Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 11:21:03 +0530 From: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in> To: Mark Ovens <mark@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> Cc: Brad Knowles <blk@skynet.be>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BSDCon East Message-ID: <20000412112102.B1588@theory5.physics.iisc.ernet.in> In-Reply-To: <20000411222112.B235@parish>; from mark@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org on Tue, Apr 11, 2000 at 10:21:13PM %2B0100 References: <38F11BBA.0137@funbox.demon.co.uk> <v04220805b5174e9bbae6@[195.238.21.91]> <20000411222112.B235@parish>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I would have to say that *the* canonical reference to the English > language is the OED and that Webster is probably the American > equivalent. Yes, but the OED doesn't necessarily represent existing usage accurately. It contains a lot of editorialising and attempts to shape the future of the language. My favourite example is "Shakspere" -- they admit that the more common spelling is "perh. Shakespeare". This is the first edition, I haven't checked what the newer edition says. > My favourite spelling difference is where the English (for the most > part) actually get it wrong. Words ending ~ize are almost always > spelled ~ise here (in books, newspapers etc) yet the OED shows ~ize to > be correct, and it is only in recent versions of the OED that ~ise > appears as an *alternative*. No, the first edition lists -ise as a frequent alternative. I think this is also an example of trying to influence future usage rather than representing current usage faithfully. I've never seen -ize in English books older than the mid-20th century: it's always -ise (in analogy with -ism and -ist). To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000412112102.B1588>