Q. I would like to suggest you change the official spelling of the word weird to wierd. This makes more sense, as it goes along with the old adage, "i before e except after c." Not only that, but it makes sense because the "ie" would make a long "e" sound like in the word smoothie.

A. Unfortunately, we can't simply change the spelling of a word at whim. For a word to be entered in our dictionaries, it must meet three criteria: widespread usage in well-read publications; established usage over a certain period of time; and an easily discernable definition. For your new spelling to be entered we would need to see it in a number of well-read and carefully-edited sources for a good number of years.

Additionally, the "i before e" rule, like many "rules" of English grammar and orthography, is too simplistic to be complete and accurate. "I before e, except after c" is always going to have more appeal than something more useful like 'i before e, except after c — unless it's in words with "sh" sounds like conscience and glacier, or in comparatives like juicier and fancier — or when sounded as a long "a" in neighbor and weigh, or when sounded as a long "e" in leisure and seize, or when sounded as a long "i" in sleight or height, or in other seemingly random exceptions like science and weird. You can see what a mess would result if this "rule" were actually enforced.

Q. My friend and I have been discussing the word than and its functions as a preposition and as a conjunction. We can't seem to figure out whether "smarter than I" or "smarter than me" is grammatically correct. Are both acceptable?

A. Both "smarter than I" and "smarter than me" are regarded as correct, though the function of than in each phrase is technically different. In "smarter than I," than is regarded as a conjunction joining two clauses, with the implied verb form am following the subjective pronoun I: "He is smarter than I (am)." In "smarter than me," than is regarded as a preposition, with the objective pronoun me serving as the object of that preposition.

Q. Shouldn't the wording of the definition for intrude be "one who" rather than "one that"?

A. It can sound a little odd, but we use "one that" instead of "one who" when we have evidence for the referent being something other than human. In the case of intruder — which our unabridged dictionary, Webster's Third New International, defines in part as "one that intrudes" — our usage files have examples of various non-human things being referred to as an intruder, for example, parasites, a raccoon, a transplanted organ, an aircraft, and cockroaches.