Final F to V changes
One unusual fenomenon in English is the tradition of changing final F to V in certain derivations. It’s something that we don’t really think about but which is hily variable. The most obvious examples are probably wolf changing to wolves in the plural, wife to wives, and knife to knives. Few people would have any inclination to use wolfs, wifes, or knifes. Likewise, leaf becomes leaves in all instances—except, curiously, references to the Toronto Maple Leafs.
- Edit: Nissan’s new electric car, the Leaf, is getting the same treatment, being pluralized to Leafs.
And yet, for less common werds, we waver between the F-to-V change and simply adding the suffix. For example dwarf was historically pluralized to dwarves, with the adjective being dwarven, but now dwarfs and dwarfish are not only acceptable but in some venues preferred. Tolkien preferred dwarves; Disney preferred dwarfs (but this doesn’t seem to be a strictly UK/US difference). Meanwhile, the obviously similar werd elf is still pluralized to elves more often than elfs. And elven is at least neck-and-neck with elfin and elfish, altho those werds have a long history of their own.
There are many other werds like this. Most people would hesitate at pluralizing wharf, for example, but wouldn’t bat an eye if they red wharfs or wharves. A horse’s hoof mite become hooves or hoofs, depending on whom you ask, but a roof will never become some rooves. Calf and half might normally become calves and halves (and calving and halving), but would you really stumble over calfs and halfs? (halfing, perhaps, but probably not calfing)
It isn’t just nouns, of course. The rule was once a strong method of changing nouns to verbs, as in strife > strive, relief > relieve, belief > believe, life > live (with a pronunciation change!).
But this dilemma has caused at least one particularly peculiar change to the language. Confusion between /liv/ and /liyv/ (both spelled live) has given rise to a change in pronunciation in the frase short-lived (and its fraternal twin long-lived). Traditionally, the pronunciation is /shohrt liyvd/, because the subject has a short life, just like a person with a big hart is big-hearted. These are nouns and not verbs. But the frase is sufficiently uncommon that people have forgotten the pronunciation and re-interpreted it to match the past tense of the verb live (/liv/) because the traditional F-to-V shift has become so weakened in the language. (It’s actually curious that live (/liyv/) hasn’t changed to alive in reference to live television and concert albums.)
I predict that this trend of forgetting the F-to-V change will continue, and that wolfs and knifes will become common in the next 30 years. Wolf, in particular, is influenced by a different ongoing change: singular plurals for animals, a trend that has begun to make buffaloes and bears as obsolete as fishes and deers.
wolf > wolves
wife > wives
knife > knives
leaf > leaves
dwarf > dwarfs (dwarves), dwarven (dwarfish)
elf > elves (elfs), elven (elfin/elfish)
self > selves, selfish (never selven!)
wharf > wharfs/wharves
hoof > hooves/hoofs
roof > roofs
calf > calves (calfs), calving/calfing
half > halves (halfs), halving
life > lives
scarf > scarves
sheaf > sheaves
Perhaps we should just kill V and use F exclusifely.
Belief, beliefs, beliefe, and beliefes can all be distinguished from each other.
We already do this with TH; and S takes on the /z/ sound in many wordz, like “believes.”
The major difficulty would be the all-too common words “life” and the two words spelled “live.” Spelling all without a V would add confusion, but the “belief” model abofe, of F_ = /f/ while FE = /v/, could suffice.
I just realized that “of” has currently the only F that takes on the /v/ sound. I’m all for pronouncing it closer to /uff/ or just respelling it “ofe.” But, as a basic English word, I am sure reform could (perhaps even ‘should’) pass over it.
You’re right that of is the only word now where F sounds like V. But why not just spell it “uv”?
“uv?” I was trying to remove the V. The reason for the rarity of F as /v/ was because of the very fluid change between F and VE you cite in this article.
Of course, getting rid of V when it begins a syllable would require another rule. “fery” reads more like “fairy” than “very.”
To take a page from current English spelling, BH could make the /v/ sound. B does so in other languages and B is the voiced form of P, which combines with H to make the /f/ sound.
For consistency’s sake, PH must be replaced by F, FF, or Fc when at the ends of syllables.
“Obhiously the Rebholutionary War was caused by those adbhocating the prebhention of unfair lefies.”
As much as I enjoyed your take, I could not help but notice all other spelling mistakes, which makes me wonder why you should write an article on spelling in the first place.
Words not werds, Phrase not frase etc. Is it an intentional attempt to get attention to these words or you never realised at all?
You can’t be serious. This blog uses the spelling reforms RECOMMENDED IN THIS BLOG.