# connexion [spelling]



## Ian Tenor

Hello.

I seem to remember being told as a lad in the UK in school in the 60s that the speling, "connexion", was more correct than "connection", purely on etymological grounds.

Any comments ?

Best -

Ian


----------



## Oschito

Ay! The combination of spell-check and Spanish spelling have nearly destroyed my spelling capabilities. (conexion, connexion, conection...?) Not that they taught us anything of etymology when I was a wee lass in US primary school, and certainly not within the last fifteen years, but 'connection' is the only proper spelling I've been taught.


----------



## cropje_jnr

When I read a 1960s translation of Tolstoy's _War and Peace_, the spelling "connexion" was consistently used. I have also seen it in various academic works (mainly dealing with modern history) from a similar era.


----------



## Loob

Here's [part of] what the OED says on the subject:

ad. L. _connexion-em_ (in cl. L. _conexion-_) binding together, close union, n. of action f. _co_(_n_)_nect-ere_ (ppl. stem _co_(_n_)_nex-_)  

The etymological spelling _connexion_ is the original in Eng.; in 17th c. it was supported by the verb CONNEX; after the latter was displaced by CONNECT, the n. began _c_ 1725-50 to be often spelt _connection_, a spelling which, under the influence of etymologically-formed words, such as _affection_, _collection_, _direction_, _inspection_ (all f. L. ppl. stems in _-ect-_), is now very frequent.


----------



## panjandrum

The OED still lists connexion, connection in the place where connexion would appear.
I don't think I have ever written connexion - though I may have forgotten what I was taught as a lad in the UK in the 1950s 

There are times when I really love the way the OED expresses things (see Loob's post).


----------



## ewie

I quite often write _connexion_.  No particular rhyme or reason to it, and it's a bit random.  I just like the letter _x_.  (But I _always_ spell all _-ize_ verbs with a _zed_, just because I prefer the letter _z_.)


----------



## nzfauna

Ewie, my dear, sweet father, you are a weirdo.

I have always spelled it "connection".  The only place I've seen connexion is in French.


----------



## Hoshina Sora

Actually both of them are correct. "connection" is American way of spelling and "connexion" is British way of spelling. I've seen something like "inflexion" and "inflection" when I learned derivatives in math class.


----------



## Loob

Hi Hoshina Sora, and welcome to the forums!

I don't think anyone in the UK - with the exception of our idiosyncratic ewie - spells connection with an "x" any more


----------



## Brioche

Ian Tenor said:


> Hello.
> 
> I seem to remember being told as a lad in the UK in school in the 60s that the speling, "connexion", was more correct than "connection", purely on etymological grounds.
> 
> Any comments ?
> 
> Best -
> 
> Ian



Etymologically, yes. It derives from a Latin noun ending in -xio

It's the same with deflexion, inflexion and reflexion.

But if we followed etymology, there would be no 'gh' in delight. 
The word has nothing to do with light, but comes from the Old French delit, and is related to delectable and delicious.


----------



## ewie

Oh yes that's another one ~ thanks Brioche. When I want to convey 'deep thought' _[not often]_ I write _reflexion_; when I'm talking mirrors it's _reflection_.

Also: *X* and *Z* score a lot higher in Scrabble than *C, T, S*


----------



## Ian Tenor

Loob said:


> Hi Hoshina Sora, and welcome to the forums!
> 
> I don't think anyone in the UK - with the exception of our idiosyncratic ewie - spells connection with an "x" any more



Hello, Loob -

I do as well - I think it looks lovely. I also like to be a bit different when I can get away with it

So _yes_ to -x- and -z-, I say !


Best / Hwyl fawr -

Ian


----------



## mplsray

Ian Tenor said:


> Hello.
> 
> I seem to remember being told as a lad in the UK in school in the 60s that the speling, "connexion", was more correct than "connection", purely on etymological grounds.
> 
> Any comments ?
> 
> Best -
> 
> Ian


 

Note that claiming that any spelling is "more correct" than another based upon an etymological argument is an example of the _etymological fallacy,_ a subset of the _genetic fallacy._

In other words, whoever made the claim you cite was wrong. Only usage determines correctness in spelling.


----------



## roxcyn

The way that someone spells the word especially if both ways are valid, correct ways doesn't make one form correct over the other form.  It must have to do something with Latin because conexion is how it's spelled in Spanish and in French .  I would spell it connection.  Cheers!


