I have several students in each class who begin any writing assignment with a long pause. For some that pause can be 10 minutes or more. While I respect that “think time” is important, these same students will say (after their “think time”) that they don’t know what to write. I know that their “think time” is not very productive. So I’m very choosy about the writing topics I pick. Free choice doesn’t usually work. For the students who hesitate, it’s like looking into a snow globe and trying to decide which snowflake to describe.
Something that worked!
Recently we studied photosynthesis. AFTER the students had memorized lines for a play, and AFTER we had taken a test (so I could be sure the vast majority of students understood the process), I asked the students to write an informative paper about photosynthesis. We brainstormed that the introductory paragraph might reveal what photosynthesis was, along with where it happens. We brainstormed that the concluding paragraph might wrap things up with why photosynthesis is so important. The middle paragraphs were to explain the process – naming the ingredients and how they arrived at the chloroplast – naming the result (sugar and oxygen) and where they went when they left the chloroplast.
The best part of this was that the students didn’t have to think about what to include. They knew the information. They could focus on organization and making sure details explained what a reader might not understand. A rough draft was finished within three days for most. I conferenced with students as they were writing and we talked about making the introduction inviting. Then they typed it, and I made editing suggestions. Final copies are now in my hands. If there was confusion about the photosynthesis process that the test did not catch, this writing certainly helped the students make sense of it.
What a beautiful pairing of science and writing. And because they had such a grasp of the information already, we could really focus on the writing. Those who normally begin by pausing so long, began relatively quickly! For a change, they didn’t see writing as such a daunting task.
So what writing practice to do next?
Yesterday I asked the students to write a paragraph. Just one paragraph – three to five sentences long. The nervous looks shot around the room like in a pinball game. Then I revealed the topic: Tell me the one thing you would absolutely without-a-doubt NOT want for Christmas (or as a gift in general for those who don’t celebrate Christmas). I thought this might be fun, seeing as it was unexpected, but I could not have predicted how their responses made ALL of us laugh! Bravo! And everyone wrote a paragraph!
I don’t think you’ll mind if I share a few …
“Something I do not want for Christmas? An avocado. I really really dislike avocados. I’ve actually seen kids get avocados, so I know it can happen. I tried one once and started gagging. Please, just know that if you’re getting me anything for Christmas … make it anything but avocados.” S.B.
“What I don’t want for Christmas is my sister! She is always so annoying and rude. She is much older than me, so I can’t fight her. I still do, but then I get punched, so I back off.” T.R.
“One thing I do not want for Christmas is a math test. They are too hard and they get me frustrated. I do not like math tests!” J.K.
“I absolutely do not want Expo Markers! My math teacher told us that if we needed them we could ask for them for Christmas. I thought he was crazy when he said we could sacrifice one present for Expo Markers. No way!” M.B.
“The one thing I don’t want for Christmas is underwear. It is so weird. Why can’t you buy your own if you want some? Just imagine getting excited for your presents and then you get underwear. Then when someone asks what you got for Christmas you have to say, “undies”. What the heck? Please don’t give someone undies!” M.B.
“There is one thing I really DO NOT want for Christmas, and that is to be sick! If I were sick on Christmas, that would really stink. I would miss everything because I would probably have to stay in bed ALL day.” G.L.
“The one thing I don’t want for Christmas is a snake. One reason I don’t want a snake is because of their skin. Ick! I also hate the tails of snakes and the fact that they can kill you if they bite you! I hate mice too, and I would have to feed it mice. Otherwise it might eat my dog!” R.G.
“The one thing I really don’t want for Christmas is socks. I have lots of socks already. Whenever I get socks, they never fit. Please don’t get me socks!” K.B.
“The thing I do not want for Christmas is chores. Chores are not a gift. Since chores are work instead of spending time with family, I would rather not have chores for Christmas.” N.A.
“Please! Don’t get me this for Christmas. I do not want a dead fish. First off, you can’t play with it! Secondly and thirdly, it smells and does not move.” J.S.
“Something I don’t want is crayons. I have too many. I have about 500, so if you are thinking about gifts for me, do not get me crayons. It’s not that I don’t like them. It’s that I have too many. I have so many colors. We had to sort them.” E.G.
“I would absolutely not want to spend Christmas without my family. My family is my life. Without them it would not be fun or enthusiastic.” R.B.
“I would not, not, not want a life supply of pizza. I wouldn’t even like ONE piece of pizza. And a life supply? Uggghhhh! Pizza is my second to last least favorite food.” A.S.
“One thing I would not want for Christmas is another sister. That just means more makeup. I might even have to share a room with her. She would probably be very annoying, too.” G.S.
“I do not want a toad. They’re boring. They do nothing but eat, sit, and sleep. That is why I do not want a toad.” M.W.
Aren’t those great? I need to make a list of other writing prompts that are unexpected in this same way. With this prompt they were able to practice thinking on paper with less hesitation time. I want the ideas to flow and the writing experience to be enjoyable. I want their ‘critic’ to remain silently tucked away while their ‘creator’ is free-styling! For some reason, these students try to to the writing and editing all in one step (and generally they skip revising altogether). That’s like seeing all three of the stoplight colors at the same time while you are driving! Yikes!
First they need to have something to say. If I can choose something for them to write about that is fun or that they already know about, the writing is less labored. The next steps of revising and editing are there to improve the writing. They provide an opportunity to reflect on the initial message to the reader. Maybe rephrasing a sentence will make the idea in it stronger. Maybe certain words used don’t capture the feeling the writer intended. Is there another word that would work better? Is there information that is missing? Do the ideas in the sentences keep the reader focused on the intended message?
But like I said, first they need to have something to say. My goal is just that – to give them prompts that interest them and make it fun to respond.
It is a hard-to-believe concept, but it’s true. Words do not have the spellings they have so that we know how to pronounce them. Words like busy, does, piano, action, and pretty prove that. The truth is that words are spelled the way they are to represent their meaning. That’s such a foreign idea to so many. “If that was true, wouldn’t we teach that to children who are just learning to read?” You’d think so, wouldn’t you? But the majority of schools don’t. So why do we resist believing this obvious truth?
When I first began studying orthography and learning Structured Word Inquiry, I was skeptical myself. I wondered what people in this community meant when they said that spelling represented meaning and not pronunciation. How can that be? I learned to spell by “sounding words out” – by pronouncing them. Sometimes I pronounced them in unnatural ways so that I could remember the spelling (Wed – nes – day or ap – pear – ance, both with parts pronounced unlike they are in the whole). I knew what the words meant, but that didn’t have anything to do with the spelling, did it? I learned to spell one word at a time, twenty or so words a week. I was pretty good at rote memorization. I also studied definitions right out of the dictionary. They didn’t always make sense to me, but because they didn’t, I didn’t know how to reword them. I found out when my children went to school that times haven’t changed much in this regard.
