At 16:29 +0100 2002-04-29, William Overington wrote: >Michael Everson wrote as follows. > >>The New Oxford gives "font" as the primary spelling and lists (Brit. > >also fount). In the IT world, nobody uses "fount". Rather like > >"program" which is ubiquitous for software, while "programme" remains > >for broadcasting and printed fliers. > >An interesting paradox concerning the Oxford English Dictionary is that many >people regard it as stating what are the correct definitions of words. Yet >the Oxford English Dictionary itself states something along the lines that >it does not seek to say what are the correct definitions of words but simply >reports the usages that people make of words.
That's right, and by listing "fount" as a secondary "also" form it shows that even in European English "fount" is not very common. >I always use the spelling "program" when referring to software and >"programme" when referring to a television programme. I think that many >people in England do that, it is as if they are two entirely different words >that happen to sound the same! I pointed out that that >For the avoidance of doubt for an international audience, the Oxford English >Dictionary is the twenty volume set with full etymological information. >There are also other dictionaries, typically one volume, in the same range >of dictionaries, of various types. I was citing the New Oxford Dictionary of English, published 2001. >The 20 volume set seems to be widely >available in many (all or almost all?) public libraries in England. It is a >very valuable facility to be able to go into a public library and use such a >comprehensive etymological dictionary. Does the twenty volume Oxford >English Dictionary tend to be available on the shelves of many public >libraries in other parts of the world please? It was in the University of Arizona library in the early 1980s, if that is indicative at all. -- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
