# mike is going, gone.  [mic (microphone)]



## bennymix

The _Post_ reports that 'mike' is no longer to be used.    Sentence:  "Last night was an open mic night."

In other phrases, as well:  "There was a hot mic at the table that picked up the chairman's aside."

Do you now write 'mic'? (pronounced as 'mike').    How about in BE?

The Post drops the ‘mike’ — and the hyphen in ‘e-mail’

If you search the Nexis database for “open mike night” and “open mic night,” you’ll find three mics alongside 343 mikes in all recorded English-language news before 1993. The numbers stay lopsided in favor of mike into the early years of the 21st century, until mic finally overtakes it in 2005.


----------



## RM1(SS)

"Mike."

And "nuke."


----------



## Loob

Also_ mike_.  And _email_.


EDIT: What's the Nexis database?


----------



## ewie

It's still a _mike_ for me too, BM.  And every time I come across _mic_ (which is quite often), I read it as *mick-no-mike*.


----------



## Andygc

What's the point of changing the spelling of a word that's been pronounced "mike" for over 100 years? Is "mic" to be pronounced "Mick"? An "open Irishman night"?


----------



## MattiasNYC

In the audio industry we frequently use "mic" to refer to "microphone". It makes sense. 

Andygc: lol....


----------



## Keith Bradford

It may make sense, Mattias, (from the spelling point of view) but how do you pronounce it?

I assume it's pronounced /maɪk/, so logic to me requires it be written as _mike_.


----------



## sdgraham

So I suppose those who spell "mike" as "mic," also pronounce "tic" as "tyke?" No.?


----------



## bennymix

The Post writer is not happy with the now dominant spelling (_she's just reporting_).   It's noted to be anomalous as to pronunciation.


----------



## MattiasNYC

Keith Bradford said:


> It may make sense, Mattias, (from the spelling point of view) but how do you pronounce it?
> 
> I assume it's pronounced /maɪk/,



Correct.



Keith Bradford said:


> so logic to me requires it be written as _mike_.



How is that logical? People used the longer word "microphone" and then started to abbreviate the word. The sounding of the abbreviation is as you wrote it. When one then starts to write the abbreviation why should one go by sound and not spelling? I mean, aren't there plenty of words that aren't written as they sound?

Why is "Houston" in Texas pronounced differently from "Houston street" in New York? House. Houston....????



sdgraham said:


> So I suppose those who spell "mike" as "mic," also pronounce "tic" as "tyke?" No.?



Yeah, that's exactly how I pronounce it. Now pronounce "Houston Texas" for me, and then the type of structure you live in.

"mic" / "tic"
"Houston" / "House"

Or, conversely, why are words sounding the same sometimes spelled differently: "Discrete" / "Discreet"?
Or, why are words written the same sometimes pronounced differently: "Wait a minute, your house is minute!"?

Ok, perhaps I should stick to actual abbreviations:

"6th Avenue", "6th Ave", "Ave Maria".


----------



## sdgraham

So, according to the "logic" of the previous poster, we should change the common spelling of the nickname for Michael to 'Mic' and dump the overwhelming usage of "Mike"

I hope if he goes to explain this line of reasoning to "Mic Tyson," we get advance notice so we can come and watch.


----------



## Loob

For me, the bottom line is "English spelling is tough enough as it is - let's try to avoid making it any tougher". It's also true that I can't think of any CVC words (words written consonant-vowel-consonant) which aren't pronounced with what we were taught at primary school to call "short" vowel sounds: the vowel sounds in _cat, bet, sit, hot, cup._


----------



## natkretep

I play and sing in a band and we deal with sound obviously. I used to write _mike_ but when you see everyone else writing _mic_, the pressure gets to you. It's obviously contrary to the general rules of English spelling-to-pronunciation, but you learn to live with many exceptions to rules in English. I suppose if you could think of it as an abbreviation rather than think of it as a representation of the clipped pronunciation. A little like how we might, in our notes, write 'pls' (and then say _please_).


----------



## Loob

Yes but, yes but ... I really can't think of any exceptions to the _*CVC-words have 'short' vowels *_axiom_*,*_ Nat - can you? It seems such a shame to create an exception to something which is one of the few fundamentals of English spelling....

....

PS.  Where did this mic-for-mike _come_ from?


----------



## natkretep

Yes, I agree, Loob. Nobody writes _bic_ for _bicycle_ for example.

I assume it arose out of written notes, where the intention was just to shorten words without consideration to pronunciation. Sound people might do that regularly to remind themselves of the settings. Is _so happened_ that there was an established clipped pronunciation. In notes to myself, I might write 'pron' for _pronunciation_, only if I read it out, I'd probably still _say_ _pronunciation_.


----------



## Loob

I think I'll stay pro-_mike_ and anti-_mic_....

Added: I can only assume that _mic-for-mike_ comes from sources which are not native-English.  It really doesn't make sense in terms of the way English spelling works....


----------



## bennymix

I would doubt your first sentence.   

Loob:  I can only assume that _mic-for-mike_ comes from sources which are not native-English.
-----

I just think the abbreviation took over;   the article discusses the matter in some detail and its author is hardly pro 'mic'.

Picture someone directing the set-up and the plugging in of the cord from the microphone to the amplifier.  It  [male endpiece] will go into a hole labeled *MIC*.  

Do you say,  "Plug the mike's cord into the hole marked [MICK]?"
(No.  I think not.)





Loob said:


> I think I'll stay pro-_mike_ and anti-_mic_....
> 
> Added: I can only assume that _mic-for-mike_ comes from sources which are not native-English.  It really doesn't make sense in terms of the way English spelling works....


----------



## Loob

? You would doubt my sentence


Loob said:


> I think I'll stay pro-_mike_ and anti-_mic_....


Sorry, I think that's up to me.


----------



## Loob

bennymix said:


> Picture someone directing the set-up and the plugging in of the cord from the microphone to the amplifier.  It  [male endpiece] will go into a hole labeled *MIC*.
> 
> Do you say,  "Plug the mike's cord into the hole marked [MICK]?"
> (No.  I think not.)


You've completely lost me now, benny.

Never mind.

----

EDIT: Oh, are you asking if I would recognise the three letters "MIC" as an abbreviated version of "MICROPHONE"? Yes, I would.  But that doesn't tell you anything about how I would pronounce "MIC", or how I'd want to represent the sequence /maɪk/.

----

< Topic drift removed by Cagey, moderator. >


----------



## bennymix

Loob, if I read you correctly, you would say, "Plug the mike cord into the hole marked [Mick]".  Or perhaps "...marked [em eye cee]".


