Once again Vice President Dan Quayle has galvanized public opinion, and this time I applaud his effort to improve education. As referee at a school spelling bee, he incorrectly corrected the spelling of "potato." He told the 12-year-old speller to add an "e" to make it correct, "potatoe." The vice president was himself corrected by the boy but can't be too embarrassed because the cue card he used had the incorrect spelling. Who can blame Quayle for following the lead of people like W.B. Yeats, who spelled as they pleased and left orthography to editors.
If having an incorrect cue card weren't bad enough, the vice president could have been confused by the rules for making plurals.My 1886 California State Speller clearly states in Lesson 256 on Page 122 that "when the singular ends in `o' preceded by a consonant, most words add `es.' " That would make potato into potatoes, which is the correct plural. He was just halfway to a correct plural. It isn't easy to remember all 452 lessons in this modest speller, especially when one clearly states that "when the accent is on the penult. . ."
What the vice president could really be criticized for is revealing the truth about gender bias in spelling. Men are the poor spellers despite affirmative action. The boy he corrected was obviously pre-pubescent or he would have believed the vice president and they would have both been wrong together.
Elizabeth Barrett Browning alludes to the male spelling problem in the middle 1800s when she notes that "boys learn to spell by reiteration chiefly." She is not alive for us to ask her why she assumed that "boys" learn to spell by repetition and didn't even address the issue of girls learning to spell.
Eva March Tappan in the early 1900s still understood that spelling was only a problem for boys but tried to pass the blame for the origin of the problem in America to the American Indians. She said that in "dire revenge" the Indians that were displaced "fastened a name to every nook,/And every boy with a spellingbook/Will have to toil till his hair turns gray/Before he can spell them the proper way." She also is conveniently dead and cannot be questioned about the issue of girls learning to spell by the book.
Men are inclined to find ways around spelling that are practical and essentially avoid the issue altogether. George Bernard Shaw, who invented Eliza Doolittle, gave her a speech problem, not a spelling problem. Shaw pleaded for reform because he was a poor speller. "Change it so it's spelled as it sounds," he argued.
Mark Twain probably offers more comfort than Shaw. Twain is supposed to have said that only people who aren't creative spell words the same way every time.
I suppose the only reason I assumed that spelling is a male problem is that men don't get pregnant, and correct spelling is the most accurate pregnancy test. This is according to Marilyn Larsen, former chairman of the English department at Snow College and now dean of instruction at Mercersberg Academy in Pennsylvania. Questions about the Larsen pregnancy spelling test should be addressed to her, not to me.
She was the best speller at Snow College ever. Only once in a dozen years did she miss a word. Her explanation was that she was pregnant at the time and that during pregnancy more blood is required by the placenta to nourish the baby. This deprives the brain of blood and diminishes the natural capacity of women to spell. She said that the first sign of pregnancy for her was poor spelling. This explains why women know they are pregnant before their husbands.
I must admit that the only spelling rule I can remember is the "i"
before "e" rule, and the only way I can remember it is the poem they made me learn in school:
When I was in school and I learned how to spell,
They taught me a rule, I remember quite well;
Put "i" before "e" - so I learned when a brat
Except after "c," it's as simple as that.
When memory gets muddy, I think in this vien,
For spelling's a study where sceince should riegn.
And when deficeint have siezures of doubt.
This rule is sufficeint to straighten them out.
So why need one labor to reach the hieght
Or inviegle a neighbor to set him aright,
When this anceint rhyme will his critics inviegh
And never a crime on his consceince need wiegh.
But while I'm proficeint at spelling, I've feared
Though the rule is efficeint the words do look wierd.
I think I side with Thorstein Veblen who in his "Theory of the Leisure Class" identified spelling as an example of conspicuous waste. It may take a dictionary to understand him:
"As felicitous an instance of futile classicism as can well be found is the conventional spelling of the English language. English orthography satisfies all the requirements of the canons of reputability under the law of conspicuous waste. It is archaic, cumbrous and ineffective; its acquisition consumes much time and effort; failure to acquire it is easy of detection."
Perhaps to both preserve the equality of men and women and avoid the criticism that our society consumes and wastes too much, we should unite and refuse to learn how to spell.