[MaxPower2k3]

This is probably a stupid question for anyone who knows anything about linguistics, but I don't, so I figured I'd ask anyway. Why is it that American English has adopted the -er suffix instead of -re for words like theater and liter, but we still use -le for everything? Fizzle, Whistle, Ventricle all end in a sound closer to -el than -le, so why didn't we ever change them to Fizzel, Whistel, and Ventricel? Seems like that would have been the American thing to do.

This baffels me.

[analogika]

You ask about CONSISTENCY in English spelling?

lough, enough, trough, bough, through, thorough, or even just bow (of a ship) and bow (and arrow)...

English spelling is a complete mess.

[Chuckit]

I can't speak authoritatively on the mind of Noah Webster, but I presume that he felt the -le ending was more standard than -re — that is, there are almost no words ending in "-el."

[analogika]

tunnel, apparel, personnel, caramel, camel, minstrel, mackerel, ...

Again: Don't bother even TRYING to argue consistency in English spelling. It's just ****ed-up bullshit.

[Oisín]

There is some consistency.

Originally, there were several different suffixes, some from -el(le), some from -le (some of the -le are actually from -lian, an old diminutive or habitual verb ending).

The ones that are or can be spelled with -el are all from French diminutives, -el(le). Many of these have been ‘neutralised’ in Modern English, so that they can be spelled both ways (mantel/mantle), or have completely lost the old -el form (castle, battle, bottle, etc.).

All the other -le suffixes are original English ones, and they’ve never been -el. They are the following:

1. Denoting ‘appliances’ (basically, anything you can hold or use, originally) and animals: beetle, bridle, cradle, bristle, etc.
2. (quite rare) Forming adjectives from an original verb, etymologically the same suffix as -ly (from an old suffixed form of ‘like’, meaning ‘likely to [verb]’): brittle, nimble
3. Forming verbs (the -lian one from above): sizzle, dazzle, babble, cuddle, fiddle, nestle, whistle.


Apart from these, there are some additional ones that have just happened to end in -le in Modern English and have nothing to do with either of these suffixes (such as ‘humble’, which is directly from Latin humilis, for instance). These are always written with -le.


One of the reasons, I imagine, why -re was discarded for -er in American English is that there are not very many -re words to change. There are far more -er words, most of which actually come from an original -er, not -re. It was just a case of regular standardisation, wherever possible.

The same has essentially happened with -el/-le (in both British and American English, mind!), with many original -el words being assimilated to the far more numerous -le group. However, there are some words left where -le would just not be possible—it would either change the pronunciation or make the word incompatible with English spelling (yes, there is such a thing!).

Take Chris’ examples above: tunnle, apparle, personnle, caramle, camle, minstrle, mackerle. I think we can all agree that -nnle wouldn’t work too well. -mle wouldn’t either. Or -rle (much less -nstrle, which is just impossible to say). This is because n+l, m+l, and r+l (i.e., nasal + liquid or liquid + liquid) are not split up by an epenthetic vowel, like many other combinations are in English. Since that’s the case, the pronunciation of the word would change to keep those combinations together. They would have to become something like: TUN-lee, a-PAR-lee, PER-son-lee [=personally, in fast speech], ca-RAM-lee, CAM-lee, min[croaking, tongue-breaking sound]-lee, and MACK-er-lee.

So, basically: most original -el words have been regularised to -le words, except when this would result in a nasal + liquid or liquid + liquid combination, since that would change the pronunciation of the word.

[paul w]

You need to recommend me a good book on language sometime Oisín. By good I mean something I can actually follow that will also make my head hurt less when reading your posts.

Ever read Honni Soit Qui Mal Y Pense? An admittedly lay book on the shared history of the English and French language (in French). It has a bit of explanation as to why English behaves the way it does. It's a fascinating read.

Up until the 17th century people spelled things more or less however, no? How Webster and the like actually agreed on the versions of these words today is the question.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by paul w 

You need to recommend me a good book on language sometime Oisín. By good I mean something I can actually follow that will also make my head hurt less when reading your posts.

Well, for the hurting part, I’d suggest perhaps moving your computer away from that overhanging bookshelf

As for books... I really don’t know. I can’t think of any language books that I’ve ever really read myself. I just pick up stuff from random places (Wikipedia, for instance, or the OS X dictionary, where quite a bit of the above post came from), and then put it into the greater picture somewhere.