I remember when my son was in high school and had to be able to match up a list of words to their definitions. I offered to help him study. That was when I realized that he had figured out a system to pass the test without having learned anything useful. If I read the word, he could give me the first four words of the definition. If I read the definition, he could tell me the first four letters of the word the definition would match up with on the test. Blech! He became very annoyed with me when I pointed out how useless this test was. “Mom! It doesn’t matter. I have to pass the test tomorrow. Go away. I’ll study by myself.”
One thing is for sure. He was smart enough to know that passing the test didn’t hinge on him actually understanding anything. I was sad, but remembered cheating my own learning in the same way as I went through schooling years. I didn’t cheat my learning to the extent my son did, but cheat it I did. Neither of us were taught to look to the word for meaning – we had learned that spelling and meaning were two separate activities and rote memorization was the only way to handle them in order to pass the test.
Recently Oxford Dictionaries posted the ten most frequently misspelled words in their Oxford English Corpus (which they describe as “an electronic collection of over 2 billion words of real English that help us see how people are using the language and also shows us the mistakes that are most often made”) . Seeing as I spend a fair amount of my teaching life looking at misspelled words, I took a look, wondering if I could predict the words that made the list. As I was clicking, my mind was betting that the people who misspell these words (whichever they were), had an education like mine and have been taught to “sound out words” and not to even consider morphology or etymology as they relate to a word’s spelling.
Here is their list:
Once you begin to study orthography and use Structured Word Inquiry, it doesn’t take long to see how easily the above spelling errors could be avoided altogether. The people misspelling these words do not understand the spelling – have not been taught to understand the spelling. Let’s look closer at each of these. Along the way I’ll point out the information that would actually help a person understand and remember these spellings.
Before we talk about spelling, it’s always important to talk about how the word is used. What does it mean? I could talk about the fact that my classroom can accommodate 30 students, meaning that the space is adequate to fit that many students. I could also use it if I was talking about accommodating the needs of a student who has a broken leg. In that sense, I am fitting the needs of the student by perhaps getting a different type of desk.
A person without any understanding of morphology might be wondering, “Is it two <c>’s and one <m>, or is it one <c> and two <m>’s?” That person might even write the word down on a piece of paper with several different spellings to see which one looks right.
Here’s what you understand when you understand morphology. All words have structure. That structure will include a base element and perhaps affixes. A base element will either be free (doesn’t HAVE to have an affix) or bound (MUST have an affix).
Let’s look at the structure of <accommodate>. This word consists of four morphemes: two are prefixes, one is a base, and one is a suffix. Its structure is <ac + com + mode/ + ate>.
The first prefix is <ac->, and it is an assimilated form of the prefix <ad-> “to”. When a prefix is assimilated, it means that the final letter in the prefix might change to better fit phonologically with the first grapheme of the next morpheme in the word. In this case, the original form of the prefix is <ad-> “to”. Seeing as the next morpheme begins with a <c>, the <ad-> assimilated to <ac-> to better match the phonology of that <c>.
The second prefix is <com->, and it is an intensifying prefix. That means that it brings a sense of force or emphasis to this word. There are people who have learned this prefix and will tell you that it means “together”. Well, it does bring that sense to some words we find it in. But there are prefixes that can also be intensifiers, such as this one!
The base element of this word is <mode>. It is a free base element from Latin modus “measure, manner”. This base can also be found in words like:
modify, modular, accommodation, model, modest, and yes, even commode!
The suffix is <-ate>. It is a verbal suffix.
Let’s put the morphemes together and understand this spelling: <ac + com + mode/ +ate –> accommodate>. If you stop yourself from thinking of there being a double <c> and instead think of the prefix <ac> plus the prefix <com> plus the base <mode (replace the <e>)> plus <ate>, you will have spelled this word with very little problem. At the same time, you will understand that the denotation of this word is “to fit with emphasis”. Compare that denotation with a connotation (how the word is used now), and you will have the spelling AND the meaning, and understand both!
It is important to recognize that pronunciations are affected by many things. I will include a generally accepted pronunciation for each of these words. But please know that there may be pronunciation variations in different parts of the country / world. The pronunciation is /əˈkɑməˌdeɪt/. Here is the phoneme / grapheme correspondence:
It is interesting to note that the first <o>, which is stressed, has a different pronunciation than the second <o>, which is unstressed.
We often use the word ‘which’ when we are searching for more information about one or more things or people in a specific group. One might ask, “Which book is yours?”
This word is a free base. It has no affixes.
To understand the spelling of this word, we need to look at its etymology. I have several sources I use when researching words. One of my favorites is Etymonline, but I also have copies of Chambers Dictionary of Etymology and John Ayto’s Dictionary of Word Origins.
This word is Old English in origin. According to Etymonline, it was spelled both hwilc (West Saxon, Anglian)and hwælc (Northumbrian). (Notice that the <hw> is now <wh>). It is short for hwi-lic “of what form”. It is interesting to note that in early Middle English there were two other forms (hwelch and hwülch). They later lost their <l> and became hwech and hwüch. Both of those spellings disappeared in late Middle English.
When you understand that the <h> has always been part of this word, and that in fact, it used to be the first letter, it is easier to remember that it is STILL part of this word. It is pretty obvious that those who misspelled this word used phonology alone. But its spelling takes us back to Old English and the important evidence that the <h> has always been part of this word.
The pronunciation is /wɪtʃ/. Here is the phoneme / grapheme correspondence:
This word generally means to be given, presented with or be paid for something. I receive a pay check. I have received several awards. I received help from my neighbor.
Now I’m willing to bet you are already thinking, “i before e except after c … blah, blah, blah”. I came across an article by The Washington Post recently. To read it, CLICK HERE. It seems a statistician named Nathan Cunningham plugged a list of 350,000 English words into a statistical program to check out this age old rule. He found that in words with a ‘ie’ or ‘ei’ sequence, <i> came before the <e> almost 75% of the time. So then he checked for the “except after ‘c’ part”. He found that in words with a ‘cie’ or ‘cei’ sequence, ‘cei’ occurred only 25% of the time. That leaves 75% of that group of words to be exceptions! So much for that rule! Yup! The rule with lots and lots of exceptions. And as any good researcher will tell you, if your rule has a lot of exceptions, you need a new rule!
Besides wasting time memorizing a rule that you can’t count on statistically, there is another reason to abandon the “i before e” rule. It simply doesn’t take into consideration what else is important about a word – like its morphology and its etymology! Let’s get out of the land of ‘hit and miss’ and look at this word seriously.
Based on other words I have investigated, I might make a hypothesis about this word’s structure like this: <re + ceive –> receive>. I know that in words such as recall, reclaim, and refill, <re> is a prefix. It could be a prefix in this word too, although I need specific evidence pertaining to this word to be sure. I need to look at where this word comes from – its etymology.
