On 06 Jul, 2004, at 09:06 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:
I'd like to point out, again, that no one in this discussion has called anyone else ignorant, stupid, or uncouth.

Well, sure -- as Mark said, this list is remarkably civil compared to some.


<devil's advocate>Is "uncouth" merely the "conventional" way of spelling that word?

Yes.

Am I not allowed to say that spelling it "uncooth" is incorrect, because that would imply that there are objective standards for spelling? </devil's advocate>

Of course there are no objective standards for spelling. You'll notice that conventional standards for spelling vary from time to time and place to place.


However, I will freely admit that I did not intend to write "uncooth", that "uncouth" is far, far more widely accepted and widely used (90 000+ Google hits for "uncouth" versus 895 for "uncooth"), and that I have no particular rational reason to go against the grain in this case. Given all of that, I'm pretty comfortable calling "uncooth" a mistake on my part.

- Darcy

-----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY

_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Reply via email to