De : Melvyn Ramsden

À : **Real Spelling Group

Date : mercredi 17 avril 2002 09:00

Objet : Evidence for your Spelling Dossier

A real educated person is not necessarily a winner of quiz shows!

I am weary of consumerist attitudes to knowledge that equate intellectual competence with the number of raw facts that a person's head can hold. I am tired of the adulation of "accurate" spellers who spell correctly but have no idea WHY a spelling is as it is. I am outraged at the persistence among school hierarchies of the crass notion that the test of a spelling "method" is the mere counting of words that are inaccurately and accurately spelled by students. I am incensed by the armies of "researchers" whose clear and absolute ignorance of the cognitive nature of English spelling and the real phonetic structure of the language doesn't inhibit their output of papers of superficial observation and opinion dressed up as fact. I am appalled by the producers of spelling schemes and methods who show not the slightest evidence that they know the essential importance of the etymological dimension of spelling.

Real spelling competence is not measured by scores

The really educated person is one who can see that a question needs to be posed, can formulate that question clearly, can come up with a hypothesis that appears to provide an possible answer to that question, can go on to test that hypothesis by assembling and comparing the evidence and then knows how and where to go about verifying it all.

Whatever Deity there may be should be thanked that, at least in some schools, there are teachers and students who are working with orthography in this way - people like fourth grader Jacqueline in Borneo.

Here is Jacqueline's mail to me in its entirety. I'll leave my own comments and responses until after you have read what she has to say. And while you are reading it, please ponder the excellent teaching that has brought her, in just a few short months, to this state of spelling maturity.

*******

Dear Melvyn,

I had a theory about the two base elements < cret > and < cern >. It was the word <secretary>. I looked in a book called "Word Stems" by John Kennedy and looked under the base element < cret > because I had a theory that this was the base element from the word sum: < se + cret + ary >. I found three entries for < cret >. The first one was a twin base element of < cresc >. It had the meaning "to grow or increase". I did not think that this was connected to < secretary > so I looked at the second entry. This had the meaning < chalk > with the word < cretaceous > under it. I didn't think that this was connected to < secretary > so I looked at the last entry. Under that entry it just said to look under the base element < cern >. I looked under < cern > and it had the meaning "to separate

or observe". It also had the word < secret >. Although I was looking for the base element of < secretary > I noticed the word <secret >. I thought that maybe it was from the same word stem as < secretary >. The meaning seemed like it might be connected. I thought that may be a secretary was the keeper of secrets.

The entry for < cern > did give the base element < cret > that I was looking for next to it along with examples of words using both <cret > and < cern >. I saw a word that I had never seen before under the base element < cern >. It was the word < discern >. I looked in the Collins Concise Dictionary and the meaning was "to recognize or perceive clearly". That kind of seemed connected.

Are these twin base elements? If they are, how are they connected?

Another question. Under the base element < cern > that was with < cret > it had the word < discreet >. The book had highlighted < creet > as the base element. Why would the word < discreet > be under the base elements < cret > and < cern > if it is not spelled the same?

Sincerely, Jacqueline Alnes, Grade 4 Pasir Ridge International School

*******

You don't need "research" to confirm that Jacqueline is orthographically mature nor is any other "evaluation" needed to show that her teacher is thoroughly sound and effective and you certainly don't need statistical analysis to validate the competence of teacher, student and the conceptual structures that must have informed the whole process which made this mail possible.

Here is my response to Jacqueline's mail.

*******

Dear Jacqueline,

I am immensely impressed by your detective work which started with the word <secretary>. You obviously enjoyed your investigation and I certainly enjoyed reading it.

Here's the story of < secretary >. The word sum for it is < se + cret + ary >, just as you thought. The base element is a twin base element which comes from Latin <cern / crete> and which had a basic meaning of "separate, distinguish".

The prefix < se-> is not very common and usually has an idea of "apart, aside, without". You might like to start a collection of words which have this prefix; you won't find many! The suffix is <-ary >. This suffix has two homophones: <-ery > and <-ory >. You can tell that < secretary > needs <-Ary > rather than either of the others from the related word < secretArial >.

You are absolutely right to say that originally a "secretary" was "a keeper of secrets". Originally a "secret " was something that was "kept apart" from most people. There used to be a word < secern >, "to keep something separate", but nobody uses it any more these days. Originally, then, a "secretary" was someone with whom you shared things that were confidential with you. This is the meaning that it still has with members of a government: The Secretary of State, for instance, knows the secrets of the State. The idea that secretaries also spent their time writing came much later.

You can see now why the word < discern > means what it does. Now you have learned that word you will be able to use it in what you write and even when you are talking. That should impress people! You have become a very discerning speller.

You asked me how the twins < cern / cret > are connected. To understand the full answer completely you would have to go back to Latin. In short, many Latin stems changed when the stress changed syllables or the suffix changed. This is what happened to the stem < cern >: it could change to < cret >. There is a different twin base element from Latin < cresc / cret(e) > "to grow". It is just coincidence that the second twin ended up the same as the twin of < cern >. The "crescent" moon is the "growing" moon - it's moving to being a "full" moon. "Concrete" originally meant anything that was solid because it had "grown together".

The base element of < cretaceous > (which means "like chalk") is < crete >. This is a type of word that is called an "eponym" – a word that is based on a person or a place. This word is based on the name Crete, an island in the eastern Mediterranean which was known in the Roman world for the chalk rock which it is mainly made up from. Other "eponyms" that are named after a place include < bikini > < canary > < meander > < bunkum > < labrador > < cravat > < hamburger >. Eponyms that are named after a place rather than a person are sometimes called "toponyms". You could ask your teacher to work through Kit 6 Theme C with you your class: it's about eponyms and toponyms.

The two words < discrete > and < discreet > were originally different spellings of the same word. As this same word developed slightly different meanings the different spellings were kept to correspond to the different meanings. Here are a couple of other words which used to have different spellings where the differences have been kept to show slight differences of meaning. You could do a little detective work of your own on them:

< naught > < nought >

< program > < programme >

Thank you for letting me know about the detective work you have done. I have sent a copy of your mail and my answer to lots of teachers of real spelling around the world so that they can enjoy what you have done - and they will probably learn something from it too. You have become "world-famous".

Love to you all in Balikpapan from France,

Melvyn

*******

Next time some hierarch or schooling executive asks you for "evidence" about spelling teaching I suggest that you include Jacqueline's mail in the dossier that you give them. It would be absolutely appropriate to comment that you will only accept the validity of the conclusions of any "researcher" or "validator" if they have also demonstrated that they are fully capable of accounting for the details of how Jacqueline had acquired the competence and have the orthographical knowledge to be able to answer that mail themselves.

Bon courage!

Melvyn