This word has come into English by way of Old North French receivre. Further back, it is from Latin recipere (re– “back” + cipere, combining form of capere “to take”). Looking back in time, this word has had a meaning and sense of “regain, recover, take in, admit”. When I look closer at the Latin verbs capere and its combining form cipere, I find other words that share this base <ceive>:
~perceive (<per-> has a sense of “thoroughly”, thus when you perceive something, you are thoroughly taking it in in order to comprehend it),
~deceive (<de-> has a sense of “from”, thus when someone deceives you, they take from you – they cheat you),
~conceive (<con-> is an intensifying prefix, meaning it gives emphasis to the base, thus when someone conceives either an idea or a baby, they are taking something in and holding it)
~transceiver (which is a relatively new word – 1938, created by combining transmitter and receiver).
So what we learn from this word’s history is that its spelling has been fairly consistent since the 1300’s. No gimmicky rhymes needed.
The pronunciation is /ɹəˈsɪv/. Here are the phoneme / grapheme correspondences:
It is interesting to note that the final <e> is non-syllabic and is preventing this word from ending in a <v> (no complete English word ends in a <v>).
This word means “up to (either an event or a point in time)”. If you say, “I will wait until you call,” it is functioning as a subordinating conjunction. If you say, “We swam until 5:00,” it is functioning as a preposition.
This word is a free base in Modern English. It has no affixes. It might be tempting to identify the <un> as a prefix, but all you have to do is compare the etymology of the <un> in this word to that of the <un-> in words like unhappy and unzip. They do not share ancestors, nor do they share denotations.
This word, as most, has an interesting story. The verb ’till’ meaning “to cultivate the soil” was first attested in the 13th century. It is from Old English tilian “cultivate, tend, work at”. There is a thought that the idea of cultivating and having a purpose and goal may have passed into Old English with the word ’till’ meaning “fixed point”. It was then converted into a preposition meaning “up to a particular point”. ‘Until’ was first attested in the 13th century. The first element <un> is from Old Norse *und “as far as, up to”. (The asterisk next to the Old Norse spelling means it is reconstructed.) So when we put the two parts of this word together, we get <un + til –> until> “up to a particular point”. The use of ’til’ is short for ‘until’.
It isn’t about “one ‘l’ or two”. It’s about the word’s story.
The pronunciation is /ənˈtɪl/. Here is the phoneme / grapheme correspondence:
If something has occurred, it has happened. It could be an event or even a thought.
Someone who is misspelling this word, doesn’t understand its morphology. That would include how suffixing conventions are applied. The structure of this word is <oc + cur + ed –> occurred>. Notice that the final <r> on the base was forced to double when the vowel suffix <-ed> was added. This happened because of the position of the stress in this word. The stress is on the second syllable – the one closest to the suffix.
This word was borrowed from Latin occurrere “run towards, run to meet”. The prefix <oc-> is an assimilated form of the prefix <ob-> bringing a sense of “towards”. The base is <cur> “run “. This base is seen in present day words including curriculum, current, recur and concur.
This word is pronounced /əˈkɜɹd/. Here are the phoneme / grapheme correspondences:
It is interesting to note that the initial <o> is unstressed and that affects its pronunciation.
This word generally means to divide or cause to be apart. I might separate old coins from new coins.
Growing up I remember this word being one that I could never get right. The reason I misspelled it time after time is because all I had was its pronunciation to work with. Had I known its morphology and etymology, I would have had a better chance of remembering its spelling. First, let’s look at its morphology. The structure of this word is <se + pare/ + ate –> separate>.
The prefix <se-> has a sense of “apart”. The base element <pare> is from Latin parare with a denotation of “make ready, prepare”. The suffix <-ate> is a verbal suffix in this word. The base element in this word, <pare>, is also seen in words like:
~apparatus (The prefix <ap-> is an assimilated form of the prefix <ad-> and brings a sense of “to”. Apparatus helps to make things ready or be prepared.)
~preparation (The prefix <pre-> brings a sense of “before”. When you prepare, you make things read before you need them.)
~pare (This is a free base that means to “trim or cut close”. Again we see the denotation of “make ready” in the image of this word’s action.
The pronunciation is /ˈsɛpɹət/. Here is the phoneme / grapheme correspondence:
It is interesting to note that the <a> is not typically pronounced in this word. The final <e>, which is the final letter in the <ate> suffix, is non-syllabic. That means it is not pronounced either.
A government is a way to regulate or control members or citizens of a particular region (state or country) or of an organization. In the United States, we have a federal government with different branches that creates laws for the entire country, and we also have state governments making decisions for each of the fifty states.
Why does this word get misspelled? Again, it is because of the way it is pronounced. So let’s look at this word’s morphology and phonology as we have with every other word so far. The structure of this word is <govern + ment –> government>. People who leave out the <n> in this word, don’t think about the word’s structure. The base shares its spelling with all words in its word family. See the matrix below.
The base element <govern> was first attested in the late 13th century, and at that time it meant “rule with authority”. It is from Old French governer which meant “steer, be at the helm of, rule, command”.
The pronunciation is /ˈgʌvəɹmənt/. Here is the phoneme / grapheme correspondence:
It is interesting to note that the <n> is not typically pronounced. This is evidence that it is important to have knowledge of a word’s morphology and etymology when trying to understand its spelling!
When used, this word is intended to remove all doubt. I will definitely watch your dog this weekend.
The structure of this word is <de + fine/ + ite + ly –> definitely>. The single final non-syllabic <e> is replaced by the <-ite> suffix in the final spelling. The suffix <ite> is adjectival, but the addition of the suffix <ly> makes this word adverbial.
This word is from Old French definir, defenir “to finish, conclude, come to an end, determine with precision”. Before that it came directly from Latin definire “to limit, determine, explain”. The prefix <de-> brings a sense of “completely” and the base <fine> has a denotation of “to bound, limit”.
This word is pronounced /ˈdɛfənətli/. Here are the phoneme / grapheme correspondences:
It is interesting to note that both <i>’s are unstressed which affects their pronunciation. The final <e> on the suffix <-ite> is predictably unpronounced. The final <y> on the <ly> suffix also has a predictable pronunciation.
A pharaoh is an ancient Egyptian ruler.
This is a free base with no affixes.
This word has an interesting trail to follow. It was first attested in Old English as Pharon. Earlier it was from Latin Pharaonem. Earlier yet it was from Greek Pharao. Even earlier it was from Hebrew Par’oh. But its origins are in understandably Egyptian Pero’ where it meant “great house”. Note that the spelling sequence of ‘pharao’ was present in Greek and in Latin. That is the spelling sequence we currently see. Once again the spelling represents where the word came from and what it means, not how it is pronounced!
