Fourth sound of O

[blondchen]

I'm still deciding on a spelling curriculum, but one of the things that I've just come across in my research is the issue of how many sounds the O phonogram has. I understand that AAS includes a fourth sound of O, which is a short u. Why don't all programs include that? How do you otherwise account for the pronunciation of mother, done, wonder, etc. without that fourth sound? It seems too common to be an exception. And I don't buy that it's a schwa - the schwa is for unaccented syllables. Even brand-new Logic of English doesn't use the fourth sound, and I can't find any reasonable explanation. ???

[boscopup]

I'm still deciding on a spelling curriculum, but one of the things that I've just come across in my research is the issue of how many sounds the O phonogram has. I understand that AAS includes a fourth sound of O, which is a short u. Why don't all programs include that? How do you otherwise account for the pronunciation of mother, done, wonder, etc. without that fourth sound? It seems too common to be an exception. And I don't buy that it's a schwa - the schwa is for unaccented syllables. Even brand-new Logic of English doesn't use the fourth sound, and I can't find any reasonable explanation. ???

 

Some of the spelling programs don't use the pronounced sound for every word. So for "mother", they would use the first sound of 'o' (the short 'o') and "think to spell".

 

Spalding, SWR, and LOE are all very similar in this regard, as the latter two are spin-offs of the former. AAS is O-G, so it's a bit different.

[blondchen]

 

Some of the spelling programs don't use the pronounced sound for every word. So for "mother", they would use the first sound of 'o' (the short 'o') and "think to spell".

 

What exactly is "think to spell"? I have an idea but don't want to assume. :-) And an example of how that's used in the context of dictating a spelling word would be awesome!

[boscopup]

What exactly is "think to spell"? I have an idea but don't want to assume. :-) And an example of how that's used in the context of dictating a spelling word would be awesome!

 

A good example of a word typically remembered via "think to spell" would be "Wednesday". You pronounce it "wendsday", but you think "wed-nes-day".

[PeterPan]

Don't let the # of sounds for a letter decide your spelling program. Look at the features and overall pacing of the program, what it brings to the table. While those programs are conceptually similar, the pacing and adaptability really varies.

 

We used SWR (and almost all the rest: AAS, HTTS, PR, blah blah). Think to spell is fine for an adult, but my dd found it frustrating. I finally gave up and taught her the less common sounds that some of the purists like Sanseri say we don't need. Oh well, my dd needed them. You add it to the back of the card and move on. The programs will not crash when you do that. :)

[fraidycat]

Don't let the # of sounds for a letter decide your spelling program. Look at the features and overall pacing of the program, what it brings to the table. While those programs are conceptually similar, the pacing and adaptability really varies.

 

We used SWR (and almost all the rest: AAS, HTTS, PR, blah blah). Think to spell is fine for an adult, but my dd found it frustrating. I finally gave up and taught her the less common sounds that some of the purists like Sanseri say we don't need. Oh well, my dd needed them. You add it to the back of the card and move on. The programs will not crash when you do that. :)

 

I agree with this.

 

We are using LOE, but I added a fourth sound to the O card because it just makes sense to me. :) So, if it makes sense to me, it makes it easier for me, as the teacher, to teach it to my kids.

[weederberries]

Our phonics book teaches this rule too. Alphabet Island Phonics. It is introduced in level 2B and offered in depth in the Handbook that follows.

 

I imagine that many phonics programs just practice the rule by memorization, not by understanding the rule.

[boscopup]

We used SWR (and almost all the rest: AAS, HTTS, PR, blah blah). Think to spell is fine for an adult, but my dd found it frustrating. I finally gave up and taught her the less common sounds that some of the purists like Sanseri say we don't need. Oh well, my dd needed them. You add it to the back of the card and move on. The programs will not crash when you do that. :)

 

 

Agreed! Things like 'y' at the end of "baby" saying /i/ instead of /ee/... Some kids are fine with that, and some kids realize that you're over-complicating something that really isn't that complicated. I *gasp* disagree with Mrs. Spalding (and Sanseri) about using "think to spell" for such words when there are a large amount of words that make a particular sound. I prefer to reserve "think to spell" for words like "Wednesday", where is just makes no phonetic sense.

[blondchen]

Don't let the # of sounds for a letter decide your spelling program. Look at the features and overall pacing of the program, what it brings to the table. While those programs are conceptually similar, the pacing and adaptability really varies.

 

Thanks for the input. This isn't a deciding factor in my choice at all - it's just an issue I came across that had me stumped (and I'm a linguistics buff of sorts, so I can't let this stuff go easily - LOL!). I can certainly adapt where needed - I'm just wondering why those well-respected curricula don't include such an obvious thing as the o phonogram making a short u sound. It seems awfully common to be treated as an exception, but does it seem more common than it is?

 

We are using LOE, but I added a fourth sound to the O card because it just makes sense to me. :) So, if it makes sense to me, it makes it easier for me, as the teacher, to teach it to my kids.