----------



## MattiasNYC

Loob said:


> EDIT: Oh, are you asking if I would recognise the three letters "MIC" as an abbreviated version of "MICROPHONE"? Yes, I would.  But that doesn't tell you anything about how I would pronounce "MIC", or how I'd want to represent the sequence /maɪk/.



I think the question was how you'd pronounce the word "mic" if you saw it and understood that it represented the word "microphone". I agree with benny that you'd probably say "mike", not "mick". If you were working with me in a studio and you kept saying "mick" it'd be annoying. It says "mic" everywhere. Everyone says "mike". I don't see a problem. It's just another inconsistency in a sea of inconsistencies.


----------



## Andygc

<<Response to a now-deleted post. Removed by JustKate, moderator>>

The point is whether or not it makes sense for a publication's style guide to replace "mike" with "mic". Given that "mike" is a long-established spelling (as with 'Mike", "bike" and "trike"), familiar to the non-technical public, it makes little sense.

It makes perfect sense for sound engineers to write "Mic" or "mic" as an abbreviation because that's what's written next to the hole the plug goes into.

The English expression is "horses for courses".

< Topic drift. Removed by Cagey, moderator. >


----------



## MattiasNYC

<<Response to a *response* to a now-deleted post.  -- JustKate, English Only moderator>>



Andygc said:


> The point is whether or not it makes sense for a publication's style guide to replace "mike" with "mic". Given that "mike" is a long-established spelling (as with 'Mike", "bike" and "trike"), familiar to the non-technical public, it makes little sense.
> 
> It makes perfect sense for sound engineers to write "Mic" or "mic" as an abbreviation because that's what's written next to the hole the plug goes into.
> 
> The English expression is "horses for courses".
> 
> < Topic drift. Removed by Cagey, moderator. >



I think there are compelling arguments in the article:
_
"there comes a point when atoms of language change start to form molecules. Mic doesn’t exist in isolation. Some now-common phrases — mic drop, hot mic — would look downright anachronistic with the old spelling. That reality was what finally persuaded me to drop the mike from the Post stylebook."

"enough people made the error that mic gradually crept into the language. If you search the Nexis database for “open mike night” and “open mic night,” you’ll find three mics alongside 343 mikes in all recorded English-language news before 1993. The numbers stay lopsided in favor of mike into the early years of the 21st century, until mic finally overtakes it in 2005. Was it really that crazy for a newspaper to reject the mistaken spelling?"_


----------



## Andygc

MattiasNYC said:


> I think there are compelling arguments in the article:


They might be compelling to you, but they aren't to me, or to some of the other contributors to this thread. The short form English word in common use by native English speakers is "mike" and has been since the beginning of the 20th century.

I have no idea what the Nexis database is, but Google's ngram gives a very different perspective - open mike night,open mic night.

As has already been pointed out, this form of truncation is the norm in English. You are perfectly welcome to be comfortable with the spelling "mic". Meanwhile, most of we English speakers will continue to spell it as it is pronounced in normal speech - "mike".


----------



## Myridon

Mikerophone.   I believe "Nexis" is referring to "LexisNexis" which was a search engine for documents (legal decisions, research papers, etc). I'm not sure that's still their primary business however.


----------



## PaulQ

I blame AE speakers: Google Ngram "mic" AE/BE  The 1930's BE blip are outbreaks of Gaelic and Microscopy.


----------



## sdgraham

Myridon said:


> Mikerophone.   I believe "Nexis" is referring to "LexisNexis" which was a search engine for documents (legal decisions, research papers, etc). I'm not sure that's still their primary business however.


In the 1980s, Mead Data, then the parent company of Lexis/Nexis pioneered the inclusion of newspaper reports into a searchable database, available by subscription.

I worked with Nexis to enable the inclusion of news service reports, then coded in the anachronistic manner suitable for Linotype machines, but not much else. The firm was later sold to a Dutch company and I lost track of them when I retired and the massive search capability of modern software, e.g. Google, took over. (Lexis was the legal data portion of the company.)

I have no idea whether they continue to store newspaper articles, which is doubtful in today's technological world where an incredible amount of data is available without charge. Thus, I would not use it as a means of determining popular usage.


----------



## bennymix

Hi Andy,
Reading you, then this _New York Times _article, I could only think of Kurtz's immortal words,
"The horror! The Horror!"

http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/09/nessie-surfaces-to-make-you-sound-better/?_r=0

*Nessie Surfaces to Make You Sound Better
By  ROY FURCHGOTT*
JULY 9, 2013 4:58 PM

But to get that professional sound takes some accessories and post-production expertise. Enter Blue Microphones’ Nessie, a $100 mic that adjusts itself to give you professional-style sound at a moderate price.  [...] The mic has three settings, one for voice, one for music and one raw, enhancement audio. There is a 3.5mm plug so you can listen to the sound directly from the mic through your headphones….

There is a full discussion of this and other anomalies at

Mic or Mike? How to Abbreviate _Microphone_

Ben Yagoda said,

The key event in mainstream acceptance came in 2010, when the Associated Press—noting that _open mic night _got eight times as many Google hits as _open mike night_—recognized _mic_ as the preferred spelling. However, it retained _mike_ for the verb form, as in “she was miked for sound.” This is clearly inconsistent, but probably unavoidable, [...]

The _New York Times_ first used _mic_ in a 2000 George Vecsey column fancifully describing the opening round of the NFL playoffs: “First, give the public eight teams that by and large resemble Bill Murray’s prototypical cocktail-lounge singer with his shirt open to his navel, crooning erratically into a squawky mic.” It subsequently became the _Times’_ preferred form, as witness the quote [pasted above] that opens this chapter.

================


Andygc said:


> They might be compelling to you, but they aren't to me, or to some of the other contributors to this thread. The short form English word in common use by native English speakers is "mike" and has been since the beginning of the 20th century.
> 
> I have no idea what the Nexis database is, but Google's ngram gives a very different perspective - open mike night,open mic night.
> 
> As has already been pointed out, this form of truncation is the norm in English. You are perfectly welcome to be comfortable with the spelling "mic". Meanwhile, most of we English speakers will continue to spell it as it is pronounced in normal speech - "mike".


----------



## Loob

bennymix said:


> [...]Ben Yagoda said
> 
> The key event in mainstream acceptance came in 2010, when the Associated Press—noting that _open mic night _got eight times as many Google hits as _open mike night_—recognized _mic_ as the preferred spelling. However, it retained mike for the verb form, as in “she was miked for sound.” This is clearly inconsistent, but probably unavoidable, [...]