This word is pronounced /ˈfɛɹoʊ/. Here are the phoneme / grapheme correspondences:
It is interesting to note that the <ph> represents /f/. This is a signal that this word has a Greek heritage.
When something is done publicly, it is done for all to see.
The structure of this word is simply <public + ly>. The <ly> suffix can be an adverbial one. The misspelling listed shows a misidentification of structure. There are many words that actually HAVE that structure, including basically, magically, comically, and tropically. This brings us to an important point! Just because two things are pronounced the same, it doesn’t mean they are spelled the same. It doesn’t take much time or effort to check with a reference book!
The word ‘public’ was first attested in the last 14th century. Earlier it was used in Old French public. It comes directly from Latin publicus “of the people, of the state, common, general”. The meaning of “open to all in the community” is from 1540’s English.
This word is pronounced /ˈpʌblɪkli/. Here are the phoneme / grapheme correspondences:
It is interesting to note the predictable pronunciation of the final <y> of the <-ly> suffix.
Think about the words on this misspelled list. Everyone of them has a spelling that can be explained by looking at the word’s morphology, etymology , and its phonology. I’ll say it again … by looking at the word’s morphology, etymology, and its phonology. Teaching all three is so powerful.
It’s time for schools to change the way they teach children about words and spelling! Phonology is just ONE ASPECT of a word. When it is seen as THE ONLY THING (as it is in most every classroom), students are cheated out of the opportunity to understand a word’s story. And understanding a word’s story is often the thing that connects a word’s meaning to its spelling. Understanding a word’s meaning leads to understanding the word in context, which in turn increases reading comprehension. How could it not?
Teaching spelling and reading via phonology alone makes spelling a giant guessing game. For example, there are a number of graphemes that can represent the phoneme /iː/. I can think of <ea>, <ee>, <y>, and <ei> off hand. There are no doubt more. A student faced with memorizing which grapheme to use in which word based on pronunciation alone is clueless – literally! That student NEEDS the clues that morphology and etymology provide. Why not teach a student where to find the information needed in order to make informed decisions about a word’s spelling?
Another huge disadvantage of teaching as if spelling represented only pronunciation is that our students never see for themselves how words are connected to one another. They miss realizing that each word is a member of a larger family. The family is full of words that all share a common base with a common ancestry and a common denotation. Why are words like busy, business, and businesses found on different spelling lists? Why not present them together so a student can see they are part of the same word family? Or present them together so the students can internalize an understanding of the suffixing conventions that can happen within a family of words. The matrices I have created above do just that. They help us see connections among words that we have not been taught to see before now.
Let’s go back to the list of commonly misspelled words. Oxford Dictionaries only gave us their top ten, but I’m willing to bet there are hundreds and hundreds of such words in their Oxford English Corpus. I say, let’s raise the bar for our students. Let’s give them engaging word work that supplies them with resources for all the clues they need in order to understand a word’s spelling. What schools have been teaching students during reading and spelling instruction — phonology alone — has not worked for the vast majority of students. If it had, we would not see the spelling errors we do. We would not hear adults blaming the English language when they misspell a word or misunderstand a paragraph. We would not hear parents claim, “I was a terrible speller too” at parent-teacher conferences, as if not having been taught to understand our language is a trait one inherits much like height or hair color.
I love teaching grammar. No, really! I love teaching grammar. Of course, I didn’t always love it. I began loving it when I met Michael Clay Thompson. He revolutionized the way I was teaching it. It’s hard to imagine something other than what I grew up doing – going through each part of speech as laid out in our English textbook with plenty of fill-in-the-blank sentences, in order to prepare for a test on things learned in isolation. But Michael Clay Thompson thought of a different way to teach it, and his idea is brilliant!
He encourages teachers to review/teach the parts of speech and the parts of a sentence within the first month of the school year. That sounds crazy, yes? That does not leave enough time to teach to mastery, but that’s okay. The mastery happens later on, after the sentence analysis starts. You see, after that first month of intense review and teaching, I start writing sentences on the board to be analyzed. And we spend the rest of the school year understanding the interrelationships and functions of the parts of speech, the parts of the sentence, and the phrases because we see them over and over in different sentences as they are being analyzed. In other words, we spend one month of reviewing/learning and 7-8 months of applying what was learned. See? Brilliant!
To begin with, the sentences are simple and short. But the analysis is the same:
Now here’s what that looks like with a real sentence:
The first row below the sentence is parts of speech. If you are wondering what ‘det.’ stands for, it is an abbreviation for determiner. Over the course of the last year, I have come to understand and embrace the idea of a ninth part of speech – that of the determiner. Prior to that, I had, like a lot of people, considered articles to be a type of adjective. But identifying a determiner as a word that begins a noun phrase has been especially helpful to my students. When they spot a determiner (and because of their frequent use in sentences, this is one of the first parts of speech students become confident about identifying) they know that a noun (or pronoun) will follow. It may be the next word, or it may be after one or more adjectives (or adjective with an intensifier), but it will be there!
Articles (definite and indefinite) are not the only types of determiners we see. Other types include quantifier, possessive, interrogative, and demonstrative. Identifying determiners in our sentences has given my students a predictable pattern to look for. The noun phrase usually begins with a determiner and ends with a noun or pronoun. In between those two we might see adverb-adjective pairs, adjectives, or nothing at all. There is also the possibility that a determiner won’t be used, as is the case with some noncount nouns.
Other than the abbreviation for determiners, I imagine you can figure out that ‘LV’ stands for linking verb. In the second row, the important parts of the sentence are identified. Because this sentence has a linking verb, we look for a subject complement (calm). If the verb was an action verb, we would look first for a direct object and secondly for an indirect object.
In the third row, we identify any phrases. This sentence has an appositive phrase. In the last row we identify the sentence structure. This sentence is a simple sentence with one independent clause. The word declarative identifies the type of sentence this is.
In a nutshell, my example above illustrates the four level sentence analysis my students and I engage in for 7-8 months of the school year. Can you imagine how comfortable some of this feels by the end of the year? They have the opportunity to keep making sense of the order of words in sentences! They have the opportunity to keep making sense of the functions and interrelationships of words in these sentences. They begin to realize that the function of a word within a sentence determines its part-of-speech label. I particularly love it when a sentence contains a word that is able to function as more than one part of speech and the students need to reason out what its particular function is in the sentence before them! They become so invested in figuring it out!
But a bigger benefit to all of this is what happens when I conference with the students about their writing. I can address specific aspects of their writing using specific language that they now understand. A typical comment from me might be, “You have a dependent clause here, but remember? A dependent clause is not a sentence on its own. It needs an independent clause either in front of it or behind it to complete the thought.” I might also say, “You have written a pretty terrific complex sentence, but it is missing its comma. Begin reading it aloud and tell me where the comma should be.” The students understand what I am saying to them and feel good about being able to make fix-ups so easily.
