Are there spelling bees in non-English speaking Europe?

It's probably an English-only phenomenon. European languages do borrow lots and lots of English words, however, so for Europeans there's at least the minor challenge of getting those spellings right... they certainly can't rely on their own Germ-lish or French-lish mispronunciations - or even accurate pronunciations - for spelling guidance.

Dam, thoes kihds wihr guhd !

It might be interesting seeing competitors from the USA against participants from other English-speaking countries. Favorite vs. favourite. Aluminum vs. aluminium. Color vs. colour. Specialize vs. specialise. While vs. whilst. Those varied examples probably wouldn’t actually make the contest, but they demonstrate some differences. In the video, “desicate” was the easiest word in the bunch. Were some of the others actually English words?

Remember the Charlie Brown animated movie from something like 50 years ago? The word “supersede” was called over and over again, in successive spelling bee challenges. Was that, maybe, somebody’s favorite word? Good Ol’ Charles Schultz - a prize of Minnesota!

Can you please name some European languages that are spelled phonetically? The European languages that I can speak definitely don’t have phonetic spelling, but perhaps there are other languages that I’m not aware of that do use phonetic spelling.

I think the spelling bees are a purely American phenomenon. I've only seen this kind of thing in American movies over here in Europe.

It might be interesting see competitors from the USA against participants from other English-speaking countries.

Spelling bees aren’t really a thing here in the UK - I mean, I’m sure they happen occasionally but it feels like an American phenomenon.

In fact a US friend and I were discussing whether the American habit of pronouncing every syllable in words like “literally” (compared to, say, the common British pronunciation of “litch-ra-lee”) is to do with the US tradition of teaching spelling by breaking down syllables out loud like in a spelling bee. We had no out-loud spelling at my British school - it was very much a written thing.

Spanish is very phonetic as is Italian. Spanish has a lot fewer speech sounds than English (24 versus 44).

There are far fewer dyslexia diagnoses in these countries as the language is much easier to read and spell.

Romanian seems pretty phonetic, even to the extent of spelling its loan words phonetically.

Eg: they borrowed the French word étage meaning the floor of a building (ie storey/story) but spell it “etaj.”

Never heard of anything like it, it seems to be a North American phenomenon.

Can you please name some European languages that are spelled
phonetically?

Finnish is spellled phonetically, in Finnish words are pronounced like they are written.

And then there is Japanese which is a combo of logographic kanji and syllabic kana. I guess anyone in Japan can be a spelling bee champion, just say the world out loud while pausing at each syllable... ko..n.. ni.. chi.. wa こ ん に ち は 😂

When I was in elementary school I was a stand-out winner of impromptu Spelling Bees.

THESE days, I am a long way away from THOSE days.

I think French would be a real challenge as nothing seems to sound like it's spelled.

Like French, Dutch is anything but a language that is spelled phonetically. In the Netherlands we do have spelling contests, but they are the kind of contests where you have to write down the words, not spell them out loud. One of these contests used to be televised with contestants from both the Netherlands and the Dutch speaking part of Belgium participating and a Dutch or Flemish writer providing the text.

Stan, my French teacher told me that the corresponding "test" in French is called "la dictée". You have to write down an essay that is read to you out loud, and of course it's full of homophonic words. That's a harder test than a spelling bee, because it requires on-the-fly comprehension, not just memorization.

I don't have children, but I believe English phonics training in early grades (in the US) has been a subject of bitter academic dispute, ruining careers and costing teaching supervisors their jobs.

We used to have French dictation lessons at school in the UK, writing down an essay (in French) that was read to us. I was so bad at it that my French teacher suggested to my parents that I might be partly deaf (I wasn’t).

High level spelling bees are a waste. The words are ones that no one uses. Learning the definition of a word and how to use it are a much more productive use of time. The vocabulary of too many Americans is pathetic.

I think French would be a real challenge as nothing seems to sound like it's spelled.

Yes but there are patterns in the madness so easier to spell than English.

Interesting responses.

Does any language besides English have something as egregious as, say, 'kernel' and 'colonel' being pronounced exactly the same?

English verbs are a breeze, but the spelling/pronunciation....not so much.

Can you please name some European languages that are spelled
phonetically?