Having adopted "mic" for the noun, why would Associated Press not want to use "mic" for the verb? "She was miced" is no odder than "a mic", surely?


----------



## snorris

MattiasNYC said:


> In the audio industry we frequently use "mic" to refer to "microphone". It makes sense.
> 
> Andygc: lol....



I agree. And language evolves. If you say "Mike" that's a person's name, not a microphone. Example, using "app" for "application". People are just abbreviating everything, I guess due to texting, BRB, LOL.


----------



## MattiasNYC

Andygc said:


> They *might be compelling to you, but they aren't to me, or to some of the other contributors to this thread. *The short form English word in common use by native English speakers is "mike" and has been since the beginning of the 20th century.
> 
> I have no idea what the Nexis database is, but Google's ngram gives a very different perspective - open mike night,open mic night.
> 
> As has already been pointed out, this form of truncation is the norm in English.* You are perfectly welcome to be comfortable with the spelling "mic". Meanwhile, most of we English speakers* will continue to spell it as it is pronounced in normal speech - "mike".



First post: _"Do you now write 'mic'? (pronounced as 'mike')."_
Your assertion: _"The point is whether or not it makes sense for a publication's style guide to replace "mike" with "mic"._

I thought the point of the thread was to discuss it. Am I to understand only those who were born in an English speaking nation are allowed to voice opinions of your liking? It really does look very dismissive.

And by the way; isn't the whole point here that "most of we English speakers will continue to spell it" is actually possibly _not_ the case?


----------



## MattiasNYC

Andygc said:


> Google's ngram gives a very different perspective - open mike night,open mic night.



I notice you ended your date-range at the year 2000. Now try it with 1800-2008:

open mike night,open mic night


----------



## snorris

bennymix said:


> Hi Andy,
> Reading you, then this _New York Times _article, I could only think of Kurtz's immortal words,
> "The horror! The Horror!"
> 
> http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/09/nessie-surfaces-to-make-you-sound-better/?_r=0
> 
> *Nessie Surfaces to Make You Sound Better
> By  ROY FURCHGOTT*
> JULY 9, 2013 4:58 PM
> 
> But to get that professional sound takes some accessories and post-production expertise. Enter Blue Microphones’ Nessie, a $100 mic that adjusts itself to give you professional-style sound at a moderate price.  [...] The mic has three settings, one for voice, one for music and one raw, enhancement audio. There is a 3.5mm plug so you can listen to the sound directly from the mic through your headphones….
> 
> There is a full discussion of this and other anomalies at
> 
> Mic or Mike? How to Abbreviate _Microphone_
> 
> Ben Yagoda said,
> 
> The key event in mainstream acceptance came in 2010, when the Associated Press—noting that _open mic night _got eight times as many Google hits as _open mike night_—recognized _mic_ as the preferred spelling. However, it retained _mike_ for the verb form, as in “she was miked for sound.” This is clearly inconsistent, but probably unavoidable, [...]
> 
> The _New York Times_ first used _mic_ in a 2000 George Vecsey column fancifully describing the opening round of the NFL playoffs: “First, give the public eight teams that by and large resemble Bill Murray’s prototypical cocktail-lounge singer with his shirt open to his navel, crooning erratically into a squawky mic.” It subsequently became the _Times’_ preferred form, as witness the quote [pasted above] that opens this chapter.
> 
> ================





MattiasNYC said:


> First post: _"Do you now write 'mic'? (pronounced as 'mike')."_
> Your assertion: _"The point is whether or not it makes sense for a publication's style guide to replace "mike" with "mic"._
> 
> I thought the point of the thread was to discuss it. Am I to understand only those who were born in an English speaking nation are allowed to voice opinions of your liking? It really does look very dismissive.
> 
> And by the way; isn't the whole point here that "most of we English speakers will continue to spell it" is actually possibly _not_ the case?





Andygc said:


> They might be compelling to you, but they aren't to me, or to some of the other contributors to this thread. The short form English word in common use by native English speakers is "mike" and has been since the beginning of the 20th century.
> 
> I have no idea what the Nexis database is, but Google's ngram gives a very different perspective - open mike night,open mic night.
> 
> As has already been pointed out, this form of truncation is the norm in English. You are perfectly welcome to be comfortable with the spelling "mic". Meanwhile, most of we English speakers will continue to spell it as it is pronounced in normal speech - "mike".



Sorry, "spell it as it is pronounced?" Like English is phonetic like Spanish? Let's see, oh, the "e" is silent in "Mike" and shouldn't physician be spelled with an "f"? LOL


----------



## Langton's Aunt

Andygc said:


> They might be compelling to you, but they aren't to me, or to some of the other contributors to this thread. The short form English word in common use by native English speakers is "mike" and has been since the beginning of the 20th century.
> 
> I have no idea what the Nexis database is, but Google's ngram gives a very different perspective - open mike night,open mic night.
> 
> As has already been pointed out, this form of truncation is the norm in English. You are perfectly welcome to be comfortable with the spelling "mic". Meanwhile, most of we English speakers will continue to spell it as it is pronounced in normal speech - "mike".



If you set the "closing date" on the ngram viewer to the latest possible, 2008, rather than 2000, and then compare "open mike night" and "open mic night" ... well do it, and see.

_Edit: Sorry - MattiasNYC pointed this out before me_


----------



## PaulQ

Loob said:


> She was miced" is no odder than "a mic", surely?


It would have to be micced but pronounced 'miked' in order to avoid murine related confusion.


----------



## Loob

PaulQ said:


> It would have to be micced ...


I lic it, Paul


----------



## natkretep

PaulQ said:


> It would have to be micced but pronounced 'miked' in order to avoid murine related confusion.


(Greengrocer's apostrophe warning.) Or mic'd presumably.


----------



## srk

MatiasNYC said:
			
		

> In the audio industry we frequently use "mic" to refer to "microphone". It makes sense.


Save us from "mic" and other ideas that "make sense" (like the metric system).  Those who don't know what already works are bound to fix things and condemn the rest of us to the result.  (Edmund Burke, slightly revised)


----------



## JamesM

natkretep said:


> (Greengrocer's apostrophe warning.) Or mic'd presumably.



Yes, I've seen "mic'd" used fairly regularly by musician and audio friends.  A Google search of "mic'd" and "mic'd up" returns a lot of examples.


----------



## Andygc

snorris said:


> Sorry, "spell it as it is pronounced?" Like English is phonetic like Spanish?


