

SH being a two-letter consonant cluster, any one-letter representation of a vowel sound before it is likely to be seen as short. To show that the O here is long, we need to write the vowel sound with more than one letter. We could use OA (as in "loan", "toast", and "foam") or OE (as in "toe", "hoedown", and "embargoed"). OE often, however, represents other sounds, esp. two syllables ("poet", "phloem", "coerce"). OA also sometimes takes other sounds, including two syllables ("boa", "board", "benzoate", but it is most commonly used to represent a simple long-O. So let's use OA.

At the end of the word, there is an OU but no OU-sound. To show its actual sound, schwa, we need only drop the O but leave the U.

Putting this all together, we get: "feroashus".

Friday, July 18, 2014:  "expressiv" for "expressive"

IVE should be said with a long-I, as in "jive", "strive", and "alive". To show a short-I before a V-sound at the end of the word, we need merely drop the needless and misleading final-E. That will also save us a letter, which is always to the good: "expressiv".

Thursday, July 17, 2014:  "decijjuus" for "deciduous"

D does not spell a J-sound. J does. So let's replace the D in the middle of the word with J. In fact, since the preceding-I is short, we need a double-J to show that.

The end of the word contains an OU but no OU-sound. If we drop the O, the -US will be read as representing the right sound, a schwa. The mere fact that the U-sound before that is shown by U should make no difference, in that we have words like "continuum" in which two U's represent adjoining sounds. Once we make both these little changes, we get: "decijjuus".

Wensday, July 16, 2014:  "shapparal" for "chaparral"

CH, which starts today's word, should be pronounced as in "church". Here, however, it is pronounced like SH in "shush". So let's spell it SH.

In the middle of the traditional spelling appear two R's. Why? The double-R suggests at once that the A before is pronounced as a full short-A, when it's actually a schwa, and that the word's stress falls on the second syllable, just before the double-R, whereas the word's primary stress falls on the last syllable and secondary stress falls on the first syllable. The one syllable that is not stressed at all is the second, before the RR! So let's drop one of the R's.

We do need a double consonant, but it's the P, to show that the preceding-A is a full short-A, which may not otherwise be clear.

Putting this all together, we get: "shapparal".

Tuesday, July 15, 2014:  "bumpshus" for "bumptious"

TI does not spell the SH-sound. SH does. This word also includes an OU, but no OU-sound. So we need to drop the misleading-O. Once we make those two changes, this word is good to go: "bumpshus".

Munday, July 14, 2014:  "absizhon" for "abscission"

There are two things wrong with today's spelling. First, there is a C that has no reason for being there, because it's silent. So let's just drop it, OK?

Second, there is a double-S before -ION, which should be pronounced as SH (compare "mission", "passion", and "concussion"). The sound is actually the one commonly represented by ZH. Let's write that instead. There remains the issue of what vowel to put between the ZH and N. The sound is schwa, which can be represented in an unstressed syllable by any vowel letter. U would be a little closer to the sound in this word ("absizhun"), but the conventional spelling in endings like -TION and -SION is O, so let's use that: "absizhon".

Sunday, July 13, 2014:  "vitreus" for "vitreous"

There is in today's word an OU but no OU-sound. If we delete the needless and misleading O, we get a clearer spelling: "vitreus".

Saturday, July 12, 2014:  "torchlite" for "torchlite"

This is easy. Today we have a compound word, the first element of which is fine. It is the second that requires simplification, and we have dealt with this before but need to do it again because what is also a word to itself is here only the second part of a longer word: "torchlite".
____________________

My thanks to "GreenD..." for this suggestion.

Friday, July 11, 2014:  "soaljer" for "soldier"

Today's word (pronounced sóel.jer) looks very much like another absurdly spelled word, "solder", which is, however, pronounced radically differently, sód.er). Both spellings are preposterous for their sounds.

A long-O before two consonant sounds cannot be represented by O-alone, because any vowel before two consonants will be seen as short. Thus, the O here must go with something else, be it A, E, or H (e.g., "soal", "soel", or "sohl").

OH in the middle of a word is very unusual, but not unheard of ("kohl/rabi"), so it would be better to avoid OH. OE might do, but it is pronounced in two syllables in some frequently encountered words ("poem", "coed", "coequal"), so that is not a good choice either. OA also has some unusual pronunciations ("boa", "coagulate", "benzoate"). Still, OA for an uncomplicated long-O is very common, from "coal" and "goal", to "boat" and "float", to "toast" and "roast", "roan" and "loan", and on and on). So, OA seems the best choice here too.

