> So not so well documented. 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,

> So not so well documented. 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.)