Spanish: spelling is highly predictable based on pronunciation, and vice versa... If you see it, you can say it.

German: also highly predictable both ways.

Perhaps you are troubled by the word "phonetically" - your concern is justified, dutch traveler. The word is misused here.

"Phonetic" spelling would in fact require spelling the exact sounds that come out of our mouths. "Late" and "Later" both have the letter "t", but no American English speaker pronounces those two t's the same - they change the "t" sound to fit the environment. The phonetic sound in "later" (known as an alveolar flap) would have to have its own letter if phonetic spelling were the goal. German, Spanish and other languages have similar processes, but like English, they aren't going to come up with new letters for tiny variations like that which do not change a word's meaning.

"Phonemic" spelling is what English kinda shoots for, and what Spanish and German do so much better. And that's the word that should be used here in this discussion.

Russ that’s really only relevant to academic linguists who need accurate methods to record speech in written form.

Phonetic is an acceptable term for the lay person to use. It refers to phonemes, the smallest building blocks of any language.

The phonemic/phonetic distinction was made only as a possible explanation for why Dutch_traveler might be saying that he/she/they knows of no language that is spelled "phonetically", while the laymen seem to disagree. That's why it became forum-relevant and why I brought it up after D-T's comment, Helen, not to "correct" you or anyone else. Please feel free to use whichever term you like - the laymen will get it - but D-t's response seems to indicate that the distinction is a distinction WITH a difference and matters to some people - and probably WOULD be used if it were more widely understood.

There are actually a lot of "less-than-accurate" words and phrases that are common in everyday English. The "big pronoun issue" today has distorted what is a pronoun and what is not - "his" and "their", for example were never pronouns before, but they appear to be "pronoun choices" for the layperson now despite the fact they are not and will never be pronouns. I suspect we will continue to refer to them for some time in the future as "pronouns" anyway, and it won't impact the gender topic at all - only our understanding of our shared language system.

Languages are fascinating to me and if I was able to do it over again I would be a linguist.

One of the factors that made German "relatively" (the operative word here assuming you do everything to "acquire" (ie, pound away at it , spend hours learning and relearning, do that over and over, etc, etc, etc), easy for me to learn is that it is indeed phonetic, eg, saying multi-syllabic compound nouns, ) provided you rely solely on the German pronunciation key. I find German pronunciation relatively simple and straight-forward. True, it is easier than French in this regard.

Basic simple thing: don't think English, resist the temptation of falling back on the way it is said in English...bad move, plus it won't help.

Re: French.

Years ago, ca 30 yrs, an Asian man whose native language was Cantonese told me that French was "phonetic", which took me aback. He said by focusing only on the French pronunciation key, it is phonetic. A bit later a French woman (multi-lingual, fluent in French , obviously, English, German, proficient in Italian), concurred in what he asserted. She took issue with Anglophones saying that French was not phonetic.

They both agreed when one learns French you must focus on the French pronunciation key...forget the rest. They are right.

In Belgium/The Netherlands we have "het Groot Dictee der Nederlandse Taal". Usually won by a Belgian.
Dutch has some very interesting spelling traps for the unwary, though it is indeed largely phonetic.

French is absolutely phonemic. However, there are multiple phonemes that make sounds either identical or not distinguishable to most ears. That means one can hear a word and not necessarily know how it is spelled (one of several options), but on the whole, one can see a word and know how it is said.

German is pretty much phonemic, with loan words and a few outliers being the exceptions. However, I don't know of spelling bees as such. Dictation, on the other hand, is a standard part of school curriculums from an early age.

One could possibly mix up sounds in German, eg., as in the noun, " die Welt " with the main sound in the infinitive, "bewältigen " ie, instead of spelling this verb in its proper infinitive form , spelling it as beweltigen , mixing up the short "e" sound with the "ä" sound.

Not so confusing at all, just get the correct spelling of the 2 words in the first place. How? Practice, practice, pound it into you.

Bottom line: you cannot overlearn in a foreign language.

Fred's comment seem to indicate that if there are any German spelling bees, they are probably found in classes for foreigners learning German as a new language. Native speakers simply do not mix up their phonemes - foreign learners do that - so native Germans don't need to practice or pound in order to pronounce or to spell.

