On Saturday 06 July 2002 06:02 pm, Michael Adams wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 03:41, Sridhar Dhanapalan wrote:
> > On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 18:20:37 +0000, robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Sridhar Dhanapalan wrote:
> > > >On Thu, 4 Jul 2002 19:56:16 -0400, "D. Olson"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>Oh, and it's not in my dictionaries
> > > > either...
> > > >
> > > >>http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=virii
> > > >>http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=viruses
> > > >>http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=virii
> > > >
> > > >Try using a _real_ English dictionary, like, say, the Oxford
> > > > Dictionary.
> > >
> > > "Virii" is not in the OED either (neither is "viri"). The plural is
> > > given as "viruses".
> >
> > Was it the full version OED? I'm pretty sure I saw it in there somewhere.
> > I could've been wrong, though -- it's been a while :)
> >
> > > BTW, while I'm a big fan of the OED, I would have to count
> > > Merriam-Webster as "a real English dictionary".
> >
> > Webster started his dictionary because he wanted to 'reform' the English
> > language. He had certain kooky ideas about English, and he was the
> > originator of today's 'American' spellings. Apparently, he also wanted to
> > change words like 'tongue' to 'tung' but some other people stopped him
> > before he went too far out to the deep end. Nevertheless, much of the
> > 'reform' continued. I can't trust any work that has such an agenda; it's
> > just not academically ethical.
>
> There has been a big movement out there for years to adapt English as she
> is written to a more phonetic version. I am all for it. But the
> establishment is so wrapped up in the history and entomology of words that
> it is proving impossible to get any real movement. Until the development of
> the dictionary, written English was a living breathing language (read
> Chaucer, as the first author to write in "spoken" English rather than
> Latin, French or the other classical languages).
>
> There is a groundswell happening since the mobile and texting that has seen
> much spelling reduced in a corrupted way. "c u at McD @ 5pm" is familiar to
> any college student now.
>
> The NZ school system is now not correcting young students spelling. The
> theory is not to penalise them while getting thier ideas onto paper.
>
> Foreign students have complained for years about the dificulty of learning
> English. The problem is it is a mongrel composed from so many roots. The
> written language compounds this by insisting on hanging on to many
> different root spellings, so that now we have examples like "...ough"
> having no less than four pronunciations (though, through, plough[plow for
> you yanks], thought).
>
> Personally, i would like to see written English be a living breathing
> language and dictionaries keep up with modern phonetic usage ie insert
> "kewl" alongside "cool". But dictionaries once written are seen as
> standards and "the law" and the spelling given too often used wothout
> questioning it for years add-infinitum. I like using "program" instead of
> "programme" as i see no benefit from the latter. I just wish the
> establishment were more flexible in considering the <b>gradual</b> adoption
> of a phonetic adaptation.
>
> What i am ranting about is the same mentality that keeps people using
> Microsoft Windows despite the alternatives. Be careful what you espouse
> Sridhar! ;-)
George Bernard Shaw once noted that the word "fish" could properly be spelled
"ghoti" using well-established English spellings: "gh" as in "laugh", "o" as
in "women", and "ti" as in "information". I guess the moral is to steer clear
of becoming involved in writing English-text-to-speech software. ("Daddy, why
isn't 'plough' be pronounced 'plowf'?")
As a side note, has anyone ever calculated the cumulative cost of time, ink
and paper that is wasted on all of of those extra u's used in British
spelling?
-- cmg
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
