While "i" does come before "e" nearly 75% of the time—even after "c" it is a probabilistic rule and not particularly useful.

So not so well documented.

Or how about the false rules that people tried to copy from Latin to English that don't really apply like double negatives or split infinitives.

Shakespeare loses most of its humor in modern edited versions, he used spelling and homonyms artfully when he cared at all. Look at the first folio version if you haven't.

Standard spelling is useful, but neither fully documented nor close to logical.

I think you will find that actual linguistic scholars error twords descriptivism vs prescription.

Only the less informed population of lay people stick to the prescription model as a proxy for intellectual ability.

> While "i" does come before "e" nearly 75% of the time—even after "c" it is a probabilistic rule and not particularly useful.

That's only the first part of the rhyme. The second part is "or when sounded like 'a' as in 'neighbor' or 'weigh'", which handles most of those exceptions.

There's even a third part I remember hearing once, but can't remember it now.

Most English spelling/pronunciation rules are never explicitly taught, but they do exist - it's why "ghoti" isn't pronounced the same as "fish", to get that pronunciation you have to break at least two rules.

Years ago I found a page that listed like 40 or so English pronunciation rules that had to do with combinations of characters and where they appeared in words, it was really thorough and I wish I'd kept a link to it.

You're criticizing a rule of thumb, here. Sure, the rule of thumb isn't perfect … but it also never claimed to be.

But from that, you're drawing the illogical conclusion of "spelling isn't documented", which … the aforementioned rule has no logical connection to.

Plenty of dictionaries exists, good ones, ones that even document non-standard spellings or local variants.

> I think you will find that actual linguistic scholars error twords (sic) descriptivism (sic) vs prescription.

I'll highlight the irony, but this is besides the point, but doubly so when teaching someone how to write. You start with the prescribed spellings, and once the skill is mastered, or the language evolves, then either they know when to break the rules, or the new spelling is simply trending towards prescribed.

… it's the same for a lot of pursuits: in dance, we teach footwork first. Later, you learn when to bend the rules, and when to outright break them. I'd say it's the same in music, too.

> Only the less informed population of lay people stick to the prescription model as a proxy for intellectual ability.

This really isn't what upthread is trying to say, at all. If I had to rephrase it, they're suggesting that, when you teach spelling, some "get it", some don't, even repeatedly, and questioning whether there is some tacit knowledge that the first group has formed that the latter is struggling with.

I taught CS, and I'd say there is a similar pattern amongst students there. Some intuitively seem to get it — particularly, once given the rules for syntax, ifs, while, etc., how to synthesis new programs to solve until-then unseen problems. Yet other students struggle with this. (The closest I've come is "the former have a decent rule system/model in their heads, and the latter are just trying to bum by on heuristics.)

"Prescriptivism is the term used for approaches to language that set out rules for what is regarded as “good” or “correct” usage. Descriptivism is an evidence-based approach to language that describes, in an objective manner, how language is being used. Most contemporary academic linguists are descriptivists, but prescriptivist approaches abound in schools, style guides, internet comment threads, and parental chidings. This case examines attempts to govern, reform, and/or reimagine English."

https://exhibits.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/show/english-language/g...

English is my second language so I tried to make some funny mistakes above due to the topic, but there might also be some unwanted/undocumented ones thrown in for good measure.

At least in my native language, I can typically explain the rules why a word is spelled the way it is. The simple reason for this is that I am interested in the structure of languages. The typical reason that I experience among other people why they spell words wrong is that they are less interested in this topic.

Of course, tons of everyday great spellers don’t know about any of this stuff explicitly. They just seem to tacitly have a “feel” for the language of origin and are thus able to spell many words when first hearing them.

Scissors, Island, Ache, and Could; were all from old English with random letters added by people in the 15th century who mistakenly thought they were from Latin.

Etymology is hard, and most textbook writers and teachers who invented the rules weren't qualified to actually find the true origin.

English accumulated a multitude of inconsistent spelling patterns, some from loan words, some from shift how words pronounced from vowel shifts, yod-dropping, and random reform attempts which weren't often based on rigourous evidence of origin.

It was an etymological fallacy that drove those spelling reforms to 'correct' the spelling anyway.

There is no real value in keeping the k in knife when the sound was dropped as an example.

That's true as well.

It was an etymological fallacy that drove those spelling reforms to 'correct' the spelling anyway.

There is no real value in keeping the k in knife when the sound was dropped as an example.

To me, these two statements suggest opposite recommendations. The first tells us that we should be cautious of prescriptive changes to spelling. The second that we should go ahead and drop the k in knife (and presumably change the spelling on all other words to be more phonetic).

I am inclined to be conservative here [1]. I found Mark Twain's satirical piece on the issue [2] rather persuasive. Like it or not, those old prescriptivists' changes have become part of the etymology. Making further changes for the sake of easier spelling would only complicate the etymology even further, and make it even harder for future English-speakers to read the texts of today.

[1] https://xkcd.com/927/

[2] https://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/twain.html