My comments are those of a foreigner learning and studying the German as a foreign language. That difference is revealed in German published grammar books with titles such as " Deutsch für Ausländer" which tell you that native speakers are not going to experience the same difficulties as would foreigners, one of the distinct advantages when growing up and immersed in the language.

When we lived in a francophone country, we enjoyed watching dictées on French TV that featured celebrities having a ball, but making a complete hash of the spelling :-) . We would watch, fascinated, as they would make basic "French 101" mistakes by writing, say, the past participle allé as the infinitive aller ... or any of the other homophones such as allez, allais, allait, allaient, allée, etc. I just searched YouTube & couldn't find an example of such a show with celebrities and cheerful banter, but I did find a recent "giant dictée" on the Champs Elysées this past summer, with thousands of participants.

“They both agreed when one learns French you must focus on the French pronunciation key...forget the rest. They are right.”

Totally agree with you Fred. Knowing the key, it’s easy for me to read and correctly pronounce French words. For me, French is phonetic.

To Laura’s point, it gets more difficult when only hearing French. But again, if you understand the context of the word used (aller is a good example) a French speaker should be able to figure it out.
But there are French people, like here in the US, who have bad grammar, are not good spellers, and aren’t great at reading comprehension.

“The vocabulary of too many Americans is pathetic.”

Agree. Grammar is even more pathetic.

In the end it is all Greek to me.
I was hooked on phonics at a young age, but since then I have aged and am now in the simple grunt stage. At least according to my wife.

I have aged and am now in the simple grunt stage

Same ... all abetted by my committed move to iMessage communications over eMail.

Pathetic American grammar: Not quite sure just what you're referring to here... It's certainly true that we play with grammar a lot and leave stuff out that should be there. Lots of that in our music and in everyday talk. Stuff like this doesn't annoy me much...

I gotta leave now... Whudga do while you were in Paris?... I would'na done it that way.

But my head swells a bit when I hear stuff like this...

I gots ta leave now... Whudga do while you was in Paris?... I would'na did it that way.

(I'm sure I need some dialect-sensitivity training, but to be honest, the grammar here just overwhelms the content.)

Depending on where in Germany one is from, the ä and e are not necessarily the same sound. But to clarify, German children are explicitly taught the concept of Ableiten--to look at root words or other forms to determine spelling. For example, the s / ss / ß sounds. These follow clear rules (in Germany--Swiss German does not have the letter ß and Austrian German uses different spellings). The s is a vocalised s (like English z), the ss is used following short vowels, and ß is used following long vowels. However, the vocalised s is less vocalised at the end of a word (e.g. Maus), and it is only when using the plural (Mäuse) that you can tell it is vocalised. You use plurals for nouns and either a feminine form or, more commonly, the comparative and superlative forms for adjectives. For verbs, use the infinitive. These will clarify most of those tricky phonemes, and this is taught in early grades to German children.

But these rules are tested in dictations, not spelling bees.

Good point on "Ableiten" Keep in mind too that as regards to German spelling apart from the topic of pronunciation , there is the factor of the Writing Reform adopted in 1996 (?), whether one follows that , ( you don't have any choice if you use German professionally, at work, etc. ) or remain writing in the old way , ie prior to Writing Reform.

Luckily, I never had to write in the language in an official capacity requiring me to comply with the dictates of the Writing Reform in spelling, use of the ß , capitalization , etc. The "old " way stays when I write in German.

"...French is phonetic" How true , if being phonetic means the word is spelled as it sounds.

When 2001 came around, I thought I had better start learning French now in a systematic and methodical way if I were going to acquire the language at all in any practical way, a either "now or never" type of realisation; at 52 I wasn't getting any younger to start picking up this language. Obviously, the issue of French being phonetic or not came up.

I saw, especially in the beginning , that in trying to pronounce the words, etc there was no rhyme or reason , no logic and that sort of thing, ie, almost next to impossible, exaggerating here to make a point. I was dead wrong.

Bottom line: Both French and German have their logic, between the two, my view is that German is more logical when you get into learning by picking it apart, ie, learning , using and studying it by dissecting the grammar.

I admire you, Fred, for deciding to learn French at 52. Well done.