In English some phonemes are represented by letter groups. The letter combination "-ike" represents a specific sound without exception. Similarly, the word ending "-ic' is also consistent. If a speaker calls a microphone a "mike" there's no sense in spelling the word "mic". If a speaker calls a microphone a "mic" then there's no sense in spelling it "mike". The written language should represent the spoken language.


----------



## ewie

_There was a young tic namd Mic
Who liced to rid on his bic.
He skidded on ic
(not at all nic)
and landed on top of a dic._

I'm also available for kiddies' parties.


----------



## MattiasNYC

Andygc said:


> In English some phonemes are represented by letter groups. The letter combination "-ike" represents a specific sound without exception. Similarly, the word ending "-ic' is also consistent. If a speaker calls a microphone a "mike" there's no sense in spelling the word "mic". If a speaker calls a microphone a "mic" then there's no sense in spelling it "mike". The written language should represent the spoken language.



Alas, it appears not to in this instance. So what do we do with exceptions, in your opinion? Fight them, or accept them as they creep into common usage?

Also, do you think there is no value in adopting the standards set by those who work within the field in which the terminology originated, even if they are exceptions?


----------



## pob14

PaulQ said:


> I blame AE speakers: Google Ngram "mic" AE/BE  The 1930's BE blip are outbreaks of Gaelic and Microscopy.


That squares with when I began seeing it; around 1980. (I was too young to remember the 1960s rise.)

Actors are also "mic'd."  The fact as well as the spelling annoy me, but neither is going away anytime soon.


----------



## PaulQ

MattiasNYC said:


> So what do we do with exceptions, in your opinion? Fight them, or accept them as they creep into common usage?


Fight them! Yes! Fight them! Until the last loyal, helpful, knowledgeable, intelligent person who knows how to spell "mike" dies of grammar-induced toxic shock and has the words "IT IS "MIKE"! DAMN YOU ALL!" carved on his gravestone. This will signal the point at which the ignorant and maliciously wilful are left to rule the earth with their grunts and shouts: all civilisation will be lost, and our children will eat sticks and gravel.

Fight! To do anything else is to confess that you hate humanity!


----------



## Keith Bradford

MattiasNYC said:


> ... do you think there is no value in adopting the standards set by those who work within the field in which the terminology originated, even if they are exceptions?



Of course there's no particular value in it.  If there were, we'd all be talking about "patellar reflex" when we mean "knee-jerk reaction".  Long live plain, sensible, understandable English, that uses professional jargon _*only *_in professional circumstances, and the everyday word in everyday circumstances.

In short, don't try to dictate usage.  It's a contradiction in terms.


----------



## Packard

I guess this boils down to philosophy of recording spoken language.  Do you make it look right or make it sound right?

"Mike" sounds right; "mic" looks right.  But are you "micced up"?  Which "sounds" all wrong.

Short for Mercedes Benz:  Merc?  Which looks like it might be a "Mercury" and looks like is should be pronounced "Merk".

Merce?  Looks weirder but "sounds" better.


----------



## MattiasNYC

Keith Bradford said:


> Of course there's no particular value in it.  If there were, we'd all be talking about "patellar reflex" when we mean "knee-jerk reaction".  Long live plain, sensible, understandable English, that uses professional jargon _*only *_in professional circumstances, and the everyday word in everyday circumstances.



But that's a pretty extreme example, wouldn't you agree? 



Keith Bradford said:


> In short, don't try to dictate usage.  It's a contradiction in terms.



I agree. And it appears "mic" is currently more common than "mike" when referring to "microphone", despite them being pronounced the same.


----------



## Loob

Packard said:


> ..Short for Mercedes Benz:  Merc?  Which looks like it might be a "Mercury" and looks like is should be pronounced "Merk"....


"Merc" *is* pronounced with a /k/ where I come from, MrP.

Ewie, post 41 was a fin rhym!


----------



## MattiasNYC

Packard said:


> I guess this boils down to philosophy of recording spoken language.  Do you make it look right or make it sound right?
> 
> "Mike" sounds right; "mic" looks right.  But are you "micced up"?  Which "sounds" all wrong.
> 
> Short for Mercedes Benz:  Merc?  Which looks like it might be a "Mercury" and looks like is should be pronounced "Merk".
> 
> Merce?  Looks weirder but "sounds" better.



It appears "mic'd" is more common than "miked", where "micced" is virtually never seen.


----------



## JamesM

Andygc said:


> In English some phonemes are represented by letter groups. The letter combination "-ike" represents a specific sound without exception. Similarly, the word ending "-ic' is also consistent.



English doesn't really hold to phoneme groupings on a consistent basis and spelling is inconsistently related to pronunciation as well. "Moniker" doesn't use the same sound as "Mike", even though they both have "ike" in them.

Rad certainly doesn't sound the same as radio.  Should we pronounce "radio" with the short "a" of "hat"?
Column and Colonel don't sound at all alike.  Should we revert to the French pronunciation?

Arguing that something should be pronounced a certain way in English because of the way it is written is a losing gambit from the start.


----------



## Packard

Loob said:


> "Merc" *is* pronounced with a /k/ where I come from, MrP.
> 
> Ewie, post 41 was a fin rhym!



In the USA (I at least) call it a "benz", which I guess skirts the issue.  But "Merc" still seems wrong to me.  I guess we call it "benz" because "merc" is for the American Mercury.


----------



## Loob

JamesM said:


> Arguing that something should be pronounced a certain way in English because of the way it is written is a losing gambit from the start.


James, can you think of any other CVC  (consonant-vowel-consonant) word that doesn't have a "short" vowel?


----------



## Packard

Loob said:


> James, can you think of any other CVC  (consonant-vowel-consonant) word that doesn't have a "short" vowel?


Dew, hew


----------



## JamesM

Loob said:


> James, can you think of any other CVC  (consonant-vowel-consonant) word that doesn't have a "short" vowel?



Do you mean anywhere in the word or just at the end or a 3-letter word?  In theater there is "cyc", which rhymes with "bike" and is an abbreviation for cyclorama.  I think the key here is that this is not a word; it's an abbreviation, just like "mic".


----------



## Loob

Packard said:


> Dew, hew


I'll grant you those, MrP - and the combinations with another semivowel: _hay, lay.._..


JamesM said:


> Do you mean anywhere in the word or just at the end?


I mean a written word consisting of three letters consonant-vowel- consonant.  These are the words that children start off learning: _The cat sat on the mat..._


----------



## JamesM

Sorry, edited in an answer in the previous post.  The issue is that it is not a word, it's an abbreviation.  The sound is borrowed from the full word.