The only really great language book I can recommend hasn’t a lot to do with English in its modern forms, but more with the very ancient forms. It’s Benjamin W. Fortson IV’s “Indo-European Language and Culture”.

As the title suggests, it’s about Indo-European, and about the various roads taken by the various Indo-European languages from the original Proto-Indo-European language down to what they are today (or, in many cases, like Latin, Sanskrit, Avestan, Tocharian, etc.: what they were when they were still spoken). It’s a great book for the simple fact that, unlike most IE linguistics, it’s not too technical and doesn’t lose itself in brain-breaking examples.

Ever read Honni Soit Qui Mal Y Pense? An admittedly lay book on the shared history of the English and French language (in French). It has a bit of explanation as to why English behaves the way it does. It's a fascinating read.

Nope, never heard of it. I’ll see if I can’t find it in our linguistics library at school

Up until the 17th century people spelled things more or less however, no? How Webster and the like actually agreed on the versions of these words today is the question.

Well... the problem is really, of course, that English stopped being written as it was pronounced, but people kept writing the old way. So, for at least a few hundred years, the writing system was bound to be shattered, since people had to remember spellings, rather than just writing what they said. Standardisation hasn’t helped much in that department, of course; the English still can’t spell for **** when compared, for example, to the Finns, who have a properly phonetic alphabet.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by Oisín

The ones that are or can be spelled with -el are all from French diminutives, -el(le). Many of these have been ‘neutralised’ in Modern English, so that they can be spelled both ways (mantel/mantle), or have completely lost the old -el form (castle, battle, bottle, etc.).

All the other -le suffixes are original English ones, and they’ve never been -el. They are the following:

1. Denoting ‘appliances’ (basically, anything you can hold or use, originally) and animals: beetle, bridle, cradle, bristle, etc.

Okay, what about weasel?

[Middle English wesele, from Old English wesle.]

What's so special about weasel? He isn't French.

[paul w]

Hence why I'll never trust anyone named Wesley.

[Sherman Homan]

Where did you guys get such a strange attitude towards English spelling? Have you ever studied French? Just surf for a French web site and take a look at the sentence structure.

Here's one, Saint-Exupery's famous call to arms:

Antoine de Saint-Exupery: An Open Letter to Frenchmen Everywhere

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Okay, what about weasel?

[Middle English wesele, from Old English wesle.]

What's so special about weasel? He isn't French.

Hm. Hadn’t thought of that one. Well, as I said, there is some consistency. There are also lots of random, arbitrary exceptions. Weasel should, logically and historically, be weasle. I don’t know why it’s been changed.

I can only say that in other Germanic languages, where the -le suffix for animals also exists (such as in Danish, where beetle is also bille), weasel is still -el (Danish væsel, German Wiesel—not sure what the regular -le outcome is in German, though).

Where did you guys get such a strange attitude towards English spelling? Have you ever studied French? Just surf for a French web site and take a look at the sentence structure.

Firstly, sentence structure is not the same as spelling. Secondly, French spelling is more regular than English (though still not exactly what one might call ideal, phonetically speaking). There are lots of polyphthongs in French, but once you learn those, there are very few words that are actually pronounced irregularly. English, on the other hand, is more exception than rule.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by analogika 

tunnel, apparel, personnel, caramel, camel, minstrel, mackerel, ...

Again: Don't bother even TRYING to argue consistency in English spelling. It's just ****ed-up bullshit.

And how.

[ghporter]

I pronounce theater as "the-at-ER" not "the-at-RE" so the spelling makes perfect sense to me. This is one of Webster's better "improvements" to my mind. Too bad he didn't go at the Germanic problems in English, particularly the use of "ough" for about fifty-leven different sounds, none of which seem to be at all connected with any of those letters.

[MaxPower2k3]

Thanks, Oisín, I knew you'd bring your crazy linguistics knowledge and clear everything up.

I know asking why English isn't consistent is kind of pointless, but I was wondering since, as ghporter said, we changed words like Theatre to Theater because that's a more phonetic spelling, why not do the same with words like Bubble that are pronounced more like Bubbel. And now I know.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by analogika 

tunnel, apparel, personnel, caramel, camel, minstrel, mackerel, ...