----------



## ewie

I was wondering the other day (like you do) why it is that the word _complexion_ has got 'stuck' with its *x* ~ I don't recall ever seeing it spelt _complection_ though I dare say that some folk spelt it that way when English spelling was still at the 'experimental' stage


----------



## Ian Tenor

mplsray said:


> Note that claiming that any spelling is "more correct" than another based upon an etymological argument is an example of the _etymological fallacy,_ a subset of the _genetic fallacy._
> 
> In other words, whoever made the claim you cite was wrong. Only usage determines correctness in spelling.



You are quite right. Usage is everything.

And in writing -"I seem to remember being told ... that the speling, "connexion", was more correct", -​I am (a) going back a long way, and (b) am probably misqoting my teacher.

Actually, we were probably merely told that, should we choose to spell the word in this way, - a spelling already on its last legs then, I guess, otherwise it would not have come up - we would at least have some sort of "tradition" on our side.

I am sorry - I ought to have written _"correct !"_ rather than_ "correct"_.


Thank you for making that important point about _etymological fallacy. _I quite agree.


Best -

Ian

PS Did I _really _write 'speling' rather than 'spelling' in my original post ?  Well, I guess it was a mistake - but looking at it now, it could catch on and become a usage !


----------



## Ian Tenor

ewie said:


> I was wondering the other day (like you do) why it is that the word _complexion_ has got 'stuck' with its *x* ~ I don't recall ever seeing it spelt _complection_ though I dare say that some folk spelt it that way when English spelling was still at the 'experimental' stage



Hello, ewie -

Good point - I'd forgotten about that one.

A quick search on _dictionary.com_ shows just _one _listing for _comple*ct*ion_, at Random House.

_Fle*ct*ion_, on the other hand, gets _6 entries_ - never even heard of it !

But there you go !


_Google _"says" -- and here we go, in order of "hits" -

*ConneCTion :: **327 000 000
**ConneXion :: **94 300 000**FleXion :: **3 760 000*
*FleCTion :: **250 000*​Fair enough, I'd hazard - but ...*CompleCTion :: 75 400 000*
*CompleXion :: **8 690 000*
​How on earth does _Google _count the number of hits under a search ... ?... or is it really so ... ???
​Best -

Ian


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

Ian Tenor said:


> *ConneCTion :: **327 000 000*
> *ConneXion :: **94 300 000*​


Keep in mind, however, that *Connexion* is a fairly common name of various companies and brands, including American ones (example, example, example). It's used as a stylized, hip, eye-cathing, less generic form of "connection". The prevalence of "connexion" as an everyday spelling of "connection" may therefore be significantly lower than indicated by Google.


----------



## Ian Tenor

TriglavNationalPark said:


> Keep in mind, however, that *Connexion* is a fairly common name of various companies and brands, including American ones (example, example, example). It's used as a stylized, hip, eye-cathing, less generic form of "connection". The prevalence of "connexion" as an everyday spelling of "connection" may therefore be significantly lower than indicated by Google.



Good point, TNP.

Best - Ian


----------



## ewie

TriglavNationalPark said:


> a stylized, hip, eye-cathing, less generic form of "connection"


Good news, IanT: we're so far out we're back in again!


----------



## Ian Tenor

ewie said:


> Good news, IanT: we're so far out we're back in again!



Perhaps, then, we're nexus officers, Ewie ?

Or should that be "necsus" ... ?

Ian


----------



## Ynez

Ian, under the entries for "connexion" there may be many foreigners who got confused and "mispelled". 


Resultados 1 - 10 de aproximadamente 61.600 de connexion site:es.


They are mostly companies and music groups...you can still consider yourself unique. I didn't even know anything about this word till now.


----------



## Ian Tenor

Ynez said:


> Ian, under the entries for "connexion" there may be many foreigners who got confused and "mispelled".
> 
> 
> Resultados 1 - 10 de aproximadamente 61.600 de connexion site:es.
> 
> 
> They are mostly companies and music groups...you can still consider yourself unique. I didn't even know anything about this word till now.




Hello, Ynez.

Of course you are right about the results : I  really hadn't thought of that.

