Peter's new avatar

[peter]

The USA is an unique case, some of the spellings it uses are new-ish - such as removing all the "-our" spellings in words such as colour/color and labour/labor

Surely it's an exaggeration to say that the Americans replaced the 'our' spellings with 'or' - both spellings were used in England prior to the American Revolution? All that seems to have happened is that they standardized on one spelling, we standardised on another. American dictionaries generally include British spellings, which suggests they are acceptable in the US, though possibly not in Scrabble.

If you haven't read Stephen Pinker's article in the Guardian, I should mention that he isn't English, but Canadian/American.

 

[Pauline]

Bear in mind that they're not originals, they are copies. I don't know how many clerks were employed, or how they were trained, but the registered copies might not be a very random sample of 18th century spelling.

Of course, and I have only seen a very few original PCC wills, and I can't answer the questions about the clerks, but it does indicate clearly that the our spelling had not dropped out of use, and was therefore not reintroduced by the Victorians.

You can do a similar exercise at FMP, bearing in mind various possible issues, including that their own transcribers may have changed spellings (though with the small random sample I checked they hadn't). Anyway, running separate searches for baptisms, marriages and burials for 1750+/- 40, and adding only the keyword labourer or laborer into the search fields, came out massively in favour of the former spelling.

Also, I found another couple of 18th century registers giving occupations, and those both used the spelling labourer. None of this is conclusive evidence, but so far I have found nothing to suggest that the spelling laborer was the norm in the 18th century.

 

[Pauline]

American dictionaries generally include British spellings

And British dictionaries generally include American spellings ......

 

[peter]

it does indicate clearly that the our spelling had not dropped out of use, and was therefore not reintroduced by the Victorians.

I didn't say that it had dropped out of use - the key point I was making is that the much maligned or spellings are not an American invention as most people seem to think.

The Victorians didn't reintroduce the our spelling, there was no need to. But what they did do was make the or spelling unacceptable - it was snobbery over practicality.

 

[jorghes]

Surely it's an exaggeration to say that the Americans replaced the 'our' spellings with 'or' - both spellings were used in England prior to the American Revolution? All that seems to have happened is that they standardized on one spelling, we standardised on another. American dictionaries generally include British spellings, which suggests they are acceptable in the US, though possibly not in Scrabble.

If you haven't read Stephen Pinker's article in the Guardian, I should mention that he isn't English, but Canadian/American.

Having taught the history of English and studied it University with the redoubtable Australian English historian, Professor Kate Burridge; it is quite well known that Americans deliberately went out to differentiate their language from the language of England, particularly in the wake of the Revolution.

Some of the founding fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin coined new words or spellings in order to create an "American" system. This was back up by the American Spellers created by Noah Webster that were used in schools and he of course created the seminal American English dictionary, in a similar manner to the Oxford English. (Australia's is the Macquarie.)

I did read Pinker's article, but that is more interested in more syntactic and semantic differentiation, rather than historical fact. And while British English removed some of the '-our' endings, American English made sure that all of them were removed, and they of course changed the '-re' spellings to '-er'. They were much more systematic with the changes. That is not to say they were "wrong", I'm a descriptivist, not a prescriptivist.

And you can't say that British English standardised on "one" version of the '-our/-or' spelling, they did remove it from some words, but not from others, and its hard really to say why some were kept and some removed. Words that had included "-our" where it has been removed in British English includes: doctor, terror, horror, error...

 

[Bob Spiers]

I didn't ask you to read it, though I'm surprised that anyone who professes an interest in the English language could find it boring.

I can understand your interpretation that athNZ found the article 'boring', because although I found the article interesting (and I believe I have come across it before, or something very similar), after 10 minutes at normal reading pace, quickened to scan reading, I felt the need of a break, and indeed a snooze.

The article covered many grammatical inconsistencies and had a deal of humour in explaining correct -or acceptable - usage. The lesson I learned in staying the course was that as long as what you write can be understood, grammar best sits in the wings on 'look-up' brief.

 

[peter]

And British dictionaries generally include American spellings ......

Some might, but the only one I can lay my hands on at the moment doesn't, even though the entry for colour runs to about 1000 words (Cassell's English Dictionary 1962, 4th ed 1968).

 

[peter]

And you can't say that British English standardised on "one" version of the '-our/-or' spelling, they did remove it from some words, but not from others, and its hard really to say why some were kept and some removed. Words that had included "-our" where it has been removed in British English includes: doctor, terror, horror, error...

Indeed, nobody could ever say that English spelling is logical, and that's the primary difference between American English and ours. For example, my dictionary suggests that the word colour derives from the Old French word color, whereas the word error comes from the Old French word errour - and whilst 'our' spelling is supposed to hono(u)r Latin, neither word has a 'u' in Latin.

 

[peter]

This is an interesting article which seems to support what jorghes said, though as it's wrong about -ize and -ise it could be wrong about other things too.

 

[Stuart]

I think at the time I put it down to him being a Scot, but am sure that had nothing to do with it.

There may be something in that, if only a few years in the timing of the change in spelling.

I have a Chambers's Twentieth Century Dictionary, 1971 edition, and that only gives connexion. In the 1983 edition both are given but connection is first (implying it is used more). Chambers, of course, was a Scottish publisher and, though now part of an international group, some of that tradition survives.

I have an older dictionary, Dyche's (London, 1777), and that too gives only connexion. So there is a trend with time here, taken at different speeds for different words and different user groups. The 1971 Chambers's contains "reflection; also (now chiefly in scientific use) reflexion". I suspect that in 1777 all of these words taken from Latin had yet to become part of the common speech. Few were then still writing in technical material in Latin, but not long before the likes of Isaac Newton were, so these words had only recently been converted into English words.

The title page of Dyche's Dictionary has direct evidence of that process of the spread of learned words into the wider language: "A new general English Dictionary; peculiarly calculated for the use and improvement of such as are unacquainted with the learned languages. Wherein the difficult words, and technical terms made use of in anatomy, [...], surgery &c. are not only fully explained, but accented on their proper syllables, to prevent a vicious pronunciation; and marked with initial letters, to denote the part of speech to which each word properly belongs." (Original capitalisation ignored.)

 

[peter]

I have an older dictionary, Dyche's (London, 1777), and that too gives only connexion.

The Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion was founded in 1783, and the name is still spelled that way (see their website).

Personally I prefer connection because it is more obviously derived from connect, and it fits with direction, affection, action and reaction (which, thankfully, are never spelled with an 'x'). The influence of Latin on modern spelling is somewhat disingenuous considering that many of the words arrived via a third language (see my upcoming review of The Fall of Roman Britain: and Why We Speak English).

I don't have a problem with complexion because its modern meaning has no obvious connection with complex.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I have a Chambers's Twentieth Century Dictionary, 1971 edition, and that only gives connexion. In the 1983 edition both are given but connection is first (implying it is used more).

Likewise my great hard backed tome -1987 edition Readers digest UNIVERSAL DICTIONARY -needs two hands to lift and a table upon which to open its pages (makes a good door stop) - shows Connection first and adds alt: (British) Connexion.

The RAF incidence referred to was early 60's and in all truth I had never known it spelled other that connection, and was surprised then, as I am now, to find its can be spelled connexion.

My wife - my wordsmith guru - without hesitation -when asked to spell it without explaining why I was asking- said 'connection' and after explaining about the British alternative (or indeed primary) spelling as 'connexion- said 'stuff and nonsense'. (Never the one to allow historic fact or academic argument influence her)