 

That's what I'd do - just add it to the card. I guess I'd figure it out how to work around any spelling issues when I get to those words in the curriculum - or maybe it's a non-issue with spelling if you just teach the fourth sound from the beginning. Which begs the question: why don't they just include it?

 

I *gasp* disagree with Mrs. Spalding (and Sanseri) about using "think to spell" for such words when there are a large amount of words that make a particular sound. I prefer to reserve "think to spell" for words like "Wednesday", where is just makes no phonetic sense.

 

I totally get the Wednesday thing. I didn't have a chance to post again the other day, but I was going to ask you how "think to spell" would apply to a word like mother, using the short o sound. I still don't understand that - at all.

 

 

I'm sorry if this came across as a big deal in my OP - it's really not. I'm more curious than anything, actually. Anyone else with thoughts on this?

[PollyOR]

Now I'm curious too. :)

[ondreeuh]

Saxon Phonics describes it as a "scribal o." Instead of a schwa (that any vowel can make in an unaccented syllable), a scribal o is a "misprint" that should have been copied as a u back when scribes hand-copied books. Mother, son, and from all use the scribal o (and notice the 'o' is in the stressed syllable).

[kiwik]

I think there is such a thing as getting too hung up on phonics.

[blondchen]

BTW, it looks like Denise Eide of LOE is at least considering this issue for an update/correction. Here's a LOE forum thread on this exact topic, though the most recent post is six months old:

 

 

http://www.logicofen...c.php?f=2&t=156

 

Just for fun, I may post over there to see if she's gotten anywhere on it, or has any additional thoughts at this point.

[ondreeuh]

http://www.slingerland.org/resource/NCW-SIL%2009%20SM%20Handout.pdf

 

"Saga of the Scribal o

 

 

Before the printing press, monks who were scribes noticed that many of their quill-penned letters were difficult to read. Most troublesome were the letters formed with similar, beginning, up-and-down strokes:

 

m n w u r v

 

Therefore, the wise scribes changed the vowel grapheme u to o when u appeared adjacent to one of the letters

listed.

 

The scribes could not, however, alter the pronunciation of the words that were affected by the spelling change they made.

 

Therefore, the grapheme o in words like mother, brother, love, some, and wonder, is pronounced /u/."

[boscopup]

I totally get the Wednesday thing. I didn't have a chance to post again the other day, but I was going to ask you how "think to spell" would apply to a word like mother, using the short o sound. I still don't understand that - at all.

 

"mother" would be pronounced moth-er, with a short /o/ sound - just when dictating. That's how you "think to spell" that word. You remember a different pronunciation for it. But as I said, I prefer to just learn the letter and reserve "think to spell" for words that don't follow obvious phonetic patterns, or words that are tricky to remember to spell in general.

 

If you get too deep into the phonics, you're going to drive yourself nuts. I'm finding this with my 3 year old (almost 4) who is really into sounding out words right now. Yesterday, he pointed out a couple words he wanted to sound out... I forget what one of them was, but the 'a' wasn't saying any of its normal sounds, and he was trying to make it fit into phonics. It doesn't! Thankfully, he does have a good memory, but with his good phonics knowledge, he wants everything to fit phonics. He is sounding out "subway", "men", "stop" (painted on the ground), etc. Those all follow easy phonics rules, so he enjoys breaking them apart and putting them back together. Then you throw "leopard" at him, and he's like, "Huh?!?" :lol:

[blondchen]

 

"mother" would be pronounced moth-er, with a short /o/ sound - just when dictating. That's how you "think to spell" that word. You remember a different pronunciation for it. But as I said, I prefer to just learn the letter and reserve "think to spell" for words that don't follow obvious phonetic patterns, or words that are tricky to remember to spell in general.

 

Yeah, I totally agree with you. Thanks for the explanation!

 

If you get too deep into the phonics, you're going to drive yourself nuts. I'm finding this with my 3 year old (almost 4) who is really into sounding out words right now. Yesterday, he pointed out a couple words he wanted to sound out... I forget what one of them was, but the 'a' wasn't saying any of its normal sounds, and he was trying to make it fit into phonics. It doesn't! Thankfully, he does have a good memory, but with his good phonics knowledge, he wants everything to fit phonics. He is sounding out "subway", "men", "stop" (painted on the ground), etc. Those all follow easy phonics rules, so he enjoys breaking them apart and putting them back together. Then you throw "leopard" at him, and he's like, "Huh?!?" :lol:

 

 

I hear ya! I almost majored in linguistics, so this stuff really fascinates me and I frankly love getting into all kinds of nitty gritty, in terms of my own personal interest. I used to have hours-long talks with my brilliant grandmother about the intricacies of our language and I still miss that now that she's gone. English is phonetically crazy, but if something does follow a logical pattern, I want to know (or figure out) the best way of understanding and applying it - especially if I have to teach it! For something that doesn't make sense and to which rules don't apply, I'll accept it for what it is and move on. No biggie.