The spelling, mainly British, is certainly on the decline, but alive and kicking, and well-attested, as searches on this very site shows -http://www.wordreference.com/definition/connexion

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=connexion
​Best wishes -

Ian


----------



## Ian Tenor

Ynez said:


> They are mostly companies and music groups...you can still consider yourself unique.



Hello again, Ynes.

Unique ?  Well, there's Ewie as well, for one !  

And here's a link to a search for 'connexion' on online version of  _The Times_.

Although Boeing's _Connexion _appears amongst the first results, there _are _quite a lot of articles containing the spelling in question, many of them book reviews, curiously enough. Perhaps those literary types prefer the spelling.


Here is the link -http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/si...searchFormSubmitted&mode=simple&sectionId=674​Oddly enough, _The Guardian_, at first glance, seems _not _to favour the spelling, though there _are _some examples. Perhaps it's a question of house style.


Hang on a bit though - I've just found this reply to question of 'connexion' on that very _Times _search . It covers much the same ground we have in this discussion.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/court_and_social/modern_times/article379948.ece​Best to you -

Ian


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

Ian Tenor said:


> Although Boeing's _Connexion _appears amongst the first results, there _are _quite a lot of articles containing the spelling in question, many of them book reviews, curiously enough. Perhaps those literary types prefer the spelling.
> 
> 
> Here is the link -
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/si...searchFormSubmitted&mode=simple&sectionId=674​


 
I just went through these results. They include a dispatch written by Thomas Cook in 1873, an "On This Day" excerpt from 1872, an extract from an old Irish obituary, an 1859 book subtitle mentioned in the literary section, an so on.

Modern day use of "connexion" in _The Times_ appears to be very rare.


----------



## Ynez

Thinking more about it, Ian, I had probably seen the word before and just didn't make any conscious assessment of it (there are too many confusing things in English for me to analyze them all).

Now I might use it some day!


----------



## Ian Tenor

Ynez said:


> Now I might use it some day!



Hello, Ynes. That would be wonderful. Welcome on board !  

Best - Ian


----------



## Ian Tenor

TriglavNationalPark said:


> Modern day use of "connexion" in _The Times_ appears to be very rare.




Well, you _are _quite right, of course, TNP - the use of the spelling, _'connexion'_, is rare anywhere nowadays, let alone in British newspapers.

I guess that's why I brought up the point in the first place.


Still, in clicking through some of those _Times _entries - I'm sorry I didn't do it earlier, but was watching a soccer game at the same time - some of them, at least, prove to be modern, the latest being in Jonathan Bate review of Milton on the 4th March : and the British courts, and in particular the Law Lords, seem quite fond of that glossy, sinuous, X-rated word. Even your very own Sam Bellow used it.


I would guess that _Wikipedia_'s entry is as fair as any -*'Connexion* is the original and variant spelling of "connection", common until at least the 18th century, and still used in Britain.'
​Best to you, and to all -

