Melville Dewey was the major American name behind simplified spelling. (Lots of Brits, starting with George Bernard Shaw, were also heavily into it.) He was such a nut on the subject that he changed his name to Melvil Dui. But he wanted a job at Columbia University and they were very conservative and wouldn’t allow it. They compromised at Melvil Dewey. He was also secretary of the Metric Bureau. Not a surprise there either. He had already decimalized his classification system. Yep, he was Secretary of the American Library Association. And he helped found what became the American Home Economics Association. At his summer house.
In short, he was an interesting guy who was everywhere, did everything, and networked with everyone. And if he couldn’t get simplified spelling across - even with the support of Roosevelt and some major newspaper owners who used it in their papers - it was never going to happen. Same with the Metric System. Noah Webster standardized when everything was in flux and people grabbed at a single, easier system. After that it was locked in place.
There’s a middle ground. My American college students invariably write “theatre,” and many academic departments also spell it “theatre.” In other words, it may prescriptively be the standard spelling, as is through, but I’d bet money the style guides revise to accept “theatre” long before they take “thru.”
Who would take that bet? It’s been true for decades.
My Encarta dictionary gives “theatre = theater”, and theatre as the second spelling under theater with no hint of any disapproval. My older American Heritage dictionary has “theater or theatre” under the main entry.
Both label thru “informal,” however.
The even older A Dictionary of American-English Usage Based on Fowler’s Modern English Usage by Margaret Nicholson, copyright 1957, has under “theater, -tre”
Interestingly, she also states that -er was the standard in Britain up until around 1720, when it switched over to -re.
No, not at all. -re endings make more sense because of suffixes.
If you want to get all theatrical, you should do it in a theatre. It doesn’t make much sense to do it in a theater. It also makes sense to go from centre to central, metre to metric. Going from center to central, meter to metric, makes a lot less sense.
Also, they are often derived from Latin words such as theatrum, where the -e replaces the Latin case ending.
“Thru” was a particular favorite of Chicago Tribune publisher Robert McCormick – who, at one point in his drive to simplify spelling, changed his own name to M’Cormik.
Using the Midwest’s largest newspaper as his platform, McCormick had some successes: ameba for amoeba, catalog for catalogue, glamor for glamour and the replacement of drought with “drouth” (because that was how the farmers pronounced it.) Others bombed, notably iland for island, because, as even the Tribune’s editors noted, “it always looked like something bounding across the veldt.”
Words with an "e’ after the “g” tend to have a soft “g”, too (as in “flange” and “geography”), so taking the “u” out in this case might have been seen as occasioning a pronunciation change. If we want TUNG and not TUNJ, I think the “u” has to stay.
Basically by the 18th century England had taken on many “Frenchified” spellings that English had not had back before America was colonized. Samuel Johnson in England wanted to preserve those current spellings of that land. Meanwhile on the American side of the pond, Noah Webster wanted to purge English of what he called “‘egregious corruptions’ imposed by Francophiles.”
Hence the color/colour, honor/honour, etc. variation - both were being used by both populations as the dictionaries were being made, but Webster went with the -or (simpler and more Latin) and Johnson with the -our (more French). All those -er/re endings? Had flipped back and forth in English but the colonists came over when -er was in vogue and kept it while the English later flipped back to the more French version to then be codified by Johnson. The -ize/ise bit? Actually had historically been -ize as in America and only became the Frenchified -ise in the latter 18th century, after Johnson. She does not specifically mention the -nk/nque issue but it is consistent with the concept of Webster choosing the simplier less French version and Johnson choosing the more French one when alternate spellings were possible. But the concept was not Webster creating a new English, often the American version was the one more consistent with historical English orthography (the American “while” has a much older pedigreed than the British “whilst” for example). In fact her whole first chapter is devoted to disabusing us of the notion that British English is more “proper”, they just evolved in different direction since colonization and each side kept some and changed some. Interestingly enough she argues that the American accent is more like the accent in Britain before the Revolution than is the current British one.
And of course they continue to evolve, now cross fertilizing each other more and more.
Just because a word comes from French (into English) doesn’t mean the word has to have the same spelling in English as it did in French.
I am not a linguist, but it seems to me that, in the majority of cases where the U.S. spelling of a word differs from the British spelling, the British spelling is closer to French, whereas the American spelling fits more closely with the standard rules of English spelling/pronunciation.
For example, in French, “qw” is generally pronounced with a “k” sound, while in English, it usually has a “kw” sound. So when I see “cheque” I want to mentally pronounce it “che-kwee” rather than “chek.”
Or, take “theater” vs “theatre,” or “center” vs “centre.” The “tre” ending looks to me like it ought to be pronounced with no vowel sound between the t and the r, but with a bit of a schwa at the end—which sounds natural in French but not in English. In English, I’d want to put the vowel sound (schwa) between the t and the r.
There is no single letter representation in English orthography for that sound, but generally speaking, my variety of English doesn’t treat the letter R as representing a vowel.
Also, if you would use the native quote function instead of that “quoth” thing, it would help avoid misattributions like the one in Dr. Drake’s post.
This might make sense etymologically, but not orthographically. I could see making a case for “theatr” (although I still maintain that there is a vowel sound that comes before the “r”, which logically should be represented by an “e” there) but “theatre” is just sticking a silent letter on the end of the word.
As a total aside. In the theatre community (at least in America) “Theatre” and “Theater” tend to have distinct meanings. A Theater is a building while Theatre is an art form. I enjoy watching live theatre vs I really like that theater space.
I once worked at a place called “Theatre Theater” which I thought was clever. The owner said he got the idea for the name of his theater from going to see a movie. He thought if they had movie theaters why not theatre theaters?
My college diploma says that I have a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree in Theatre, and I seem to remember that the classes I took were described as being part of the Theatre Department. I can’t remember how the name of the apace where we put on our shows was spelled, however.
You too? I will note that my degree says Theater not Theatre but it’s the only place within the theatre world where I have not seen the convention followed fairly exactly.
When I did my internship at the Alley Theater in Houston (one of the major regional theaters in the US) I was told about the difference because they used it for their internal style guide, so I know that there is some weight to it. But outside of that I haven’t really discussed it with anyone. But it’s one of those things that once you know it is being done for a reason it starts becoming very obvious that the basic style is being followed, if only within the theatrical community.
I remember my schoolteacher grandmother’s letters to my mom when I was a kid, and the way she always spelled “through” as “thru” and “thought” as “thot” (she may have done this with other words, but those are the two I remember). I don’t know whether she did that due to the influence of Carnegie/Roosevelt/Dewey, of if it was simply, as I thought at the time, Great-Depression-influenced thriftiness attempting to fit more words onto the same sheet of paper.