I poked around a bit and found a few, such as nor and nos (no in the plural). Also cor, for, tor and similar O words.

More related to the discussion here, "hyp" can be pronounced with a long I sound when it's an abbreviation for hypothesis but a short I sound when it's an abbreviation for hypnotist.

I also found "vac" which is apparently a shortened form of "vacation"  in British English and has a long "a" sound even though it looks like it should rhyme with "sac".  Once again, the abbreviated form takes the sound from the full word.


----------



## heypresto

. . . caw, dal, bow, tow, doh, (d'oh!)


----------



## Loob

Thanks, James: I'd never heard of _cyc_. For me, it's another unfortunate* departure from a fundamental "spelling rule".  But if Knut didn't manage to hold back the tid, I don't see me doing so.

* Not quite as unfortunate as mic, because of the letter Y....


----------



## Andygc

James, I wrote "-ike" and "-ic". They are word endings. Can you find one that is pronounced inconsistently?


----------



## bennymix

Paul, I thought you'd like some encouraging news from the trenches:

Brooklyn's Newest Open Mike - The New Yorker

DECEMBER 4, 2015
Brooklyn’s Newest Open Mike
BY LUCAS GARDNER
=================

In general, however, the horror continues.

Open mic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Open mic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a typical open mic night, newer acts will get three or maybe five minutes of stage time, but more experienced acts may get ten or more minutes.

===
A search for google images is enlightening.    Here's one of 100's for 'open mic night'.

Open Mic Night | Dec. 2 | Downtown SLC | Wiseguys Comedy Club

Here's a 'mike' example:

Open Mike Night (Video 2007) - IMDb

(My impression 5 or 10 to 1 in favor of 'mic'.)

========




PaulQ said:


> Fight them! Yes! Fight them! Until the last loyal, helpful, knowledgeable, intelligent person who knows how to spell "mike" dies of grammar-induced toxic shock and has the words "IT IS "MIKE"! DAMN YOU ALL!" carved on his gravestone. This will signal the point at which the ignorant and maliciously wilful are left to rule the earth with their grunts and shouts: all civilisation will be lost, and our children will eat sticks and gravel.
> 
> Fight! To do anything else is to confess that you hate humanity!


----------



## Loob

Beanymikes, you know not what you have done in opening this thread.


----------



## Loob

JamesM said:


> ...I also found "vac" which is apparently a shortened form of "vacation"  in British English and has a long "a" sound even though it looks like it should rhyme with "sac".  Once again, the abbreviated form takes the sound from the full word.


Catching up with edits: "vac" as in "the long vac"=_ the long vacation_ is pronounced to rhyme with "sack".


----------



## JamesM

Ah!  Thanks for the correction.  How about "loc", short for "location"?  Here it has the long "o".

Even the shortened form of "abbreviation" - abbrev. - is pronounced with a long E sound at the end.     "Repo" (short for "repossessed") uses a long E sound even though it looks like it should rhyme with "rep".

If people want to get up in arms about "open mic" vs. "open mike", perhaps we should just all move towards "open microphone night".  Both shorter versions are the result of avoiding the original word.


----------



## srk

Here are some hopeful ngrams (where there's no graph for "mic," ngrams did not plot one):

speak into the microphone
boom microphone
take the microphone

edit:

lapel microphone
hidden microphone  This seems to be contaminated with a lot of "... hidden.  Mike ...."s.  The search is supposed to be case sensitive.


----------



## Loob

JamesM said:


> Ah!  Thanks for the correction.  How about "loc", short for "location"?  Here it has the long "o".


I don't think I've come across "loc", but if I did, then (harking back to a point made a while back by Nat) I'd probably pronounce it _location - o_r maybe _locution.

(Tim for lits out, I think)
.....
_
Edit: sorry, I can't keep up with yr edits on my tablet__


----------



## bennymix

Loob, Oxford agrees with you for BOTH BE and AE.  "vac" meaning vacation, rhymes with "sack."   [There are pronunciation icons to click on.]

vac noun - Pronunciation | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com



Problem:   I use "vac" for "vacuum cleaner" [Hoover].    A long 'a' for the above 'vacation' would help differentiate.



Loob said:


> Catching up with edits: "vac" as in "the long vac"=_ the long vacation_ is pronounced to rhyme with "sack".


----------



## JamesM

(Sorry about the edits.  It's bad netiquette to answer yourself on a thread and slightly less bad netiquette to edit your posts.  If I wait until I get all my ideas down to hit the Submit button I'm usually half a dozen posts away from what I was responding to.  )

Thinking of other shortened words, chem for chemistry has a short E but chemo for chemo therapy has a long E. 

Thinking more about it, I wonder if mic vs. mike is actually a shibboleth.  Those who work with microphones (musicians, performers, stage crew) seem to favor mic while the general public accepts either but uses mike quite a lot.


----------



## Loob

Excellent point, James....


----------



## JamesM

Andygc said:


> James, I wrote "-ike" and "-ic". They are word endings. Can you find one that is pronounced inconsistently?



Actually, you wrote that "-ike" was a phoneme, not a word ending.  My point is that we are talking about an abbreviation, or an apocope, if you like.  I don't apply word ending patterns to shortened forms of other words. Otherwise, "psych" would rhyme with "sick" and  not "trike".


----------



## Packard

Loob said:


> Thanks, James: I'd never heard of _cyc_. For me, it's another unfortunate* departure from a fundamental "spelling rule".  But if Knut didn't manage to hold back the tid, I don't see me doing so.
> 
> * Not quite as unfortunate as mic, because of the letter Y....



Cyc is shortened from "cyclorama". At the turn of the century (early 1900s) there were indoor bicycle racing venues with steeply banked turns that had the cyclists travelling horizontal to the ground on the curves.  Nowadays it is used to describe any background that has no seam between the floor and the wall.  I would say it is not a word, but a shortened form of a word, very much like "mic" is to "microphone".


----------



## Andygc

Sorry, James, but why would I write "-ike" when the topic is the way mic and mike are pronounced if I meant "-ike-" In the middle of a word?


JamesM said:


> Otherwise, "psych" would rhyme with "sick"


Why? What other word which ends "sych" rhymes with "sick"?

I'm struggling to think of any word where "psych" rhymes with "sick".


----------



## srk

There's "triptych," which might tempt you to rhyme "psych" with "sick."

I think it's undeniable that anyone whose native language is English would pronounce an unfamiliar word or abbreviation ending in "ic" with a short "i."


----------



## bennymix

Here's the long vowel in 'cyc', a fitness program.   Notice the final verb and spelling.
The vowel may be heard in various video clips.