Again: Don't bother even TRYING to argue consistency in English spelling. It's just ****ed-up bullshit.

Gotta agree with you. Seems like a lot of the spelling and pronounciation is quite random.

As much as the German grammar sucks due to its complexity, at least the German pronounciation is somewhat more consistent.

Well, yeah, except stuff like Weg und weg, spelled the same, pronounced differently.
Where the hell that came from, I have no idea. It should be wegg, not weg.

-t

[voodoo]

English spelling is just memorizing words. There is little pattern and none that is reliable.

Even so, change of pronounciation of -re to -er is just normal. Back and forth. So are things like m to n and b to v to u.

In western languages the pattern is huge and varied. Even so, most languages are more consistent in spelling than English. At least all the languages I know.

English even screwes up the spelling of 'how', which should be 'whow'. I just memorize the whole crap.

V

[RAILhead]

I miss am'n't

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Okay, what about weasel?

[Middle English wesele, from Old English wesle.]

What's so special about weasel? He isn't French.

c. 725 a.d.: "uueosule"
c. 1000: "wesle"
c. 1325: "wesele"
approx. 1340: "wesill"
1398: "wesell"
c. 1440: "wesil"
c. 1480: "quhasill"
1577: "Weesels"
1579: "wesill"
1606: "Weezle"
1624: "Weesels"
1726: "Weezels"
1832: "weasel" (!)
1834: "Weazles"
1883, etc.: "weasel"

Before the 17th century (and even through it), spelling consistency was not one of English's merits.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Stradlater 

Before the 23rd century (and even through it), spelling consistency was not one of English's merits.

Fixed.

-t

[Stradlater]

Hey, it's better than what it was

[Rumor]

Anyone ever see the skit by Gallager in regards to this?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

There are lots of polyphthongs in French

Polyphthong, n:
Sexy underwear for people with haemorrhoids.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Polyphthong, n:
Sexy underwear for people with haemorrhoids.

I pronounce theater as "the-at-ER" not "the-at-RE" so the spelling makes perfect sense to me.

Actually, most likely you don’t pronounce it as either. Most Americans just pronounce the last syllable as a syllabified r, so ‘theatr’ might really be closer. Most Brits, of course, wouldn’t pronounce the r at all, so for them, perhaps ‘theate’ (or ‘theatuh’?) would be better.

[slugslugslug]

To bring it back to book recommendations...

Originally Posted by paul w

You need to recommend me a good book on language sometime Oisín. By good I mean something I can actually follow that will also make my head hurt less when reading your posts.

I'm not Oisín, but I've read a bunch of laypeople-targeted books on linguistics, and liked all of 'em. Here's a list

• The Language Instinct by Steven Pinker. I read it years ago, and it's actually being used as the main text in the intro linguistics course I'm currently taking. Pinker is a thoroughly engaging writer, though it's alleged he sometimes glosses over controversies as though his position is consensus. But it's a great overview of the field, especially in explaining the whole Universal Grammar idea.
• Words and Rules, also by Pinker. It's a book all about regular and irregular past-tense verbs in English that's utterly un-put-downable. I think it's essentially outlining one position in a debate about morphological syntax, but I forget what the alternative is. At any rate, it's also fun.
• The Power of Babel by John McWhorter. All about language change, and thoroughly fascinating. Sometimes I think he's trying too hard with analogies and pop-culture references, not trusting that the information is fascinating enough to keep people's interest. But overall, an excellent read.
• The Atoms of Language by Marc Baker. This is kind of an "advanced beginner's" book on what are called parameters with regard to Universal Grammar. These are low-level differences among possible language rules that combine to make the widely-varied kinds of languages we see while still allowing them to be based on a single hypothesized language module in the head.
• Far From the Madding Gerund and Other Dispatches from Language Log by Mark Liberman and Geoffrey K. Pullum. It's a book based on a blog run by real-life linguists who post about tons of interesting aspects of linguistics. You can read the blog too, but the book is easier to deal with when you're reading in bed
• I bought, but haven't really started The Infinite Gift by Charles Yang, but it looks really good. It's about child language acquisition. And my dad just recommended to me Nick Ostler's Empires of the Word, which is apparently a history of language in general, so I imagine it has some overlap with the McWhorter above.

Hope that helped as a start.

[paul w]

cool thanks slugx3!