Russ, re: bad grammar, i was thinking more of sentences like “Me and my son went to the store”, or, “I don’t feel good”, or, “I did good on the test”…

I am no grammar expert, but my mom was, so my examples are very noticeable to me. Especially when i hear news readers on “The News” make these basic mistakes.

Golden Girl points out that "literally" has 3 syllables in the UK and 4 in the USA. She attribute this to "the US tradition of teaching spelling by breaking down syllables out loud..."

True that sounding out words syllable by syllable is a teaching practice here. Maybe that's why "literally" has 4 syllables here... but my question is this... if we've learned to sound out syllables, why do so many travelers on this forum struggle to spell the word "itinerary"?? It's 5 syllables, in my country anyway. "Itinery", if that were a word, would have only 4; it's not in any dictionary, but I see this misspelling again and again here on the forum. It's kind of an important word here.

Are the people who write "itinery" Brits who pronounce it with only 4 syllables in the UK? Or are they Americans who failed their lessons in sounding out syllables?? Or are they Americans whose words max out at 4 syllables?? Or...?

Lovely, maxing out at 4 syllables ?

One of these multi-syllable compound nouns I saw when reading about Mark Twain, another contribution to my vocab, adding words having 7-9 syllables to my vocab: Mark Twain used this word for rallies sponsored / organised by cities: "Stadtverordnetenversammlungen. "

Dig deep into learning German, focusing on expanding the passive vocab for writing and reading and lots of the 7-9 syllable compound nouns will show up.

@ Susan....Merci bien. It's a lot easier starting a foreign language at 17-18 than at 50.

Russ,

Are the people who write "itinery" Brits who pronounce it with only 4 syllables in the UK? Or are they Americans who failed their lessons in sounding out syllables?? Or are they Americans whose words max out at 4 syllables?? Or...?

Spellcheck shouldn’t be dismissed as a culprit in recent spelling errors. While the human composing a message may well be at fault, a stupid Smartphone may have inserted what it guesses is the intended word. Modern, allegedly helpful software actually means that proofreading is even more necessary than in the past. How often has St. Pancreas been listed on this forum as a supposed station in London? Is that two stops down the Tube line from the Spleen station?

Bees … are they just an American thing, I wonder? Spelling, sewing, maybe others?

@Cyn: "Spleen station"... evoked quite a chuckle. Still, I don't quite see how spell-check might confuse "itinerary" w/ "itinery", which exists in print only as a common error. My working theory at this point is that spelling (and maybe pronouncing?) certain repeated sounds is inherently trickier and more prone to error. Maybe words like "honorary" - again with two syllables in a row that begin with "r" - are also misspelled frequently.

@Susan: I have a different take on these error examples you used:

“I don’t feel good”, or, “I did good on the test”

The 2nd example is a classic developmental error. "Good" and "well" of course have the same meaning, but "well" is a bit weird... the adverb form is needed for the verb "do" and most other verbs. So this is actually a little tricky for kids because the rule they are picking up for adverbs (-ly suffix) is unreliable here. (And they probably think, why use "well" when "good" has the same meaning?) Most kids eventually get it though, so it's pretty pathetic when a news anchor does this, for sure.

But using an adverb form (well) with a verb like "feel" is much different. 99.9% of the time, "feel" is followed by an adjective. No one ever feels "hungrily" or "sadly" or "exhaustedly." "Look" is the same kind of verb. ("You look fabulous.") So is "seem", as in "He seems happy." No one ever mistakenly uses adverb forms like "fabulously" or "happily" with such verbs.

So this "rule" about using an adverb like "well" with "feel" when health is the topic... well, it's in conflict with the other basic grammar rules that guide everyday usage - and it's inconsistent with other health-talk too. No one feels "nauseously." No one feels "dizzily" either. I see this as one of those highly idiosyncratic, overly-prescriptive schoolhouse-only rules that no one is ever going to pay much attention to. "I feel good" felt good to James Brown, and it feels good to me too.

I believe only Netherlands and Belgium also have a spelling bees then? That seems to be the situation from responses here.

I have heard the explanation about American English being more enunciated than British English years ago from Alistair Cooke because of his theory of immigrants learning from written word not orally. Maybe there's some truth to it, or it's phonics education, but the general rule from my research is that American English is pretty stable and preserves older usages (e.g. linden for lime tree) and pronunciations (e.g. retaining the original French pronunciation of "Herb" with the silent H), and it's British English that changes more and faster.