The Cyc Method - Cyc Fitness

Cyc Method

Cyc offers a series of exhilarating, beat-based rides that activate the whole body, the whole time. The renowned workout incorporates calorie burning endurance intervals and weighted sectors inspired by more than 20 different sports movements from boxing, rowing, volleyball and more. Each unique ride and motivating playlist are designed to get you cyc’d!


----------



## JamesM

srk said:


> There's "triptych," which might tempt you to rhyme "psych" with "sick."



Exactly what I was thinking.  In fact, I think "psych" is the only word in English ending in "ych" that uses the long I sound. 



> I think it's undeniable that anyone whose native language is English would pronounce an unfamiliar word or abbreviation ending in "ic" with a short "i."



I agree that it would be a safe bet because the preponderence of words ending in "ic" have that sound.  What I disagree with is that it makes it a _rule_, as Andygc seems to be arguing.


----------



## Andygc

I don't have any problem with "cyc" rhyming with "psych", but I don't see the connection with "mic" which should rhyme with "tic".

"Psych" is a specific grouping which has a single pronunciation within and at the end of words. At least, I cannot think of an exception. 

James, what examples do you have of words ending in "ic" or "ike" which don't do as I suggest. If you talk of a "preponderance" you must be aware of a minority of exceptions.


----------



## JamesM

I am not aware of an exception to a word ending in "ic" but I would be happy to research it.   If you think that a grouping of letters makes one sound, how do you explain "chem" (kehm) for chemistry and chemo (kee-moh) for chemotherapy?  By your logic they should use the same vowel.  By my logic it makes sense that they are pronounced differently because the full words are pronounced differently. 

What about bough, though, tough, cough and through?  What sound does "ough" make?  All the same endings but different sounds.  English does not have a reliable relationship between spelling and phonemes.

You can hold on to a mike.  I'm fine with that.  I object to your lack of acceptance of "mic" which, for many of us, is the proper abbreviation of the word "microphone".


----------



## Andygc

James, where have I said there is universal consistency? I've talked about "-ike", "-ic" and "psych" where there is. I have also agreed that "cyc" has a long "y", as is only to be expected. Kindly don't attribute claims to me that I haven't made. 

I don't object to people who work with microphones using the abbreviation "mic". I do object to a newspaper dropping the majority spelling used by non-technical people - as demonstrated in srk's post #64. If you look back you'll see that I found it perfectly reasonable for you to use mic. - post #22

I do find it bizarre that anybody should pronounce "mic" as "mike".


----------



## bennymix

I hear you, Ewie,

But your phrase "words (not syllables)" is Spaniard in the works, as Lennon put it.

"Chemo" has its entry in Collins.   It is a word.  

Definition of “chemo” | Collins English Dictionary

You cannot arbitrarily declare it not so, because of its ancestry.  In the sentence, "He's reading the paper known as _The Daily Mail"_ would you say, 'paper' is not a word?

Similarly, if "Cyc Method" makes it into the dictionary, as it might  (there are 1000s of hits
for this fitness approach), I would think it bootless to declare, "_*Cyc*_ is not a word."



ewie said:


> English working-out-the-pronunciation-from-the-spelling is done by analogy.  As Mrs Loob keeps pointing out, all English words (not syllables) that take the form CVC, have a short V.  The same goes for CV*ck *[brick, rock, duck], CV*e/i/ull *[bell, hill, dull] , CV*ng* [rang, ping, song], CV*ff *[tiff, ruff], etc.  Words that don't conform to the pattern are outliers or freaks.
> _Mic_ = /maik/ is a freak


----------



## ewie

bennymix said:


> "Chemo" has its entry in Collins.   It is a word.


Yes but it's not a word that takes the form CVC [consonant>vowel>consonant*], as does _mic_.  It follows a different pattern

*Reminder: I'm not talking about sounds here, but spelling.


----------



## JamesM

Andygc said:


> James, where have I said there is universal consistency? I've talked about "-ike", "-ic" and "psych" where there is. I have also agreed that "cyc" has a long "y", as is only to be expected. Kindly don't attribute claims to me that I haven't made.



Here is what you said:



			
				Andygc said:
			
		

> If a speaker calls a microphone a "mike" there's no sense in spelling the word "mic". If a speaker calls a microphone a "mic" then there's no sense in spelling it "mike". *The written language should represent the spoken language.*



That sounds pretty universal to me.   Which brings me back to:

What about bough, though, tough, cough and through? What sound does "ough" make?    These are all single-syllable words.  How does the written language represent the spoken language here?  Or is it only newer inconsistencies that bother you?


----------



## PaulQ

The war is lost:
OED:
mic, n2
Pronunciation:  Brit. /mʌɪk/ , U.S. /maɪk/
Forms:  19– mic, 19– mic. (with point).
Frequency (in current use): ........
Etymology:  Formed within English, by clipping or shortening. Etymons: microphone n.
Shortened < microphone n. (probably originally as graphic abbreviation). Compare earlier mike n.6
Thesaurus »
  A microphone.
1961  A. Berkman Singers' Gloss. Show Business Jargon 58  Microphone: (Abbr. mike or mic).
1973  Sci. Amer. Apr. 2/1 (advt.)  Eight input controls for complete mic/line mixing.
1986  Hi-Fi Answers Oct. 79/2  Nice single-point stereo mic recording using analogue equipment.
1997  DJ 30 Aug. 45  He bitches into the mic, ‘Cameras ready, prepare to flash.’


----------



## MattiasNYC

Andygc said:


> James, where have I said there is universal consistency? I've talked about "-ike", "-ic" and "psych" where there is. I have also agreed that "cyc" has a long "y", as is only to be expected. Kindly don't attribute claims to me that I haven't made.
> 
> *I don't object to people who work with microphones using the abbreviation "mic". *I do object to a newspaper dropping the majority spelling used by non-technical people - as demonstrated in srk's post #64. If you look back you'll see that I found it perfectly reasonable for you to use mic. - post #22
> 
> *I do find it bizarre that anybody should pronounce "mic" as "mike".*



Why would I NOT abbreviate "microphone" into "mic"? That's the way the word ends up being after I chop off the "excess".
Why would I NOT pronounce it according to the "parent" word it came from?

The English language appears to be somewhat inconsistent, like other languages, probably because humans are inconsistent. I suggest we just deal with it rather than get seemingly upset over it.


----------



## Andygc

MattiasNYC said:


> Why would I NOT abbreviate "microphone" into "mic"?


