As is well known, English spelling is a major problem even to native speakers. In Achiri-Taboh (Reference Achiri-Taboh2018a), I present arguments for a synchronic base-word-based rule for the spelling of shun-words, given the notoriously troubling variation in the spelling of their ending as underlined here in words like fraction, dictation, equation, and persuasion (with a t-form) and extension, collision, and expression (with an s-form). My (Reference Achiri-Taboh2018a) rule is summarized as follows:

1. (1) The Base-Word-Based (BWB) rule for spelling ‘shun’:

   Use -tion everywhere except when X (X = any of the 7 conditions)

See Achiri-Taboh (Reference Achiri-Taboh2018a) for the 7 conditions.

In a critique of this work, entitled ‘English spelling: Where do -tion and -sion come from?,’ Bulley (Reference Bulleyin press) points out that all the words cited – shun-words with either -tion or -sion – can be traced back to Latin or French, as they became part of the English language either in a French form as a result of the Norman invasion of the 11^th century or later as a modification of a classical form in the Renaissance period, and then insinuates that I ought to have mentioned ‘this historical fact [ . . . ] in the article.’ He essentially claims that my assertions in (1) are a misrepresentation of the nature of such words in English, and that ‘although there may have been [ . . . ] changes over the centuries in the pronunciation of all these words in English, the explanation of their form lies in the languages from which they are derived.’

Bulleys's main point is that both members of each of my pairs in the derivation of shun-words come ultimately from Latin, such that it cannot be said that one is derived from the other, specifically pointing out that the supine and cognate forms of what I see as verbal base-words are rather at the base of the shun-words with either -sion or -tion, with the <s> of the -sion form being the result of assimilation. He expatiates his critique with a few words from a limited number of all the classes of word in my classification. Thus, he argues that both persuade and persuasion come from the Latin verb persuadere, its supine and cognate forms being persuasum and persuasio, respectively, and that, in Latin, the /d/ of persuadere does not drop (contrary to my claim that the /d/ of persuade drops when -sion is used), but is assimilated to /s/. For the pairs extend - extension and pretend - pretension, Bulley points out that

I cannot agree more with Bulley in this diachrono-etymological perspective to the understanding of the spelling of shun-words. In particular, it is clear, for instance, from the last sentence of the quote above that the spellings are generally rooted in the cognate Latin forms (and not the supine forms) pronounced the way they are written and therefore predict the English spelling. Thus, Bulley also picks out some of the cases that end with -tion, including reformation, definition and conjunction as not being the result of a transformation of a base-word like reform or conjoin (where -tion would be said, as in my rule, to surface as a result of epenthesis or final consonant change), but rather as coming ‘directly from the Latin [ . . . ] cognate noun reformatio.’ In fact, scanning through the New Lexicon Webster's Encyclopaedic Dictionary (NLWED) (Deluxe Edition), for example, one finds many of the words as etymologically coming from Latin cognate words ending with either -tio or -sio (pronounced /tio/ or /sio/, respectively), many others from French or from Latin through French, ending with either -tion or -sion. In fact, this actually explains the existence of words that are acceptable with both spellings as in distension/distention, intension/intention, and pretension/pretention, where the s-forms are from Latin and the t-forms from French – see Achiri-Taboh (Reference Achiri-Taboh, Huertas-Abril and Gómez-Parra2020: 243) for an attempted rule-based explanation.

However, what Bulley is professing is one modest way of resolving the problem, though not without problems of its own. To start with, when he claims, in his opening paragraph, that all the words I have cited can be traced back to Latin and French, I believe he is referring to all shun-words spelled with -sion/-tion.Footnote ¹ Thus, his assertion is false. Examples like acculturation, accusation, activation, capitalization, carbonation, computation, computerization, demyelination, fractionation, modernisation, operationalization, and pre-emption neither identify with Latin cognates nor are from French – of course, many such words have developed from modern scientific discourse, far from (ancient) Latin. Together with neologisms like passivization, pidginization, and relativization fully accepted in present-day scientific discourse, they too need to be spelled correctly, not following any etymological cues, but rules, even if some of the so-called base-words (like acculturate) are backformations.Footnote ²