Just in my lifetime the English spoken by middle class SE England folks has gone down the toilet. There used to be a clear and crisp English, at least recorded in media, that was so easy to understand, call it RP or BBC English or Home Counties--whatever. People like David Niven and Alec Guinness were so easy to understand. (I am sure there are examples of either of the two in 1960s movies saying "literally" not like "litch-ra-lee".) Now there's people like Nicola Walker, from the same geography and class, speaking some kind of pidgin English with dropped consonants and syllables-- really, "Right" with no T at the end, how is that acceptable? We love her work but at least every other minute while watching her my wife and I struggle to understand her as much as her Glaswegian costars. This radical shift has only taken about 40 years.

speaking some kind of pidgin English

I think you've lost the plot mate

maybe you and your missus are going a bit mutton

Now there's people like Nicola Walker, from the same geography and
class, speaking some kind of pidgin English with dropped consonants
and syllables-- really, "Right" with no T at the end, how is that
acceptable?

I don't know this actress at all and don't watch a lot of Brit stuff either - it's often hard to follow - but out of curiosity I pulled up an interview with her... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-ufPNQties&t=265s

I played back 2 of her sentences a few times...

1) At about 4:00 she says the words "...when you get a script..."
2) At about 4:20, she says, "...and you don't want to get in the way of it..."

Assuming that's what you are referring to... some of those t's that "aren't there" might actually be there to the British ear, but not to the American ear, I think. She uses a "glottal stop" at the end of "get" there - I think that's a common British practice when the "t" is between vowels, one that we are not trained to pay attention to by our own American phonological patterns - not in between vowels, anyway.

I think the average American English speaker changes that "t" between vowels too, just in a different way - the "t" in "get a" or "get in" turns into a "flap" r-sound, one like you'd hear in the phrase "get a life" or "write a poem." We hear a "t" there, even though it's not really a "t." And Brit's hear a "t" when that glottal stop appears.

Glottal stops commonly replace t's in American English, just not in the same places. "Where's my hat?" ends with a glottal stop for most Americans, for example, and that's a practice we seem to accept routinely without question.

I think you've lost the plot mate

This a continuation of the change in topic but what used to be the prominent accent in British media and was very easy to understand I hardly hear anymore. Think of the speech of BBC Newhour's Tim Franks which I often hear on the radio, such clarity and enunciation, for the listener not a word missed or misunderstood. Now what I often hear is a version of speech influenced by sloppy Thames Estuary English with dropped syllables and consonants and just harder to understand. Maybe Tim Franks' speech is fraught with class issues that make people in the know shudder-- but I am not in the know, and for simple comprehension his style of speech can't be beat.

Yeah keep those peasants with their dropped "t's" and "aitches" and glottal stops out of the media. That sort of Pidgin English has no place on the BBC!

(According to Tom)

@Russ -- The senses are sometimes linking and sometimes action verbs. I feel tired, but I feel the warmth of the sun. The former is linking, the latter is action. When it is a linking verb, the rule is that one uses an adjective (describing the noun or pronoun in the subject). When it is an action verb, there is an object and any adverb would describe HOW one feels the sun. I feel the warmth of the sun clearly.

"I feel good / well" is tricky because in this context, well is not the adverbial form of good, but the adjective form of wellness or health. A very fine distinction that really only applies here. So if you ask me how I feel, "I feel well" means I am healthy while "I feel good" means I am happy.

Incidentally, we apply this bizarre construct to "I am" even though am is always either a linking or a helping verb and never an action verb. I am well would theoretically never work because if we take "well" as an adverb, that means I am very good at being (I do "amming"? well). Obviously, that is not what it means. Well is a descriptor of my health here--in other words, an adjective. Therefore, it can go after the linking verbs "am" and "feel" (remember, in the context "I feel well", there is no object, making "feel" a linking verb).

So there you have the weirdness that is the word "well."

Tricky, indeed, especially if one is not a native English speaker.

