Expert administrative help at your fingertips!

Click to enable
RSS feed.

Next issue:
July 13, 2008

Subscribe below to receive each new edition of Word-wise by e-mail!

May 20, 2007
June 24, 2007
July 29, 2007
September 2, 2007
October 7, 2007
November 11, 2007
December 16, 2007
January 20, 2008
February 24, 2008
March 30, 2008
May 4, 2008

News Notes

Hijacking a Bee in Flight

No sooner was the Scripps National Spelling Bee organized than protesters organized, too. As reported by Rebecca Dana of Wall Street Journal, a perennial movement to popularize simplified English spelling has in recent years used the celebrated American spelling bee as a platform for drawing attention to itself.

This protest is irritating on several levels. First is the sheer lunacy of demanding changes that would require everyone who speaks English to essentially learn a new language. Think it's hard to stay on top of common errors like the confusion of your and you're? Imagine how overwhelming it would be to learn new spellings of hundreds, even thousands, of words you've been writing for years.

Besides, English doesn't work like that. Standard English spellings and usages generally do not change by force; they evolve when speakers and writers naturally adopt them in the mainstream. Style guidelines reflecting these new usages then follow. It doesn't work the other way around without a convincing impetus. "Because we want it" does not qualify.

Even those who back the simplified-spelling movement acknowledge that they are probably wasting their time. Edward Rondthaler, who has spent decades behind the movement, explains why he believes change should come, yet even he is quoted as saying, "I have always known it would not happen."

Despite the admittedly fruitless nature of their efforts, those who endorse simplified spelling are not crackpots. In fact, the principal organizer of the yearly Scripps demonstration is Elizabeth Kuizenga, a teacher of English as a second language and a literacy and language expert with a number of published books and studies under her belt. Surely learned academics like Ms. Kuizenga should recognize that any single change that is adopted comes with a host of new problems; the widespread changes they hope for could only create a bigger mess.

Let's say, for example, we drop the silent e that appears at the end of so many words. It sounds like a simple fix, but in practice, it would require other rules to support it. Consider the word site.

1. Drop the silent e.

   site --> sit

2. Sit already exists as an entirely different word, so it follows that we must do something to distinguish the two. Changing the spelling of the vowel sound would do it. So let's adopt the combination ie to represent a long-i sound:

   sit vs. siet

3. Unfortunately this creates a new problem: following both rules, the words sight and site would end up with the same new spelling, "siet." English already has many homographs; is adding more advisable...or simplified?

4. Add to that another oft-proposed rule, changing all s-pronounced c's to s's, and the word cite will end up on that list of homographs, too:

   Current word	Definition	Simplified spelling
   site	a location	siet
   sight	visual sense	siet
   cite	to credit a source	siet

   The surrounding context will tell a person which siet was meant by the writer. But why ask readers to work so hard to decipher a single sentence?

   Multiply the complications of that single example by the thousands of oddly-spelled words in our lexicon, and the result is chaos. There's nothing simple about simplified spelling, and adopting it would do nothing to improve our communications.

   All that aside, I find myself most offended by the Scripps protest for another reason. Regardless how useful one believes spelling ability is, one has to admit that this annual event is something to get excited about. How many other nationally televised competitions celebrate dedication to learning? Encourage kids to challenge their brains? Give the socially awkward student who is never chosen first for a kickball team a way to be regarded a winner? A spelling bee is just good, clean fun.

   And there's nothing worth protest in that.

   Language Corner

   A Question of Dialect

   Out of curiosity, a reader-friend recently asked me why I did not edit the first winning writing contest entry to reflect American usage. The writer, Diana Thurbon, is Australian, and I left her Australian vocabulary intact even though Word-wise is an American ezine.

   For others curious about the same thing, here is an excerpt of the response I sent:

   "Admittedly, my usage [/grammar/punctuation] tips concentrate on American standard--and I probably should be more careful about saying that outright--but I don't feel the need to impose that standard on anyone else who contributes to [Word-wise]. It would have felt overly ethnocentric to Americanize "Ric" knowing its writer and many of its readers are not American....Besides, Americanizing the spelling would add nothing to the story but (in my opinion) would rob it of some of its characteristic Thurbon-ness....It would be like resetting Tess of the D'urbervilles in an Appalachian Mountain valley--wouldn't make the story any less compelling but would make it less uniquely Hardy, which is a different kind of loss but a loss just the same."

   Dialects are not correct or incorrect, but they can be inappropriate to a given audience. It is not appropriate to expect to see American dialect in British publication, or vice versa. In the case of Word-wise, I am American and write and edit my own work in American dialect. But for writing contest entries, and when I feature other people's articles, I do not edit them to fit my dialect.