This is what it looks like as students are actively analyzing a sentence:
So this is obviously scholarship, but what does it have to do with Structured Word Inquiry? Yesterday I came across a recent article by Michael Clay Thompson. It was posted at Fireworks Press where you can find all of the Language Arts curriculum materials he has written. Click HERE to check it out. The title of the article is “Doing four-level grammar analysis is like practicing your piano”. In the article, he addresses why students need to continue analyzing sentences at every level, even if they’ve already been doing it for several years.
In my situation, students are analyzing sentences for the first time. The benefits are obvious. But what about next year and the year after that? When is enough enough? I sincerely hope you spend the time reading his response. To that end I will not post the highlights of it. If I tried, I’d have to post the whole article anyway! I will, however, share two of his thoughts because they philosophically parallel how I feel about my other passion, Structured Word Inquiry.
“Four level analysis is different because it is an expansive-almost cosmic-inquiry into language, with four tendrils of inquiry moving forward simultaneously, and it is investigating something that is not concrete or simple but that is essentially bottomless.”
For those familiar with SWI, do you see the parallel? As I’ve been teaching my online class, Getting a Grip on Grammar, I’ve been realizing more and more how similar the investigations into these two areas can be. I love thinking of SWI’s four essential questions as well as MCT’s four-level analysis as “tendrils of inquiry moving forward simultaneously”. And clearly neither is “concrete or simple”, but “essentially bottomless”. There was a time when I would’ve thought of that as an overwhelming idea – thinking I would be expected to know all of it at some point. But scholarship isn’t like that.
Scholarship is not what happens when you use a textbook, memorize definitions, and get tested. Scholarship is done leisurely. It is a continual pursuit to understand better what one only understands partially. There is no test. There are only questions to be posed, investigations to be launched, and evidence to be gathered. Here I will share another quote from Michael Clay Thompson’s article. In your mind, replace ‘Four-level analysis’ with ‘scholarship’ because clearly the one is a form of the other.
“Four-level analysis can lead you through the known, beyond the terms, past the things that have already been named, and on out to the edge, where the wild questions are.”
It’s alright if you read it a second time. Because of my passion for both SWI and grammar, this sentence not only resonates with me, it also makes me smile! Scholarship is a worthy pursuit, whether it be in regards to words, grammar, or in playing the piano. Thank you Michael Clay Thompson for the beautifully written, inspirational article!
**If you are interested in learning more about the grammar instruction my 5th graders receive, there is a tab at the top of this page that says “Grammar Class”. That is where you can find out about current schedules. If there isn’t one currently scheduled, just let me know your preference for time-of-day and dates. I will created a new schedule!
I was having a discussion with a secondary level English teacher about teaching words with Latin and Greek roots. This teacher was feeling lukewarm about the current program/workbook being used in his district to teach them. I was gushing about what my students have been doing, and how they’ve been learning about words from Old English. Then I went on to tell him about having my students recognize clues in a word’s spelling that hint at the word’s origin. And that was when he asked it. The question that revealed just how little he knew about our language and the reasons the words in it have particular spellings.
“What does it matter if a word comes from Latin, Greek, or Old English?”
Now, let me just say, I completely understand where this question is coming from. If all you are doing with regards to spelling is rote memorization, then there would seem to be no need to know more about the word. BUT as a person who has crossed that line so to speak, I can explain it like this. Remember watching The Wizard of Oz and noticing that the movie starts off as black and white, predictable and drab, but the minute Dorothy lands in Oz everything is in color? Everything becomes instantly interesting and memorable? It’s like that. It’s the difference between skimming the surface for information and seeking a deeper level of knowledge.
As classroom teachers there is often that desire to provide students with the opportunity to dig deep, yet there is this thing called a schedule. There are places to be and other things needed to be taught. The result is that we skim topics more often than we should. We have moments of depth, but those moments are saved for “big” topics that come up in reading, science, social studies or math. Who ever thinks of creating deep meaningful investigations in spelling? Or grammar? Or vocabulary? But don’t you see? That is where it makes the most sense to do so. These are the basic places in which our ability to communicate is born. This is where we begin to put words together – to think, to speak, to read, to write. But investigating words has never been modeled for today’s teachers by their teachers. For the most part, teachers use their own childhood classroom experiences as a guide for themselves. Sure, methods and strategies have changed, but not much has changed as far as teaching reading or spelling. Aren’t we still teaching phonics and rote memorization of spelling words? Knowing whether a word came from Latin, Greek, or Old English didn’t matter to my teachers back in the day, and for many who are still following the way it’s always been done, it doesn’t matter now.
If you are a passionate vegetable gardener, you know there is a difference between different varieties of tomatoes. You can talk about those differences with enthusiasm in your voice. You know which variety will make the best spaghetti sauce, which the best ketchup and which will be best for fresh eating. It’s the same for someone who can talk about cars and the different models built over time. That person knows great stories about certain failed models and which designs have stood the test of time. What about someone who constructs buildings and knows about the strengths of the possible materials to use? That person is prepared to use specific materials for specific reasons whether those reasons be for strength or aesthetics. You see? Once you dig past the surface and begin to understand your subject matter, that subject matter reveals its importance to you.
It definitely matters. When a word was born. Where a word originated. Which languages a word passed through. These are the bits of etymological information that tell a word’s story. And that story is what explains a modern word’s spelling.
One of the biggest reasons so many people don’t understand English spelling is because they don’t know much about where our words come from or the clues present in PDE (Present Day English) words that tip us off to a word’s birthplace. Let me explain with examples:
Words with <ch> pronounced as /k/ such as choir, echo, orchid, dichotomy, and chronicle are from Greek. I know because I routinely investigate words and pay attention to what I see. So do my students. In our journey to learn more about our language, we’ve learned a bit about the Greek alphabet. Here’s a video of my students reciting it.
We know that one of the letters was χ (chi) . When the words with χ were transcribed into Latin, the scribes wrote <ch> since Latin did not have that same letter. Another letter was φ (phi), and a similar thing happened with Greek words that had φ in them. That letter was transcribed as <ph> since that same letter didn’t exist in Latin. So words with <ph> pronounced as /f/ such as photograph, sophomore, philosopher, telephone, and hydrophobia are also from Greek.
You might recognize Greek letters as representing college fraternities and sororities. Isn’t it interesting that the words fraternity and sorority are from Latin frater “brother” and Latin soror “sister”, yet those organizations have historically chosen Greek letters to identify themselves? The first was the fraternity Phi Betta Kappa. It was established in 1776 and the name comes from phi (φ) + beta (β) + kappa (κ), initials of the society’s Greek motto, “φιλοσοφια βιου κυβερνητης”, meaning “philosophy is the guide of life”. There is a thorough history of the first fraternity at this Colonial Williamsburg site. The first sorority was Alpha Delta Pi and was established in 1851. I could not find the significance of the three Greek letters used as I could with the first fraternity. Ah, but I digress. Such is the life of a scholar! Can you imagine what it feels like when your students become scholars and rush into your classroom to tell you about a word they investigated the previous evening? It’s positively delicious!
