|
|
rediculous
Hi
Why is that many Americans and British spell REDICULOUS instead of RIDICULOUS? Will the incorrect spelling become acceptable (just like LENSE, which is now considered correct, by some US dictionaries, along with LENS). What do you think?
I don't think I've ever seen that spelling before. But while we're on the subject, I'd add that I'd love to see a revival of the now archaic but more etymologically correct spellings "connexion, reflexion, inflexion".
There was a version of MS Word that marked "ridiculous" wrong and "rediculous" as correct.
I wouldn't use those spellings in something I was writing for class, but I like to use them elsewhere. In fact, from now on, those are the spellings I'm going to use on this forum.
For a second, I thought you meant you'd spell "ridiculous" as "rediculous". In that case, I would have to hit you. ;)
- Kef
<< Perhaps it might due to the fact that both letters require the use of the middle finger on a keyboard. >>
How many people type properly, though? I only use the index finger of my left hand for hitting the number and letter keys. It's very incorrect, but I still type pretty darn fast, so I've never bothered to learn to type properly. - Kef
Only American can be proud of their laziness and failures. How very ignorant!
I never said I was *proud* of not typing properly, if that's what you're talking about. I don't see why it should be a problem, though. The bottom line is whether I can type quickly and accurately enough, and I can.
Although reflexion is etimologically more correct the problem is that all of the variants are pronounced with a ct sound. For example you say "refelected" not "reflexed" nor "reflexes". But I have doubts because in both Spanish and English we write refleCTor instead of refleXor (in Spanish with x it's only used whrn describing a muscle)
<<I wouldn't use those spellings in something I was writing for class, but I like to use them elsewhere. In fact, from now on, those are the spellings I'm going to use on this forum.>>
Using those archaic spellings is as rediculous as using "thou", "thee" and "ye" and the verb suffix "-est".
«Although reflexion is etimologically more correct the problem is that all of the variants are pronounced with a ct sound. For example you say "refelected" not "reflexed" nor "reflexes". But I have doubts because in both Spanish and English we write refleCTor instead of refleXor (in Spanish with x it's only used whrn describing a muscle)»
If I'm not mistaken, that is the justification that spelling reformers have used for the -ection spellings - that they're more consistent with the base verbs, like "connect", and with derivatives, like "reflector". However, this change makes English inconsistent with every other language that has cognates of these words - look at Spanish "conexión", Portuguese "conexão", French "connexion", Italian "reflessione" (not "reflezione"), and German "Reflexion", and the original Latin "connexio, reflexio". So why the need for English exceptionalism? Furthermore, rather than being a true simplification, like "fantasy" for "phantasy", or "esthetic" for "æsthetic", I would say that this change is simply a case of false etymology: the original spelling is in fact the simpler one. «as rediculous» You're joking, right? «as using "thou", "thee" and "ye" and the verb suffix "-est".» No, if only because a return to the -exion spellings would have no effect on speech. Furthermore, the -exion spellings remained in currency long after those old forms died out. In fact, Oxford dictionaries ( http://www.askoxford.com/dictionaries/?view=uk ) list "connexion" as an acceptable British variant to this day. |