One thing that is clear is that, even if ‘all the words cited could be traced back to Latin or French,’ Bulley's approach is an elitist one (sitting on the flipside of the fact noted in note 2) for a minority group of English spellers with both speaking and writing skills in Latin and French as he himself seems to admit in both his opening and closing paragraphs. But, even at that, there is a problem. For example, the words that come from French include those with -tion (like convention) and -sion (like conversion), yet they are all pronounced with /s/, leaving us wondering what conditions the -tion spelling. Words like fraction from French fraccion pose a similar challenge. Also, double-s shun-words like concession and succession can be linked to Latin concessio and successio, but if English spellers even speak Latin but have no writing skills in it, how do they get the double-s predicted? Thus, it is clear that, even English spellers who possess speaking and writing skills in Latin and French still need some specific rules to have good command on the spelling of shun-words.

My assertions certainly misrepresent the nature of shun-words only inasmuch as Bulley's elitist viewpoint is concerned. I would certainly have noted the etymological reality about shun-words. But, in a world where English is so widely dependent upon on a daily basis, yet enormously beset with problems of spelling, how many users would subscribe to it, with such enormous challenges? Thus, although Bulley tries to resist the idea of a base-word, a quick survey among students at the University of Buea, here in Cameroon (and I urge the reader to do one in their community), shows that, when faced with spelling shun-words, spellers generally (and often involuntarily) entertain the shorter (or base) word in mind, for example, act for action, commit for commission, and decide for decision, certainly paying attention to how it ends in a bid to spell correctly.

In actual fact, as clearly stated in the introduction to my beleaguered article, the aim is to yield a general synchronic rule, the certain intention not being to undermine the etymological character of shun-words, but to fill a burning need for a bewilderingly large number of English users, and I believe it is understood that way by the readership. Prior to the publication of that article, an ET reviewer wrote:

As I observe there, apart from informal online debates on how to spell shun-words, current English grammar textbooks have generally shied away from it. In fact, if the relevant need could be satisfied by simply appealing to knowledge of Latin and French, English grammar textbooks would have carried it over the years, yet, seemingly recognising the difficulty with his approach, Bulley simply writes:

Bully has to note that learning the spelling of words can be impeded by a lack of interest which may set in once there are no rules to alleviate the yoke of memorisation. In fact, it has been demonstrated (see Achiri-Taboh, Reference Achiri-Taboh2018b, for instance) that, when spelling rules are available, spellers duly follow them. He himself says, in his final paragraph, that this final solution of his may seem disheartening. I think it is truly disheartening, and is only right inasmuch as he thinks that ‘the author [i.e., myself] has created a non-existent problem beset with unnecessary difficulties’ contra others, including the anonymous ET reviewer cited above. If the problem is pressing and truly global, then my rule (with up to seven conditions, though) can be seen as a worthwhile attempt at satisfying the need, and should look forward to being improved upon rather than taunted.Footnote ³

The difficulties Bulley is associating with my article probably have to do with the derivational processes in the workings of the rule where, I believe, he also does not get it right. For instance, he criticises me for giving the phonetic representation of extension as /ɪkstentʃǝn/ and pretension as /prɪtentʃǝn/ and saying that, although /d/ is not represented orthographically, it is retained in a weak unvoiced form under the influence of the preceding nasal, yet he admits finding the representations in the Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary, 18^th edition. He also finds fault with me saying that shun-words that exhibit epenthesis are spelled with -tion; he claims that, ‘in fact, an epenthetic vowel in the middle of an English word is rare.’ I assume he is referring to simple words like help and film where the addition of a vowel to break the final consonant clusters is informal. Epenthesis is, of course, commonplace in English complex words like reformation, pronunciation, and addition (including the non-Latinate/French words discussed earlier), and as Yip (Reference Yip1987: 480–81) demonstrates, suffixation in these words begins with an epenthetic vowel. To the best of my knowledge, no one has suggested that Yip is wrong.

So, to conclude, I would like to make it clear, as suggested in the introduction to the criticised work, that my aim is not to undermine the etymological character of shun-words, but to yield a general synchronic rule to fill a burning need, and I believe it is understood that way both by the informed and uninformed readership.