I thought about changing the name of this blog to 'Labor Stats'. Decent American spelling.
It is said to be more logical. But just how logical do languages have to be? Does logic imply internal consistency, respecting etymology or rather streamlining common practice? Then which spelling is preferable:
Merriam-Webster,
Cambridge Dictionary,
Oxford English Dictionary,
BBC practice, MS Worst?
Having studied classical languages, I first considered etymology and the infamous -ising/-izing debate. The Greek ending is -idzein, Latin -izare. So why making it French when it isn't? Even old English uses the -izing form, although mixed with the s-spelling. There are other similar cases. Color is Latin too, it means colour. Why not simply write it the way it has always been (like the Americans do)? Merriam-Webster is on your side.
Second: internal consistency. Humour leads to humorous. We could spell it
humor right away. It is more logical, easier for foreigners. In particular I like the use of the suffix -ize for everything you 'make'. That keeps you from writing analize, unless you have perverse motives. It is analyse or analyze. There's a preference for the former, because it comes from
analysis-ize, largely omitting the suffix. Common British spelling (en-UK) thinks about it differently.
Etymology and consistency. Jolly good, but we may not forget that language is an independent cultural object. Even strict grammar and spelling rules cannot enter the living room of people and decided what dialect they speak, words they take up. During some period of time, French has influenced English. It has changed words English already had, and introduced words that have a history before they were French. These words had a history before they were Latin or Greek too. It is a cultural bias to assume civilization started 1000 BC. Maybe writing did, but then again this must have been more evolutionary than revolutionary. If you study classical languages, you quickly learn a new vocabulary for every Greek poet you read. Don't try to find the original writings, cause you will not even understand most signs.
This is exactly why I keep Labour in Labour Stats. It looks familiar, it has history and it's not that far from logical. If English would evolve towards 'labor', I would not mind at all, but for the time being labour ends on -our, error on -or and labourer on -er. It has been different before and it will be in the future, but the changes are minor and reflect the history of a word.
Then again, when the European Union tries to
-ise English, primarily to please the French, I will first oppose. For me, the
Oxford English Dictionary is a way more important authority that nicely balances logic, etymology and consistency. It interacts with language as it is used, without standardizing fads. Here is
someone who agrees.
P.S. Don't try to make
Microsoft Office talk Oxford English. You just bumped into the limits of closed source software.