If you actually read what I wrote, you might see that I never suggested that you shouldn't. I've already written that it makes sense for sound engineers to plug a "mic" into a hole labelled "Mic". "Mike" is not an abbreviation, any more than "bike" is for "bicycle" and "Lizzie" for "Elizabeth". No doubt JamesM will know the technical term for such short forms; I don't.

I'm not upset. I'm irritated by being misquoted and, apparently, being deliberately misunderstood. I'm also puzzled by a newspaper's decision to adopt a minority spelling which readers who are not sound engineers or band members will naturally pronounce "mick". That's all.


----------



## natkretep

_Mike_ and _bike_ are phonetic respellings of reduced pronunciations: the key point is that they are _phonetic_ and attempt to capture the pronunciation.

_Lizzie _is just the pet form or the hypocoristic form of _Elizabeth_.

_Mic_ is a clipping (like _info < information, vac < vacation, uni < university, Merc < Mercedes, dis < disrespect_). Some letters are lost but the remaining ones are not altered, which might result in the clipped form having some different sounds from the full form (_info_, _vac, Merc_) to reflect the clipped form. The difference is that for _mic_ the adjustment to the clipped (written) form did not happen.


----------



## bennymix

Well put, Nat.
And as the "chemo" (for chemotherapy) example suggests,  the fragment keeping the pronunciation
of the original is not uncommon (that being precisely the point of the adjustments, where made). The two- wheeler ridden is going to be a [sound of 'bike'] so it's common to adjust to ensure that.   Hence
_boujie_ (or _boojie_),  often, instead of 'bougie' (confusable, in writing, with 'boogie' the dance [hard *g*])



natkretep said:


> _Mike_ and _bike_ are phonetic respellings of reduced pronunciations: the key point is that they are _phonetic_ and attempt to capture the pronunciation.
> 
> _Lizzie _is just the pet form or the hypocoristic form of _Elizabeth_.
> 
> _Mic_ is a clipping (like _info < information, uni < university, Merc < Mercedes, dis < disrespect_). Some letters are lost but the remaining ones are not altered, which might result in the clipped form having some different sounds from the full form (_info_, _Merc_) to reflect the clipped form. The difference is that for _mic_ the adjustment to the clipped (written) form did not happen.


----------



## ewie

JamesM said:


> What sound does "ough" make?    These are all single-syllable words.  How does the written language represent the spoken language here?





JamesM said:


> What sound does "ough" make?  All the same endings but different sounds.  English does not have a reliable relationship between spelling and phonemes.


But it does [see quote in post #78].  The analogy rule is: the written 'symbol' *ough* in words of the pattern C*ough* is always pronounced /ʌ/ [thorough], /aʊ/ [bough], /uː/ [through], /ʌf/ [tough], /əʊ/ [dough], or /ɒf/ [cough].  That's it: it's never pronounced /ʌg/ [bug], or /aʊʧ/ [couch], or anything else.
Admittedly this rule is really neither use nor ornament

I'll say what Andy's saying (I _think_) in other words: for the 'many of us' [post #76] who don't use or talk or write about microphones at all often*, our brains will, thanks to analogy, keep reading *mic* as /mɪk/, not /maɪk/.  And, given that those many of us who do use (etc.) microphones often will always, thanks to analogy, pronounce *mike* as /maɪk/, it would 'make sense' if publishers (etc.) continued to use the spelling *mike*, rather than _ahem_ pander to the whim _okay that's enough._

*I last used one in 2008, for about 20 minutes.


----------



## JamesM

ewie said:


> But it does [see quote in post #78].  The analogy rule is: the written 'symbol' *ough* in words of the pattern C*ough* is always pronounced /ʌ/ [thorough], /aʊ/ [bough], /uː/ [through], /ʌf/ [tough], /əʊ/ [dough], or /ɒf/ [cough].  That's it: it's never pronounced /ʌg/ [bug], or /aʊʧ/ [couch], or anything else.
> Admittedly this rule is really neither use nor ornament



And it goes further.  There's also hiccough (where it's "up"), even though the ending is identical to cough.  



> I'll say what Andy's saying (I _think_) in other words: for the 'many of us' [post #76] who don't use or talk or write about microphones at all often*, our brains will, thanks to analogy, keep reading *mic* as /mɪk/, not /maɪk/.  And, given that those many of us who do use (etc.) microphones often will always, thanks to analogy, pronounce *mike* as /maɪk/, it would 'make sense' if publishers (etc.) continued to use the spelling *mike*, rather than _ahem_ pander to the whim _okay that's enough._
> 
> *I last used one in 2008, for about 20 minutes.



Okay, so let's look at a couple of these arguments.

1) "Mike" was here first.  (Not your argument but it has been brought up several times).

Great!  Please revert to "aluminum" instead of that silly "aluminium".  Aluminum was here first; this is a documented fact. The fact that the discoverer of aluminum changed his mind about how he preferred to spell it after the fact is just pandering to the whims of one person.   Obviously, chronology wins.

2) "Mike" is how the general public thinks of it, thanks to analogy.

Then I want asthma to be spelled "azma" and ophthalmologist to be spelled offthemallogist.  It shouldn't matter where the word came from.  What should matter is that I can pronounce it by applying common patterns to it to get the desired sound.


The arguments are being applied as generalities but the fact of the matter is, no one in this thread wants to apply them across the board.  They just want to apply this rule in this case to get their favorite word back.  I have little doubt that, given the proper word, the same people would be dismissing these same arguments about it as illogical.


----------



## Andygc

JamesM said:


> Then I want asthma to be spelled "azma" and ophthalmologist to be spelled offthemallogist.



Do you really pronounce them like that? Odd.

PS. Sorry. Just checked
Aluminium 1811
Aluminum 1812
Source: OED


----------



## JamesM

I don't believe that's correct, Andygc.  I'll try to provide you with a direct source but in all histories of the element this is the general summary:

World Wide Words: Aluminium versus aluminum


> Sir Humphry made a bit of a mess of naming this new element, at first spelling it _alumium_ (this was in 1807) then changing it to _aluminum_, and finally settling on _aluminium_ in 1812


.

p.s.  I suppose for the Brits we could spell it "assma".


----------



## KalAlbè

I've never used "mike" for "microphone", only "mic." In fact, I would feel weird writing it as I'd associate it with a guy named "Mike" and not the apparatus.