   Expect to see another dialect in Word-wise again before too long. The second writing contest winner, whose piece will be published in the August issue, is a New Zealander. As yet, the third and final winner has not been identified. Keep those entries coming, regardless which dialect you use!

Punctuation Tip

The Serial Comma

One use of the comma is to separate elements in a series or inline list. But there are two things one must consider before including or eliminating a serial comma.

1) Is a series involved?

A series is defined as three or more items. A pair of items makes a plural, but plural does not automatically equal series. Also, the presence of a conjunction (and, or, but, etc.) in a sentence does not necessarily mean a comma must be inserted.

Pair: The recipe called for two things Marion couldn't get at her local market: feta cheese and pine nuts.

Because "feta cheese and pine nuts" comprise only two items, no comma is required to separate them.

Series: The obstacle course required the trainees to climb, swim, and jump vertically.

Had there been only two skills listed, no commas would be necessary. Since there are three, they must now be separated. Each additional item that joins this series will demand the same treatment:

The obstacle course required the trainees to climb, swim, jump vertically, demonstrate endurance, apply logic, make precise calculations, and repair a motor using scrapyard material.

2) Which style guide applies?

There are two major schools of thought on the serial comma. One says that each item that appears before the conjunction requires a comma. The Chicago Manual of Style, a guide commonly adopted by manuscript editors, publishers, and many academics, is one of the major manuals that follows this thinking.

The second major philosophy says that a comma immediately before the conjunction is extraneous and should generally be avoided except in cases where a misreading would result. The Associated Press Stylebook is one guide that espouses this rule. The AP Stylebook is the manual used by most newspapers and magazines as well as a large number of advertising firms, public information offices, and many other professionals who regularly work with the media.

So, whether that pre-conjunction comma is necessary in your writing will depend on which style guide has been adopted in whatever organization you write for. Depending on who reads it, either of these sentences could be regarded as correct:

Chicago rule
Come in, sit down, take your shoes off, and make yourself at home.

AP rule
Come in, sit down, take your shoes off and make yourself at home.

The difference between those two sentences is slight, and if you're not reading closely, you may not notice it at all. There are many more substantial differences between the various style guides, but the serial comma rule is one that gives rise to surprisingly heated reactions on both side of the table. For this reason, before beginning a major writing task for any organization, it is a good idea to ask about its style preference.

Word-wise Challenge

Anagrams

This Challenge is shamelessly borrowed from a 1994 episode of The Simpsons. In this episode, "Lisa's Rival," new girl Alison Taylor and her father invite Lisa to play one of their favorite games.

Taylor: Oh, don't be modest. I'm glad we have someone who can join us in our anagram game.
Alison: We take proper names and rearrange the letters to form a description of that person.
Taylor: Like, er...oh, I don't know, uh...Alec Guinness.
Alison: [thinks] Genuine class.
Taylor: Ho ho, very good. All right, Lisa, um...Jeremy Irons.
Lisa: [looks with consternation] Jeremy's...iron.
Taylor: Mm hmm, well that's...very good...for a first try.*

I will be the first to admit that the Taylors' version of the game is way out of my league. Just so we don't sprain our brains doing this, I'd like to offer a more relaxed set of rules:

1) You may use up to three names at a time. All must be easily verified figures, whether writers, entertainers, politicians, academics, etc.
2) The resulting anagram must say something about the people in it.
3) Complete sentences are not required, and adding punctuation is perfectly acceptable.
4) Just for a little extra wiggle room, answers that have any combination of up to three letters unused OR inserted in addition to name letters are acceptable. For example, if your final anagram has a leftover f but requires two e's more than the names provide, it will still qualify.

You may enter as many answers as you like, but all must be received by July 6, 2008. The winning entry will be selected randomly from all qualified answers. The winner will receive two hours of complimentary service from Admin Maven.

*Thanks to the fans at The Simpsons Archive for the transcript clip!

Articles written by AnnaLisa Michalski may be reprinted provided 1) reprint includes a clickable by-line linked to www.adminmaven.com; 2) article is reprinted in its entirety with no omissions, additions, or edits of any kind; and 3) this statement appears at article's end: "AnnaLisa Michalski is the writer of the ezine Word-wise and owner of Admin Maven, a virtual assisting service."

Unless otherwise noted, all Word-wise articles are written by AnnaLisa Michalski. Admin Maven does not provide permissions for reprinting articles by guest writers. Please contact guest writers directly for permissions.