employee

[Abstract Idea]

I have never heard of employe with one 'e'. Nor for any of the words that PROESL has listed ending with 'ee'.
"Employee" can be pronounced with the stress on any of the syllables, though if you stress the first, you'd also stress the first.

I wonder where Merriam-Webster got 'employe' from? Perhaps they've taken to listing any mistake that gains some modicum of currency.

Yep Raymott, and that is a important reminder for all of us. We cannot accept anything that online dictionaries, translators, linguistic softwares in general, or the general spread out use on internet tell us. We know that languages are 'alive' and keep changing, but that should be a little slower and with great care. That is the reason while I still prefer a good traditional printed dicitionary.

[PROESL]

Yep Raymott, and that is a important reminder for all of us. We cannot accept anything that online dictionaries, translators, linguistic softwares in general, or the general spread out use on internet tell us. We know that languages are 'alive' and keep changing, but that should be a little slower and with great care. That is the reason while I still prefer a good traditional printed dicitionary.

Answers.com, so I've been told, has the same content as the printed version of the American Heritage Dictionary. I believe the major dictionaries that are online maintain the same content as the printed version. This is just a consideration that I feel is at least somewhat noteworthy in the context of where this discussion has headed.

Although the spelling "employe" is not as common as "employee", it is apparently in widespread use to some degree: employe - Google Search=. I didn't know that until I checked. I don't feel that we should necessarily dismiss online resources as being less reliable than print resources. One must exercise caution when using online reference material, but one could say the same thing about printed material. Here's an example: 50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education

By the way, Google usually asks "Did you mean *******?" when you mispell a word, or it thinks you mispelled a word. That did not happen when I typed "employe". I think we should conclude that this spelling exists, is used, and is correct.

[Raymott]

I think we should conclude that this spelling exists, is used, and is correct.

Yes, it seems to be used in some American contexts.

[PROESL]

Yes, it seems to be used in some American contexts.

Do you think anyone uses this spelling - employe - in British English or "Commonwealth English"?

[Abstract Idea]

Answers.com, so I've been told, has the same content as the printed version of the American Heritage Dictionary. I believe the major dictionaries that are online maintain the same content as the printed version. This is just a consideration that I feel is at least somewhat noteworthy in the context of where this discussion has headed.

The spelling "employe" is not as common as "employee", it is, apparently in widespread use to some degree: employe - Google Search=. I didn't know that until I checked. I don't feel that we should necessarily dismiss online resources as being less reliable than print resources. On must exercise caution when using online reference material, but could say the same thing about printed material. Here's an example: 50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education

By the way, Google usually asks "Did you mean *******?" when you mispell a word, or it thinks you mispelled word. That did not happen when I typed "employe". I think we should conclude that this spelling exists, is used, and is correct.

Thanks once more for your precious information PROESL. In a sense I have to agree with you.

But what I was trying to say is that, at least for a non native speaker as I am, it is very difficult to distingish the reliable fonts from the not so reliable ones. And indeed it is not so difficult for anyone construct a web site, with whatever content you want, and to put it on high rank position on google or other web search engines. And it is somewhat more difficult to have a reference book edited and printed.

Since English is a widespread language throughout the world, I believe much more care has to be taken regarding its 'correct usage'.

By the way I have noticed English is not a "regulated" language. I mean, for example, on the wikipedia page English language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
states: "Regulated by: no official regulation"

[Raymott]

Do you think anyone uses this spelling - employe - in British English or "Commonwealth English"?

I suppose they might, since it derives from French employé.
It’s not used in Australia. Someone else can answer for other places.

[PROESL]

I suppose they might, since it derives from French employé.
It’s not used in Australia. Someone else can answer for other places.

Some people in the UK use the spelling "employe", just as some people do in the US.

Do you think there's any chance at all that some people use the spelling "employe" in Australia?

[Raymott]

Some people in the UK use the spelling "employe", just as some people do in the US.
Yes, I already said they probably do, since it's derived from the French.
Do you think there's any chance at all that some people use the spelling "employe" in Australia?

Oh, I see. Your were being cute with your question.
Well, let me see ...
If I say probably not, you'll post an article you've found from Australia, using "employe". In any case, I wouldn't bother to suggest that there is no chance at all.
So, I'll go with: certainly there's a chance. I have not read all articles from Australia with employee/employe in them. But it would be unusual, otherwise I would have come across it by now.

But let's cut to the chase. I said:
"Yes, it seems to be used in some American contexts." and you are leading me through an inductive process by which I learn that it is occasionally used elsewhere too. I believe I have learnt my lesson, but I will leave that assessment to you.

[PROESL]

Oh, I see. Your were being cute with your question.
Well, let me see ...
If I say probably not, you'll post an article you've found from Australia, using "employe". In any case, I wouldn't bother to suggest that there is no chance at all.
So, I'll go with: certainly there's a chance. I have not read all articles from Australia with employee/employe in them. But it would be unusual, otherwise I would have come across it by now.

But let's cut to the chase. I said:
"Yes, it seems to be used in some American contexts." and you are leading me through an inductive process by which I learn that it is occasionally used elsewhere too. I believe I have learnt my lesson, but I will leave that assessment to you.

Okay, here it is: employe - Google Search=

Twenty-one thousand is at least a few, relative to the entire population of Australia, of course.

And there are just a few more from New Zealand.

employe - Google Search=

I've always used the spelling "employee" and can only recall reading it that way. This other spelling, "employe", was news to me, which only goes to prove my theory that even I don't know everything.

[PROESL]

Thanks once more for your precious information PROESL. In a sense I have to agree with you.

But what I was trying to say is that, at least for a non native speaker as I am, it is very difficult to distingish the reliable fonts from the not so reliable ones. And indeed it is not so difficult for anyone construct a web site, with whatever content you want, and to put it on high rank position on google or other web search engines. And it is somewhat more difficult to have a reference book edited and printed.

Since English is a widespread language throughout the world, I believe much more care has to be taken regarding its 'correct usage'.

By the way I have noticed English is not a "regulated" language. I mean, for example, on the wikipedia page English language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
states: "Regulated by: no official regulation"

Yes, English is not regulated. English speakers don't have an "Academy" to defer to, or refer to, as Spanish and French speakers do, for example. As I understand it, the French do not often defer to their "Academy" anyway.