As for the second syllable, DI does not spell a J-sound. J does. So let's write J: "soaljer".

Thursday, July 10, 2014:  "rittalin" for "Ritalin"

Today's word is the marketing name of a prescription medication, that is, a made-up word that pays little heed to the conventions of traditional spelling. A single-T here is unclear, especially given the given name "Rita", which is said with a long-E sound. The makers of the drug intended a short-I. To show that, however, they should have written a double-T. We can do that now. We also don't need a capital-R, since we generally use this as a generic term, not a trademark: "rittalin".

Wensday, July 9, 2014:  "pillo" for "pillow"

OW is ambiguous, sometimes being pronounced with the OU-sound ("ow"!, "now", "crown") but other times, as here, pronounced as long-O ("own", "flow", "crow"). To show the long-O sound, we need merely drop a letter, the needless-W. That's all to the good, isn't it?: "pillo".

Tuesday, July 8, 2014:  "missellany" for "miscellany"

No one, on hearing this word spoken, would for an instant think it should have a C in it. It's not like "misconceive" or "episcopal", in which there is reason for a C to appear, because it is spoken. Here, the C is silent. Let's drop it. That would leave "misellany", which would be unclear as to whether the I before the S is long or short. It's short, and the way to show that is by doubling the S.

We might save a letter by dropping the second-L, which most speakers don't rely on, since the L-sound starts the third syllable (mís.a.làe.nee). But at least some Britons say mi.sél.a.nèe, so do rely upon a second-L to signal both that the E before the L-sound is short and that the second syllable takes the word's main stress. So let's leave the two L's. Most people will just ignore the second as superfluous but its presence is unimportant: "missellany".

Munday, July 7, 2014:  "injenuity" for "ingenuity"

Why is the J-sound here represented by a G? We have a letter expressly for that sound, J. Let's use it: "injenuity".

Sunday, July 6, 2014:  "hernea" for "hernia"

IA is ambiguous, often being pronounced with a long-I sound ("diagram", "vial", "iambic [pentameter]. The sound of the I here is long-E. So why wouldn't we write E?: "hernea".

Saturday, July 5, 2014:  "grattitude" for "gratitude"

Today's word is related to "grateful", so new learners of English, esp. outside the old-line English-speaking countries, might think the A in this word is also to be said long. It's not, but is to be given its short sound. To show that, we need to double the following-T: "grattitude".

Friday, July 4, 2014:  "fat-hed" for "fathead"

Altho people in the United States dislike hyphens inside words, there are times  when a hyphen is necessary, as here, to separate two letters, with two sounds, to clarify what would otherwise be seen as the digraph TH (which represents either of two sounds, as in "this" or "thing").

There is a second problem with today's spelling, EA for what is an ordinary short-E. The needless A confuses the issue, in allowing different pronunciations, such as long-E ("feast"), long-A ("break"), AU ("Sean"), or two separate vowel sounds ("area"). So let's just drop it, OK?: "fat-hed".

Thursday, July 3, 2014:  "enammel" for "enamel"

The letter sequence NAME is a word to itself, with a long-A. That is not the sound here, which is short-A. To show that, we need to double the M: "enammel".

Wensday, July 2, 2014:  "dellicacy" for "delicacy"

DE- is a prefix often said with a long-E or, in some people's speech, short-I ("delay", "delight", "delete"). Here, the sound is short-E. To show that, we need to double the following consonant, here, the L: "dellicacy".
____________________

My thanks to "space..." for this suggestion.

Tuesday, July 1, 2014:  "cliant" for "client"

IE is ambiguous, so should be avoided wherever it represents any sound but long-I. Here, the IE represents two syllables, tho the new reader cannot know that, nor, even if s/he does expect two syllables, cannot know what sounds to say, given that the longer, related word "clientele" has two pronunciations, klìe.yan.tél and klèe.yon.tél. The base word "client" has only one pronunciation, klíe.yant, which rhymes with "giant", "pliant", and "defiant", so should be spelled like them: "cliant".

Click here for today's suggestion.
Click here to return to the archive index.
Click here for a list of possible future words.
Click here for the principles that govern the selection of words.

Please send comments and suggestions to: Fanetiks@aol.com.