"I feel good"

For years, I have just truncated the reply to " I'm good "

OK, so let’s say someone falls into a derek, deep well. Surfacing to the top of the water, the unlucky person, unable to see anything, reaches out their arms, trying to get a sense of their surroundings. As their fingertips reach the wall, which may have a bit of moss or other gunk adhering to its sides, they might exclaim, “I feel well!”

If their perception and sensitivity is particularly good, they could justifiably say, “I feel well well.”

Then they hear a buzzing, and a high-pitched voice starts reciting the letters in a word. “Oh, they exclaim, a spelling bee.”

Seriously, though, a substantial part of the past couple of months has been spent watching The Great British Baking Show on Netflix. I’ve resorted to putting on the closed captions, to be able to understand most of the spoken words.

People who score well are certainly often “chuffed!” I wonder where that word came from - it sounds like a respiratory condition.

It was also amusing/irksome when a Mexican-themed episode involved people making tacos. To a person, the pronunciation was with a short “a,” as in “hat.” On a trip to Norway earlier this year, even Norwegians pronounced the name with an “a” like when you open up and say “ahhhh.” So Norwegians sounded like Mexicans (and the vast majority of folks in the USA) when they said “taco,” except that Norwegians put feta cheese and weird fruit ingredients in theirs. The baking contestants did sound like French when pronouncing some French pastry preparations and techniques - many I’d not heard of. Maybe bakers all speak the same language. Spelling some of those words, though, might not be so easy.

@HowlinMad

I appreciate your explanation and your willingness to discuss this.

I will concede this: it is true that "well" is sometimes used as an adjective with "linking" verbs or what I usually call "copula-like" verbs by some speakers of English. A patient might in fact respond to a doctor's question like "How do you feel today?" with "well" or "I feel well."

But honestly, MY particular native-speaker intuition bristles at "well" here. It's unnatural, or elderly, or maybe overly formal. It is not a response I would normally give.

Of course, if the doctor asked, "Are you feeling well today?" then I might in fact adopt his/her grammar for the purpose of being respectful and respond "Yes, pretty well." But I can't imagine using "well" here otherwise.

"How are you feeling today?" would more likely be met with something like the responses below.

- I feel pretty good / pretty healthy, thanks.
- Feeling good / healthy / OK / alright.

"Well" doesn't seem wrong, but it really doesn't seem right. Why? not? I think that's because it's just not a very "good" adjective. So why is my native-speaker intuition telling me this? What is my inner language mechanism thinking as I choose the right words? Maybe it's thinking like this...

• "Well" is used most commonly in as an adverb - and infrequenly as an adjective. It's used mostly with verbs of "action" (as you called them, HM) and not with linking verbs... (He doesn't drive well - She sings well.)... But the doctor wants to know how I am. I'm good/healthy/OK... those all sound better than that wannabe adjective "well."

• As an adjective, "well" seems kind of weak... not versatile at all. "Healthy" is probably better... ("I feel like a healthy adult" sounds OK. "I feel like a well adult"?? That's just wrong. "Well" is awkward... use a real adjective, Russ.

• "Feel" in the question is a copular verb, like "am", so it should not be followed by an adverb, but a "real" adjective - like "good."

I acknowledge once again here that SOME people (you, other people I do not know) might intuitively feel that "well" has solid adjective status - and that those folks are not harming the language with "feel well." I simply do not feel that way. And to be honest, I don't personally know people who in normal conversation choose to use "well" in the linguistic context you have provided. I will have to pay closer attention to that.

I have of course heard AND understood the prescriptive grammarians who insist that "feel well" is proper. Their explanation is not tricky. Unfortunately, IMO, these "language police" deem variations from their brand of proper to be "improper." They see their rules as the final word. I recall a high school English teacher insisting that prepositions could never end sentences - that was student writing behavior he refused to put up with. Heh heh.

But language doesn't change - or remain static - because of prescriptive grammarians. Right and Wrong are constantly being redefined. Usage and rules are in constant flux. Language is actually driven by the linguistic intuitions of native speakers themselves. When the rules of English are written or taught, learners need to understand that the language is constantly evolving, that rules vary by linguistic community, that one rule rarely captures what really goes on in any living, breathing language.

"So if you ask me how I feel, "I feel well" means I am healthy while "I feel good" means I am happy."

Interesting.