Recognizing and understanding these things helps with spelling, reading and pronunciation. Those are obvious once you begin this journey with your students. But knowing the etymology of a word also brings a beauty to the words we speak every day. It’s like getting to know a student throughout the year. By the end of the year, that student is special to you because you understand who he/she is as a person. You see the beauty that radiates and the potential that lies within. Words are not so very different.
Here’s one more: words with a medial <y> such as hymn, hydrosphere, lyric, myth, type, cycle, and syllable are typically from Greek. This is something your student might discover if they investigate the phonology of the single letter grapheme <y>.
As you can see in the picture, two different students looked closely at the grapheme <y> and the phonemes it represented in a number of words. As the heading of each list I had my students use IPA symbols because they represent pronunciation no matter the word’s spelling. The IPA symbol that represents the grapheme <y> in words like hymn, myth and syllable is /ɪ/. The IPA symbol that represents the grapheme <y> in words like hydrosphere, cycle, and type is /ai/. Knowing the possible phonemes when a <y> is medial is helpful when considering a word’s pronunciation.
Another discovery as my students were investigating specific graphemes happened with the consonant digraph <ch>.
If you notice the middle column, you may be able to guess that these words are either from French or spent enough time in that language to have their spelling affected by it. What a cool explanation for words in which the grapheme <ch> is represented by the phoneme /ʃ/ as it is in crochet, chef, parachute and others!
There are other clues that will signal that a word is from Greek. For instance, look at connecting vowels. They are found in words of both Greek and Latin ancestry. Words whose base elements are from Greek might use an <o> connecting vowel. Words whose base elements come from Latin might use an <i>, <u> or <e>. Connecting vowels follow a base element and need to be followed by another element. They can be used to connect two base elements to create a compound word (as in tachometer and conifer). They might also connect a base element to a suffix (as in igneous and partial). Knowing about connecting vowels helps when determining a word’s structure or morphology.
Just think of all the great things one can be aware of when having knowledge of a word’s origin! What I have shared in this post is a very short list. There are many more delightful things to recognize regarding words from Latin, Old English, French and other languages as well. Experts don’t all agree, but many will say that over 60% of our modern words come from Latin, Greek and French. That’s enough to convince me that my students and I need to know more about the language we use!
So why does it matter? Why is it helpful to know which language a word was born in or influenced by? Because that is where the word’s story is. Because that is what explains the word’s structure and spelling. Because that is where we build an understanding that spreads across many of the words in our language. Because that’s where we find clues to a word’s pronunciation. Because that’s where we begin to appreciate what a beautiful language we have.
In honor of Pi Day (March 14th) I like to do a number of things. I know that Pi is associated with math, but that sequence of numbers can be used to create some cool art, music and even poetry! I know, I know. It is no longer March. But now is when I have the time to post about some great things we did this year. Perhaps writing Pi poems will be something you’d like to try!
In case you are curious, a Pi Poem can be written on any topic. What makes it a Pi Poem is the number of words in each line. Because the sequence of Pi is 3.141592653589 … , The poem must have 3 words in the first line, 1 in the second, 4 in the third, 1 in the fourth, 5 in the fifth … get it? I tell the students to stop when your poem feels done. When what you wanted to say is said.
So many of the poems written this year were just plain lovely! Here are a few of them:
Flying Pi was written by Kaila and Fish Pi was written by Petra.
I don’t often post my own writing, but thought it was important for you to know that when my students write, I write.
There is nothing fifth graders love as much as making stuff up! When I saw Skot Caldwell’s post back in February called “Dinosaur Discoveries“, I knew it was an activity my students would love! Imagine creating your own dinosaur and giving it a name that had clues to its characteristics — much like the actual dinosaurs! When we look at some familiar dinosaur names, we see:
The stegosaurus lived about 150 million years ago. It was a herbivore with small teeth, which no doubt made it necessary to eat constantly. As you can see in the picture, the stegosaurus had bony plates along its spine. If we look at its name, we see that it has two bases: <stege> from Greek stegos “a roof” and <saur> from Greek sauros “lizard”. When the first stegosaurus fossils were found in Colorado, they were named by Othniel C. Marsh (1877). It was thought at first that the bony plates functioned as a type of covering or roof for the dinosaur. Many scientists since have wondered about the function of those plates. Have you noticed that there is a connecting vowel <o> in this name? It is the vowel that is typically used to connect bases that are Greek in origin. Have you also noticed that the suffix on the Greek word for “roof” is <os> and there is a <us> suffix on this word instead? Saurus is the Latinized form of the Greek sauros.
The velociraptor lived about 75 million years ago. It was a carnivore with sharp teeth, especially towards the back. This dinosaur was unique because it was a biped. It could move much faster than larger quadruped dinosaurs. If we look at its name, we see that it has two bases: <veloc> from Latin velocis “speedy, swift” and Latin raptor “robber”. Have you noticed that there is a connecting vowel <i> in this name? It is one of the vowels (<e>, <i>, <u>) that is typically used to connect bases that are Latin in origin. The velociraptor was named in 1924 by Henry Fairfield Osborn. He felt that the name reflected such a swiftly moving carnivore.
The brachiosaurus lived about 100 to 150 million years ago. It was an herbivore that fed on foliage that was higher up than what other dinosaurs could reach. This dinosaur was huge! It was about 85 feet long and weighed between 30 and 45 metric tons! If we look at its name, we see that it is also a compound word with two bases: <brachi> from Greek brakhion “an arm” and <saur> from Greek sauros “lizard”. Since both bases are of Greek origin, we are not surprised to see them connected with an <o> connecting vowel. As in stegosaurus, we see the Latinized <us> suffix. The brachiosaurus was named by Elmer Riggs in 1903 when he found fossils in western Colorado. He named it to point out that the front legs are considerably longer than the back legs.
As we can see, dinosaurs were named to reflect their characteristics. I shared Skot Caldwell’s post with my students. They loved the drawings and information each “paleontologist” in Skot’s class included on their posters. They were hungry to create their own. Once they had named their pseudosaur (false lizards), I asked them to write about them. I wanted to know their size and weight. I wanted to know how they moved and ate. I wanted to know if they lived with others of their kind or if they were loners. I wanted to know how their characteristics (indicated in their names) were used in their daily lives. This was a writing that took little nudging. This was fun writing!