 

I'm curious to see how my kids end up processing this stuff. I have a knack for language and a very strong visual memory, so once I hear or see a word, I almost always pronounce and spell it correctly thereafter. But if I didn't have that advantage, my super-logical personality would make me very frustrated with having to learn English phonics without being able to use a logical set of rules where they do apply. Everyone is different, and while I don't want to bog my kids down with rules they don't need, I also don't want my super-logical-minded children to be frustrated in situations in which something that could make sense to them doesn't, simply because I don't have the tools to deal with it. That's where I see the strength of thorough programs like LOE, and why I'm considering forking over the money for it. It's not for everyone, but I want all those tools, whether I end up using all of them or not.

[PeterPan]

Blondchen, just for your trivia I did take several semesters of linguistics in college and I also took a couple courses in Russian linguistics. :)

 

As far as the most thorough program, it's still SWR. Goes the farthest, has the most enrichments, and is the easiest to pace to a variety of levels of student. I used it with the phonogram cards from WRTR, because the cards are exceptionally well-made (unlike the SWR cards you laminate yourself, bleh). My WRTR phonogram cards are the larger, classroom size, but if I were buying over I'd probably buy the smaller. Get the regular and advanced.

 

I like the phonogram games book from LOE and have a couple card decks to go with it. Her book is intriguing, and it's the only thing I've seen that makes a serious effort to give options for multiple modalities. If you have a SN student or kinesthetic learner, this could be huge. It's a fine program, but SWR still brings more to the table.

 

I think I'm suggesting you mix and match. :)

 

Btw, if it really plagues you, there are reference books like ABCs and All Their Tricks. Sometimes explaining too much can confuse the student. It really just depends on the dc.

[Laura Corin]

"mother" would be pronounced moth-er, with a short /o/ sound - just when dictating. That's how you "think to spell" that word.

 

 

Now I think I understand! Many years ago, I ran a spelling bee, with Husband announcing the words for American/Canadian children and me announcing for British/Australian children. One mother got very bent out of shape about Husband's pronunciation of 'which'. She said that how he said it was not how it was pronounced for dictation. I'd never heard of this: all the words for the bee were said as if in normal speech. Maybe she wanted him to say it 'wuh-hitch', rather than 'h-witch' or 'witch'.

 

Laura

[blondchen]

Blondchen, just for your trivia I did take several semesters of linguistics in college and I also took a couple courses in Russian linguistics. :)

 

Well, that's a fun piece of trivia! :) I also took several semesters of linguistics in college, and at various times during high school, college and grad school I studied French, Russian, Italian and German (though I've forgotten most of it - it's been a long time!). I LOVE studying languages and starting this summer I am planning to learn New Testament Greek, which is something that's long overdue.

 

As far as the most thorough program, it's still SWR. Goes the farthest, has the most enrichments, and is the easiest to pace to a variety of levels of student. I used it with the phonogram cards from WRTR, because the cards are exceptionally well-made (unlike the SWR cards you laminate yourself, bleh). My WRTR phonogram cards are the larger, classroom size, but if I were buying over I'd probably buy the smaller. Get the regular and advanced.

 

I like the phonogram games book from LOE and have a couple card decks to go with it. Her book is intriguing, and it's the only thing I've seen that makes a serious effort to give options for multiple modalities. If you have a SN student or kinesthetic learner, this could be huge. It's a fine program, but SWR still brings more to the table.

 

I think I'm suggesting you mix and match. :)

 

Btw, if it really plagues you, there are reference books like ABCs and All Their Tricks. Sometimes explaining too much can confuse the student. It really just depends on the dc.

 

I really appreciate this - great info and advice. I'm still undecided, but the scripted, open-and-go nature of LOE is hard to resist at this point. Because I'm a newbie (and a Myers-Briggs SJ who craves structure!), I prefer the convenience of scripted programs, and when I know what I'm doing I am comfortable adapting as needed, so they don't box me in, but I like having it all there anyway. I agree that too much explanation can be confusing to the student, and I'm trying to be sensitive to that balance with DD. Her reading is going very well, and I'm interested to see how adding spelling rules to the mix affects that.

 

I imagine that the LOE program will continue to expand, so I'm assuming that the currently-limited number of resources for Essentials and beyond won't be an issue down the road (my oldest is in K). I was able to look through the TM at the Greenville convention, and I was very impressed. And all the online videos! Denise Eide has something going on here. Btw, I'm only planning to use the spelling and dictation portion, no matter which curriculum I choose. I'm even wondering if I need the LOE student workbook to just do spelling stuff. Haven't figured that one out yet.

 

One thing that's a bummer is that I really like to see stuff in person before making a decision (especially when the cost is high), and I haven't seen SWR. I was very disappointed that no one at the Greenville convention had it available, because I was leaning in that direction at the time and was hoping that seeing it would push me over the edge...and then I saw LOE! I about fainted when I saw WRTR, though. And when I told DH that using WRTR would be a lot cheaper but it's suggested to read through it several times to get your head around it he said, "Get the other one - just do it." Okay then - LOL!! We'll see...