If I asked you how you feel out of the blue (with no conversational context) I would have no idea from either of those responses whether you were commenting on your health, or your happiness.

If I asked the same question with your HEALTH as the defined context, EITHER of those two response would tell me that your health is good. Neither response would be improper.

@Russ
To put up with is what is called a phrasal verb, meaning that the prepositions are part of the verb and therefore could be used at the end of the sentence. To put, to put up, and to put up with all have different meanings--a good clue that the prepositions are part of the verb.

Copular is simply another term for linking verb. They are the forms of to be (is, am, are, was, were, be, being, been), to seem, to appear, to become, and sometimes the senses (and, as you mentioned, in certain contexts, to get, which is used in lieu of to become). There are 23 helping verbs (is, am, are, was, were, be, being, been, have, has, had, do, does, did, can, could, shall, should, will, would, may, might, must). Some can also be linking, some can be action, and some can only ever be helping verbs working with another verb. All other verbs are action verbs.

Well is usually an adverb and is the adverbial form of good. This is why it sounds weird to say "I feel well." The linking verb/adverb combo can sound subconsciously incorrect. And indeed many people would argue that it IS wrong using the adverb argument. "I am well" sounds better because it is most commonly associated with the question "how," which is pretty much answered by adverbs (adjectives answer which one / what kind / how many). How? Well. But in point of fact, the grammar police would say that "I am well" is grammatically incorrect. The grammar police would be wrong because well is the adjective form of wellness, not an adverb, in this case.

But we know that language is fluid and messy, so the grammar police need not be called. We also know that context matters and that most people wouldn't necessarily consciously know the healthy vs. happy rule of thumb--and in fact, many wouldn't know it subconsciously. But now you know! Sort of like most people don't know that "hanged" is used for people--"hanged by the neck until dead" while "hung" is used for everything else. But that is the technical distinction. And of course at the end of the day, both answers are correct, assuming you are in a good physical and mental state.

It isn't actually tricky until you are trying to learn the language and a non-native speaker questions why you are using an adverb with a linking verb. Then it is helpful to have some rules they can use.

@HM

To put up with is what is called a phrasal verb...

I'm aware... also aware that my "put-up-with" sentence was fully grammatical in standard English. It was tossed in as an example of the school-marm's schoolhouse-prohibited utterances! Not because I object to phrasal verbs. I think it's correct to say that you and I share an identical or nearly identical knowledge base of the standard systems of English grammar and that while we don't employ precisely the same terms, we understand each other's terms and don't need to review or define them fully.

Let's summarize our positions using the context of health.

Well is usually an adverb and is the adverbial form of good. This is why it sounds weird to say "I feel well...."

Right - this was my point - but it was also that the average native speaker ACTS on this weirdness; since an adjective would feel better here - and because "well" does not feel like an adjective to most of us - the speaker/patient intentionally AVOIDS the use of "well" after "feel" and hunts down a real adjective. It is usually a very short hunt that turns up the word "good." In the same way that "well" is the adverbial form of "good," "good" is the adjectival form of "well." Very handy. So the typical speaker/patient tells the doctor he "feels good" (with only his state of phyisical health in mind.) This IME is a significantly more common response than "feels well."

But you object to "good" after "feel" on these grounds...

1) You are saying that after "feel", "well" is the correct adjective - even if it feels weirdly adverbial - partly because "well" is capable of morphing from its more usual adverb status into an adjective within the context of health:

"...in this context, well is not the adverbial form of good, but the adjective form of wellness or health. A very fine distinction that really only applies here."

2) You refer to a "healthy vs. happy rule of thumb" which disqualifies the word "good" after "feel" in health discussions; "good" might inappropriately switch the discussion from health to one of mood/state of mind.

3) Also, because the doctor might have asked "How" as in "How do you feel?" - and because "how" is intended to elicit adverbial responses - the speaker/patient should stay in line with the grammar of the doctor's question and respond with the adverb "well."

My thoughts, assuming I have your position roughly correct...

3) It appears inconsistent for the "well" in "feel well" to be both adverbial and adjectival in the same phrase. A patient's utterance is not strongly tied to the grammar of the doctor's question.