We had talked earlier in the year about the bound base <fer>, so I thought it was time for a review. I listed the following words on the left side of the board:
We began by reading the words. Next we discussed each one, often using it in a sentence as well as defining it. I pointed out the suffixes used and how they indicated a specific part of speech. After that I asked someone to underline the base in each word. Now we were ready to build a matrix. This particular matrix became interesting when we came to the word <preferring> and were looking to represent it on the matrix. One of the students explained that the <r> was doubled because we were adding a vowel suffix. So then I pointed to <offered> and <suffering> and asked why the <r> wasn’t doubled in those words. The vowel suffix <ing> was the same suffix used in <preferring>.
At this point we needed to talk about stress. I had the students say the words out loud, switching the stress from the first syllable to the second. Then we began to notice how that affected the doubling convention.
I led students through this activity three times today. The video below was taped with the third group, although all three classes were engaged and participated with enthusiasm! My favorite part of the video is where the students have one of those “light bulb” moments and it is clear that they understand when to double the final <r> in the base before adding a vowel suffix and when not to. To quote one of the students, “That is so cool!”
The first time I heard the term phonestheme mentioned, I was taking an online class. The presenter was talking about words that have in common a specific set of letters representing a specific pronunciation. The surprising thing is that the words also share a broad meaning. Let me give you an example: The letter string <gr> is initial in the following words: groan, growl, gruff, grump, grunt, grouch, grate and grief. Pretty obvious, right? Now when you stop and think about the meaning of each of those words, there is a common theme here. It is one of low unpleasant sounds. Cool, huh?
Here’s another: The letter string <ump> is final in the following words: bump, dump, stump, lump, slump, hump, and rump. When you stop and think of the meaning of each word, there is a shared sense of heavy and compactness, isn’t there? Once you begin an investigation of your own, you will be surprised at how many of these phonesthemes there are. If you are like me, you will ask yourself, “How could something be right there in front of me all my life, yet I didn’t see it?”
With phonesthemes, it takes a bit of slowing down and thinking about each word to really appreciate what has happened here. These words share a sound and a broad meaning without sharing a heritage. They do not all originate from the same language, and they do not all share a root. It makes a phonestheme all the more fascinating. When I ask my students to investigate phonesthemes, they willingly agree. It seems like such a simple assignment. If the phonestheme is initial, I recommend they grab a dictionary so they can check to make sure there is a shared sense of meaning. A surprising number of words have phonesthemes, but just because a word has a letter combination (<gr> for instance), it doesn’t necessarily mean the word shares this phonestheme for sure. Here are some of the posters my students created.
***** The next time I talk about phonesthemes with my students, I will have them represent the phonestheme in IPA. That way they will know that the phonestheme is phonetic, regardless of its spelling.
So now what? My students have each had the opportunity to collect words that fit as a particular phonestheme. Last year I asked my students to write poems using a particular phonestheme. Some of the poems were fantastic. Some felt forced. I wanted to have them write, but we needed to talk about poetry in general first and the role sounds of pronounced words play.
I pulled out my new book by Michael Clay Thompson, A World of Poetry. I read to them, “Poetry is not just expression in words. It is also expression in sounds. Poets compose sounds; they choose words that contain the sounds they need, and then they arrange the words into a composition that is an artistic combination of words and sounds.”
I read more from his book. We talked about the vowels and the consonants, and how some consonants are breathy (like /s/, /f/, or /h/). We said aloud other consonants like /v/, /j/, and /z/ and found them to be hummy and buzzy. We talked about how some pronounced letters remind us of movements or nature sounds. I read examples of poems with end rhyme, internal rhyme, eye rhyme, and even no rhyme at all. And then we were ready to play, to experiment, to explore.
The directions were to go out into the hall and look at all the phonestheme posters completed by classmates. While reading the lists of words, they were to think of something to write a poem about. It was to be a poem that could incorporate words from several lists. The words needed to fit. I was not looking for every other word to be a phonestheme, and the poem to be about nothing.
I let them think through this and begin writing for about 15 minutes. Then we stopped and talked again. Some really knew what I was looking for, some did not. I asked for some volunteers to share what they were working on so far. I have found that this step gives the students who are unsure a better idea of what others are writing, and then they are able to think of what to write for themselves. The point was to use the feel and meaning of the words with phonesthemes to improve the feel and meaning of the poem! Here are a few of the finished poems.
The Former World Has Passed Away
The former world
has passed away.
have turned to stumps.
have turned to dumps
as we attacked each other
with fire and metal.
Now the only
beauty in the world
is the glimmering glaze
of stars above.
You swish my hair as I walk by
You blow like a trumpet
yet sometimes you’re hard to find
You knock leaves off trees
You push logs to the river
You swoosh and move plants
huffing and puffing
in your courageous way
If only I was as powerful as you,
With a whoosh
he was gone –
that glossy field.
No time to flinch.
No time to whimper.
He was a flash,
a glimmer of speed,
a whisper taken away,
a glowing star.
The flick of his feet,
the glamor of his stride,
and when he finished,
a glint of pride.
My Little Sister and Me
My little sister
in the places
I already swept
because I told her
to get out of the room.
I get so mad
I hit her.
She whacks me back.
I flip out,
flashing in flames.
Roots of the Past
See that stump?
It used to be a tree.
Now it’s just a clump
of what it used to be.
The tree is dead.
The stump is here.
The canopy’s lost its head.
The poor tree’s fate is clear.
The swoosh of air that I feel
as I enter the water to swim.
The sweat tearing off my skin
into the swaying water.
Swoosh! I pass everyone else
swimming next to me.
And that sweep of success
when I swoosh into the wall.
There was a candle
so bright and new
until somebody lit it.
The flame flickered and flicked
and magically grew.
It glittered and glistened
and gleamed out of sight
and swiftly swooped down
and died in the light.
I saw this poetry writing as an opportunity to play with words as one might play with Play-Doh. We don’t always know where we are going to end up, but we start by picking something to create. Then we add and take away and keep doing that until we are pleased enough to share.
You know the practice of teaching someone a new language by immersing them in that language? Putting them in a situation where no other language is spoken or written? I imagine it is a bit scary and frustrating at first for the learner, but I also imagine the new language is acquired more quickly and spoken more fluently than with other methods. Well, a little less dramatically, that is what I do when I ask my students to investigate and report on a word of their choosing. Yes, we have investigated words together as a large group, and yes, the students have investigated words with a partner, but all-by-yourself is different.
Some feel like they have been plunked into the vast ocean of information at Etymonline with only swimmies (little experience) to help them navigate. Others have surfaced successfully with a smile and a cool story about their word. Regardless, all students need my guidance. For several days, I hear my name so often it is crazy! But every question needs to be honored and every student needs to be steered in the direction of the information they are seeking. Some need explanations for concepts and ideas that are so new to them. Often times these explanations become something I bring to everyone’s attention – whether it be that day or just put on a list for another day in which we can spend time collecting more examples that will make the concept more visible.