----------



## Andygc

1808 H. Davy in _Philos. Trans._ (Royal Soc.) *98* 353  Had I been so fortunate as..to have procured the metallic substances I was in search of, I should have proposed for them the names of silicium, *alumium*, zirconium, and glucium.
1811 _Crit. Rev._ Jan. 9  The result of this experiment is not wholly decisive as to the existence of what might be called _*aluminium*_ and _glucinium_.
1812 H. Davy _Chem. Philos._ I. 355  As yet *Aluminum* has not been obtained in a perfectly free state.

Looks like others didn't wait for him to finish dithering.  Just because he was instrumental in discovering it doesn't stop him coming second in the "Naming the Metal Stakes".


JamesM said:


> p.s. I suppose for the Brits we could spell it "assma".


Still doesn't work for me: /ˈasθmə/. I'm surprised that the OED gives /ˈasmə/ as the first BE pronunciation.


----------



## Loob

natkretep said:


> _Mike_ and _bike_ are phonetic respellings of reduced pronunciations: the key point is that they are _phonetic_ and attempt to capture the pronunciation.
> 
> _Lizzie _is just the pet form or the hypocoristic form of _Elizabeth_.
> 
> _Mic_ is a clipping (like _info < information, vac < vacation, uni < university, Merc < Mercedes, dis < disrespect_). Some letters are lost but the remaining ones are not altered, which might result in the clipped form having some different sounds from the full form (_info_, _vac, Merc_) to reflect the clipped form. The difference is that for _mic_ the adjustment to the clipped (written) form did not happen.


I thought this post of yours was extremely interesting, Nat.

I wonder, is there any likelihood of the clipping _mic_ following suit and starting to be pronounced  /mɪk/? Perhaps the reason it hasn't done so before now is the existence of the phonetic respelling _mike_?


----------



## MattiasNYC

Andygc said:


> If you actually read what I wrote, you might see that I never suggested that you shouldn't. I've already written that it makes sense for sound engineers to plug a "mic" into a hole labelled "Mic". "Mike" is not an abbreviation, any more than "bike" is for "bicycle" and "Lizzie" for "Elizabeth". No doubt JamesM will know the technical term for such short forms; I don't.
> 
> I'm not upset. I'm irritated by being misquoted



Then practice what you preach and address my post in its entirety. The part you quoted was irrelevant in and by itself, and it was only in conjunction with that which you conveniently cut out that it made its point.


----------



## Andygc

MattiasNYC said:


> Then practice what you preach and address my post in its entirety.


I haven't a clue why you should decide to adopt such an aggressive tone. I don't preach anything of the sort. I have never asked anybody to quote any of my posts in their entirety, nor have I demanded that they reply to every opinion I have expressed. I haven't in any way misrepresented your opinion or misquoted you. I answered the part I was interested in answering. I didn't quote or reply to your


MattiasNYC said:


> Why would I NOT pronounce it according to the "parent" word it came from?


because I don't care in the slightest how *you *choose to pronounce it. However, if you had asked why other people might think to pronounce it "mick" rather than "mike" I would reply "Because every other word in the English language that ends '-ic' is pronounced in the same way." 

As I said before, my objection is to a newspaper adopting a minority spelling (mic) for a truncated form of microphone, rather than the spelling more widely used outside the technical sphere (mike).


----------



## natkretep

Loob said:


> I wonder, is there any likelihood of the clipping _mic_ following suit and starting to be pronounced  /mɪk/? Perhaps the reason it hasn't done so before now is the existence of the phonetic respelling _mike_?


I think that would be the logical development, but this has been blocked by the phonetically shortened version /maɪk/. People need to forget /maɪk/ first - and I don't suppose they will. 

The equivalent would be if _vacation_ had a phonetically shortened version. In AmE, in the full form, the initial vowel is /eɪ/, and therefore, /veɪˈkeɪʃən/ could become /veɪk/. If this was a popular reduced form, it might cause people to still say this for the clipping _vac. _Only in this case, nobody, as far as I know know says /veɪk/, and so everyone is happy to say /vak/ when they see _vac._


----------



## JamesM

Although we do have a shortened form in AE: vacay.  It is pronounced /veɪkeɪ/.


----------



## natkretep

Thanks, James. I didn't know that.

You'll know that _vacation_ is often used in relation to non-term periods at university in the UK. If you saw a BrE text which says, 'We'll still be open over the summer vac', you presumably wouldn't be tempted to pronounce _vac_ anything but /væk/?


----------



## JamesM

If I knew it was short for vacation I would assume it was /veɪk/, as I did in a post further back.


----------



## natkretep

Sorry, I must have missed it. But if that was the case, it would be similar to what we have in _mic_.


----------



## elroy

I first came across _mic_ a few years ago, and I don't think the person who used it with me was a sound technician or anything of the sort; they were just a regular layperson.  Since then, I believe most if not all of the people that have used this spelling with me have been very young (under 30) non-specialists.  So perhaps this spelling originated in the field of sound/audio technology, but it definitely seems to have crept into mainstream usage, especially by younger millennials who have a propensity to abbreviate everything under the sun, and as efficiently as possible at that (_mike_ is one letter longer than _mic_!).  

I remember finding the spelling strange when I first came across it (I'm a millennial, but I'm closer to the older end of the age range), and it still looks _somewhat_ strange to me, because for most of my life it was _mike_ and only _mike_.  But I never had any strong reactions to it and ended up just filing it away as yet another interesting change in the development of the English language.  We are creatures of habit, and I'm convinced the only reason I ever found the spelling strange was that I was used to a different one.  I'm sure that if we were to survey a random population of young millennials (say, age 20 and under), we would find a significant proportion who would, in fact, find _mike _odd and _mic_ perfectly natural. 

Many arguments have been made in this thread about English language spelling patterns, and those arguments are not entirely invalid.  However, the beauty (or at least, uniqueness) of English spelling lies in its relentless inconsistency.  It is a red herring that _mic_, as a clipped form, happens to look like already existing words ending in _-ic_, and with regard to language evolution and development, the already existing form _mike_ is another red herring.  As a product of a unique etymological history, _mic_ does not pattern like other _-ic_ words in terms of pronunciation.  This is neither good nor bad; it just is what it is.  It's the way the cookie crumbles when it comes to English spelling.

With time, I've gotten fairly accustomed to seeing _mic_, just as I've gotten fairly accustomed to post-2000 slang like _ratchet_ and _turnt_, and post-2000 chat abbreviations like _smh_ and _wyd._


----------



## Hermione Golightly

> However, the beauty (or at least, uniqueness) of English spelling lies in its relentless inconsistency.


----------



## RM1(SS)

Andygc said:


> Still doesn't work for me: /ˈasθmə/.


Do you really pronounce that with a thorn, rather than an edh?


----------