Ian

~~~


----------



## Loob

ewie said:


> I was wondering the other day (like you do) why it is that the word _complexion_ has got 'stuck' with its *x* ~ I don't recall ever seeing it spelt _complection_ though I dare say that some folk spelt it that way when English spelling was still at the 'experimental' stage


I suspect "connexion" has migrated to "connection" by analogy with "connect".

Whereas the only analogy for "complexion" would be, erm, "complex" ...


----------



## ewie

Well, the OED does have a verb _complect_:

*2.* To weave or connect [] together; to interweave.

(The first sense it labels 'obsolete').  (The emoticon is my addition, as well as my _addixion_.)


----------



## Loob

ewie said:


> Well, the OED does have a verb _complect_:
> 
> *2.* To weave or connect [] together; to interweave.
> 
> (The first sense it labels 'obsolete'). (The emoticon is my addition, as well as my _addixion_.)


Eek!

OK, I look forward to "complection", then!

Or not, as the case may be.


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

Ian Tenor said:


> Still, in clicking through some of those _Times _entries - I'm sorry I didn't do it earlier, but was watching a soccer game at the same time - some of them, at least, prove to be modern, the latest being in Jonathan Bate review of Milton on the 4th March


 
At the risk of being annoyingly pedantic, Jonathan Bate merely mentions a 19th century book titled "The Life of John Milton" and subtitled "narrated in connexion with the political, ecclesiastical, and literary history of his time." In other words, he doesn't use the spelling himself.

Frankly, I've yet to see any major British news organization use "connexion" in a modern-day context.


----------



## Ian Tenor

TriglavNationalPark said:


> At the risk of being annoyingly pedantic, ... I've yet to see any major British news organization use "connexion" in a modern-day context.



You are certainly _not _annoyingly pedantic, TNP, but you certainly _are _much better at checking references than my lazy self. I am sorry to have been so sloppy.

The original post was, of course, intended to point up an older, mainly British, usage, and to discover whether folk still use it. It seems a few do, and that most don't, which is reflected in the references found, mainly in books or reviews.

Newspapers, even British ones, are, it seems, _not _the best places to be looking for what may be regarded as idiosyncratic usage, especially so as 'house style' will tend to override such personal foibles, lovely though they be.

I did manage, finally, to disinter a few references for you, dredged up from the seabeds of the British not-so-gutter press, and from the Land of Not-so-very-long-ago : I hope I've checked them properly this time -
20 Feb 2009
 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/4707708/Classical-CDs.html

December 6, 2006​http://entertainment.timesonline.co..._and_puzzles/word_watching/article1088644.ece​  
​February 10, 2003
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/li...article872245.ece?token=null&offset=24&page=3​​29 January 2001
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2001/jan/29/mandelson.labour

June 30, 2000
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/incomingFeeds/article770346.ece

May 12, 2000
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/incomingFeeds/article770509.ece 

September 17, 1999 - *p.7*
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/incomingFeeds/article774385.ece?token=null&offset=0&page= 
​
September 11, 1998​http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/incomingFeeds/article778291.ece​
​Will you excuse me now whilst I drift off to get a life ?


Ian


PS

You must have been puzzled by 'Even your very own Sam Bellow used it.'

I hadn't checked your details, and, your English being impeccable, I assumed (but why ?) that you must be from the same side of the water as Mr Bellow. My apologies.

~ ~ ~ ​


----------



## johndot

As I was educated in England, I was programmed to spell using the suffixes _–ction_ and _–ised_ where appropriate (rather than the ‘Americanisms’ _–xion_ and _–ized_. Despite continuing to use the spellings I was taught, I have been aware for many years that the alternatives have more ‘right’ to be preferred—for the reasons that I’ve dug up here:


> http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question40719.html
> There is a 'rule', though it is largely ignored.
> The correct usage, as opposed to English/American practice, is that any verb, noun or whatever deriving ultimately from Greek should have 'ize' (suffix -izo = to make, -izein = to use). There are 500-600 verbs of this type.
> On the other hand, there are about 20 (such as suprise [sic], advise, despise) which derive from Latin.


 Although the writer (with whatever authority) only writes here of the _–ised_ suffix, his views are what I’ve come to believe since my schooldays, and apply equally, in my opinion, to the suffix of the thread title.

Does this alter the complection of the connection? (I’m surprised that this aspect has been barely touched upon throughout the thread.)


----------



## JamesM

johndot said:


> As I was educated in England, I was programmed to spell using the suffixes _–ction_ and _–ised_ where appropriate (rather than the ‘Americanisms’ _–xion_ and _–ized_.


 
Just to be clear, "-xion" is *not *an Americanism. See the following:



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#-xion.2C_-ction
> 
> The spellings _connexion_, _inflexion_, _deflexion_, _reflexion_, _genuflexion_ are now somewhat rare in everyday British usage, and *are not used at all in the US*: the more common _connection_, _inflection_, _deflection_, _reflection_, _genuflection_ have almost become the standard internationally. According to the _Oxford English Dictionary_ the older spellings are more etymologically conservative, since these four words actually derive from Latin forms in _-xio-_. The US usage derives from Webster who discarded _-xion_ in favour of _-ction_ for analogy with such verbs as _connect._


 