Because I teach orthography, writing, grammar and science in a 90 minute block to three groups of fifth graders, the students work on these posters for only a portion of their time with me. They do not finish these in a day and only a few finish within a week and a half. For some it even takes a month. But no worries. Sometimes the students who finish more quickly ask to investigate a second word. Sometimes I give them something else to investigate. By the end of a month and a half, I have students working at different places on different projects. The students like working at their own pace. It doesn’t feel like a race. At some point, I decide which investigations are required and I make a list on the board. Once everyone has completed the items on the list, we are ready to move on as a class.
Here are some pictures of the hallway outside my room. My students have named it our “Word Gallery”.
These posters are across the hall from each other, so if you are reading one wall of words, you need only turn around to look at some more. When I look at them now that they are finished, I remember so many of the conversations that took place during each investigation. For instance:
When Alex asked to investigate <inimitable>, I said he sure could, but wondered what his connection to this word was. When he said he heard it used in the Broadway show “Hamilton”, then I knew it was a good choice for him. (He and I share a love of the soundtrack!) Following the links in Etymonline, Alex was able to collect a lot of related words right away. As he followed the first hyperlink to <imitable>, I saw this: [1550s, from French imitable (16c.), from Latin imitabilis “that may be imitated,” from imitari “to copy, portray”]. Having taken Latin 1 and Latin 2 Spellinars at Real Spelling, I recognized the Latin verb imitari. I told Alex that if he searched imitari at Etymonline, he would get a list of words derived from it. The words that came up were:
As we looked at this list together, I asked him if he could see which letters they all had in common. What might the base be? Because of the word ‘image’, the common factor was <im>. I asked about words with an <age> suffix. Between the two of us we thought of package, postage, and footage. That made it feel obvious that the base would be <im>. Except that we must always consider the potential of a final <e> on the base. If we spell the base as <im> and then add a vowel suffix such as <age>, won’t that force the doubling of the <m> as it does in cottage and baggage? Since there isn’t a doubled <m> in ‘image’, we thought that the bound base should be spelled <ime>. That made sense in the word sum <ime> + <age>. Then Alex started looking at the other words on the list and building word sums for each. I turned his attention to ‘imitate’ and ‘imitation’. Alex knew that <ion> was a suffix in ‘imitation’. I asked if the remaining letters were a familiar word. At the same time he said “imitate”, be said “Ohhh.” I replace the <e> that was covered up by the <ion>. In this fashion he worked through the word sums before he made his matrix. I see that on his poster, he has the word sum for ‘inimitability’ as <in> + <ime> + <it> + <able> + <il> + <ity>. It’s interesting to me that he didn’t recognize that what he thinks he hears there is already in the suffix <able>. I have noticed that with several students. I think it must be the transition between working with syllables and working with morphemes. They are still looking for syllable type chunks that are about sound in and of themselves rather than recognizing that pronunciation within a morpheme considering stress shifts that might occur.
My favorite part of Alex’s poster? When he asks his viewer to “Think about it. Inimitable means something can not be imitated and image is a copy of imitation of the original. Imitation and image share a meaning by copying the original thing.” Alex now understands the meaning of this word, the structure of this word, and how this word relates to others in its family. Boom!
Frankie chose the word ‘animals’. She mentions on her poster that it was attested in the early 14th century, but not used often until the 16th century. What Frankie didn’t mention is that ‘beast’ was the preferred term prior to the 16th century. The delightful part of the story with this word was the relationship between the words ‘animal’ and ‘animation’. As Frankie says, “Animate has something to do with bringing something to life.” It’s like giving a drawings a life and making drawn characters breathe and move as if alive.
What’s interesting about the word ‘animosity’ is that when attested in the early 15th century, it had a sense of vigor and bravery. But by the 16th century, it had a sense of “active, hostile feeling”. Over time, the sense of vigor and bravery disappeared from this word completely.
As Frankie was preparing to make a matrix by writing out the word sums, she noticed the suffix <ate> and how many suffixes could follow it. We talked about the <or> suffix and recalled an earlier classroom discussion about it often being an agent suffix. So an animator is a person who does animation. I also mentioned to Frankie that when a base takes an <ion> suffix, it can also take an <or> suffix. As an example, ‘animation’ can become ‘animator’ if the <ion> suffix is replaced with an <or > suffix. Other examples are ‘creation’ and ‘creator’, ‘action’ and ‘actor’, and ‘invention’ and ‘inventor’. When we compare the agent suffix <or> to the agent suffix <er>, we see that bases that can take an <er> cannot take an <ion> suffix. Look at ‘baker’, ‘dancer’, ‘banker’, ‘healer’, or ‘jumper’.
Here’s another one:
Saveea’s word gave us the opportunity to talk about frequentative suffixes. I shared what she and I discovered with all three classes. The <le> suffix on ‘spark’ lets us know that the action is ongoing. There wasn’t just a spark and then it stopped. It kept on catching our eye because it kept going. It was a sparkle! The <le> suffix is also a frequentative suffix in ‘crackle’, ‘crinkle’, ‘tremble’, and ‘waddle’. See? These are ongoing activities, and the <le> suffix tells us that!
Alexis thought it would be fun to find out more about the word ‘octopus’. She wasn’t disappointed! She remembered being in my Orthography summer school class where we spent time looking at the Greek alphabet. So she wrote this word that was originally a Greek work in Greek! She told a great (and true) story about the plural of ‘octopus’ being ‘octopodes’ at one time. Many people still use that plural form.
Over time, people noticed what happens to ‘stimulus’ and ‘fungus’ and ‘alumnus’ when they change to the plural form. The <us> switches to an <i> suffix. They become ‘stimuli’, ‘fungi’, and ‘alumni’. Since ‘octopus’ has what looks like the same final <us> in its singular form, people assumed it would be made plural in the same way and become ‘octopi’. But the thing is … stimulus, fungus, and alumnus are of Latin origin and they follow Latin suffixing conventions. Octopus is of Greek origin and follows Greek suffixing conventions. If you pluralize ‘octopus’, the proper plural form is either ‘octopodes’ or ‘octopuses’.
When Zoey picked ‘like’, she didn’t expect to find such an interesting story! The first thing she found out is that it has been many different parts of speech! Then she found out the original spelling was gilik. If you cover up the first two letters, it looks like our present day spelling (minus the final <e>). Zoey and I enjoyed talking about the Old English pronunciation of this word. The <ġ> was pronounced [j] as in Modern English yes. The <i>was pronounced [i] as in Modern English feet.
The other fun thing with this word is how easy it was to build a rather large matrix! I appreciated having the opportunity to discuss the base ‘busy’ and that when adding the <ness> suffix, the <y> becomes an <i>. This happens with bases that have a consonant in front of the final <y>. Other examples are when happy becomes happiness or lazy becomes laziness.