2) "Well" and "good" are different parts of speech but semantic twins that perform well in all arenas including discussions of mental state and physical health with the verb "feel." Native speakers probably do not naturally assign "well" to physical health or "good" to mental state without instruction and an accompanying tendency toward obedience. A red flag for spotting prescriptive grammar rules or rules of thumb is that the rule-staters tie them to specific situations; actual grammar rules don't typically behave that way. The rule of thumb IMO is arbitrary/prescriptive and not derived from actual native-speaker behavior. If the patient says, "I feel good," the doctor will find the response informative and on-topic.

1) I'm fine with those who use "feel well" exclusively in the physical health context. It's not clearly ungrammatical, just stilted. "Feel good" is widely used in both contexts, fully grammatical, and not inappropriate or off-topic in either of the contexts.

Bees … are they just an American thing, I wonder? Spelling, sewing, maybe others?

The Great British Sewing Bee on the BBC has just wrapped up its 9th season with a Celebrity Christmas Special 2023. Does that count? I've never watched it - I prefer vehicles on 2 or 4 wheels buzzing about racing each other... and that's out of season for a month.

@Russ

I am not sure why you feel the need to debate.

--I explained a phrasal verb is. I could not speak to your level of knowledge. I simply shared mine for anyone who has heard this and wondered.

--I didn't "object" to good after feel. I simply pointed out that if one wants to get technical, this is the destinction. Most of us (myself included) would still say "I feel good" for precisely the reason you described. Then I explained the grammatical nuance that allows for what sounds like incorrect grammar (adverb after a linking verb).

--"Well" in the context of health is NOT an adverb, but an adjective. Therefore it is grammatically correct to say "I feel well" even as most of us would instead say "I feel good." Both are grammatically correct, and of course context determines the meaning, regardless of which one technically should have been used.

--Grammatical exceptions exist all the time. See my example about hanging. And sometimes people learn rules that don't fully apply but are "technically" correct. We saw the phrasal verb example, but another common one people think they know is that one shouldn't start a sentence with a conjunction. This is neither colloquially true (see my above sentence beginning with "and") nor true formal writing. However, formal writing does allow for it, but again, grammatical complexities are in play (a coordinating conjunction can become a subordinating conjunction). We even have a very common but oddly specific exception. The apostrophe s is used to indicate possession--except on the word its, where the apostrophe is not used because it's trumped by the use of the apostrophe to indicate a contraction.

--Rules of thumb or the description of something as technically correct may be applied as a result of usage (slang is a great example), but it may also be a vestigial rule, tied to an archaic distinction or even an etymological one. But they ARE derived from how we use the language. And over time, these distinctions may be lost in common usage or only used by people who have learned them. Language is fluid. Rules create structure, particularly for language learners, but rules can also inhibit expression or hinder comprehension. Therefore, they should not be taken as religious truths, but as guidelines for those who want to know.

My point was mostly that there WAS a grammatical explanation for the "I feel / am good" / "I feel / am well" that means that any of those options is grammatically correct. And if anyone cared, there is a technical distinction in usage that the Sheldon Coopers among us might enjoy, even if most of us will use whatever feels most comfortable.

@HM

"Debate" ... For me this is a very frivolous but still interesting topic that was fun to dig into a bit.

--"Well" in the context of health is NOT an adverb, but an adjective. Therefore it is grammatically correct to say "I feel well" even as most of us would instead say "I feel good."

I think we have agreed all along that "feel well," for those people who actually use "well" after "feel" (or "seem", or "is/are") in their normal everyday conversations - is "correct"... correct inasmuch as it is used naturally and systematically by those people.

The rest of us who instead use "good" naturally and systematically are equally "correct" on the same grounds, at a minimum, and more in line with the grammar patterns of linking verbs as well, I think.

The only real point of "debate" here is one that Susan tossed in - that the rest of us who use "good" are exercising "bad grammar," and should instead use "well."

AFAIK, no one is telling the "well" users that they need to use "good" instead. So I guess I am debating any finger-wagging "well" folks specifically and the grammar police more generally.

The "well" folks seem much like the "may" people who tell the "can" people that they are using "can" way too often. And a lot of times, the grammar police end up using the exact same "bad grammar" they are trying to eliminate. It's a losing battle for them, usually because "bad" grammar like "feel good" is typically more consistent with the rest of the language than the "good grammar" is.