"-Ize" is also not an American invention. Both "-ise" and "-ize" came from British English. American English standardized on "-ize" in many circumstances and British English usage began drifting towards "-ise". We did not "invent" it. 



> http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutspelling/ize?view=uk
> 
> British spelling has always recognized the existence of variant spellings using the suffix _-ize/-ise_. When American spelling was standardized during the 19th century (mainly through the efforts of the great American lexicographer Noah Webster), the consistent use of _-ize_ was one of the conventions that became established. However, since then, the _-ise_ spellings have become more popular in Britain (and in other English-speaking countries such as Australia), perhaps partly as a reaction against the American custom... The _Oxford English Dictionary_ favoured _-ize_, partly on the linguistic basis that the suffix derives from the Greek suffix _-izo_, and this was also the style of _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ (even before it was American-owned) and formerly of the _Times_ newspaper


----------



## johndot

Yes, I agree: at the time I was referring to, the spellings I learned were, as you say, a “reaction against the American custom”.


----------



## JamesM

johndot said:


> Yes, I agree: at the time I was referring to, the spellings I learned were, as you say, a “reaction against the American custom”.


 
But "-xion" has not been an American spelling since the early 1800s at the latest.  It has apparently been a British-only spelling since then but is dying out now.  In other words, spelling it "connection" vs. "connexion" would be coming into line with American spelling, not a reaction against it.


----------



## johndot

Perhaps then, it was a continuing reaction against what had been the American spelling? But this was not the point I was making in my earlier post—that the _–xion_ spelling is truer to the etymology: that it is the words rooted in Greek which should (if ‘should’ is the right word) be spelled with an _x_.


----------



## natkretep

Just to add I remember _connexion_ in my maths text book in the 1970s. I teach grammar and I use _inflexion_ and _inflection_ interchangeably still in that context.

_Complexion_ was discussed earlier. We also have _crucifixion_.


----------



## TriglavNationalPark

Ian Tenor said:


> I did manage, finally, to disinter a few references for you, dredged up from the seabeds of the British not-so-gutter press, and from the Land of Not-so-very-long-ago : I hope I've checked them properly this time


 
You're right! I frequently read British newspapers and news sites such as news.bbc.co.uk, and I don't recall ever seeing "connexion", but these are indisputably legitimate, if very rare, examples of "connexion" appearing in a modern-day context.

One would think that the house style of each newspaper would compel editors to pick one spelling and stick with it. Still, such stylistic diversity is always interesting.

As for Saul Bellow's essay, it was first published in _The Times_ in 1960. Could one of the editors have changed the spelling to "connexion" at the time? As far as I can tell, Bellow only used "connection" is his books. The use of "connexion" in American English would have been extremely idiosyncratic even in the 1960s.


----------



## Ian Tenor

TriglavNationalPark said:


> You're right! .. these are indisputably legitimate, if very rare, examples of "connexion" appearing in a modern-day context.


 

Thank you very much, TNP. Usage of 'connexion' has certainly become extremely rare in the press, and this I learned only through the careful checking you encouraged. Had I been pressed for an opinion at the start of the discussion I would have said that the spelling was still very much alive and well in the British press. Thank you again for showing me this is no longer the case.

Reviewers though, and those in the legal realm, _do _seem to be more conservative, and I wonder whether many more examples might not be found in private writing, such as in letters.



> One would think that the house style of each newspaper would compel editors to pick one spelling and stick with it. Still, such stylistic diversity is always interesting.


Indeed it is - inevitable, also, and quite, quite delicious !




> As for Saul Bellow's essay, it was first published in _The Times_ in 1960. Could one of the editors have changed the spelling to "connexion" at the time?


This is quite possible : I wouldn't put it past them.

In connexion with this, I read recently of an novelist's outrage upon discovering that around 200 of his usages had been changed by his publisher to conform to an 'in-house style' - unnecessary, finicky and pernickity, and, to be quite frank, extremely impolite, I would say.


Best -

Ian


----------



## Minotaur

"Connection" is Noah Webster's fault: "For the sake of regular analogy, I have inserted _Connection _as the derivative of the English _connect_, and would discard _connexion"_.

But it does NOT derive from "connect"; the stem is Latin (nectere, nexus) and "connexion" is thus etymologically correct.  But usage has now established "connection" and as there can be no ambiguity it doesn't really matter very much except to pedants like me.

It would matter if people started spelling Crucifixion as Crucifiction (figere vs fingere).


----------



## Myridon

Minotaur said:


> But it does NOT derive from "connect"; the stem is Latin (nectere, nexus) and "connexion" is thus etymologically correct


By the same "etymological logic", the spelling of "connect" is also incorrect and, in fact, it was spelled "connex" in English up until the 1670s so people were spelling connect "wrong" for over a hundred years before Webster decided that the spelling of connexion should also change to match it.  I would hardly say it's his fault for wanting a little bit of consistency.


----------

