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! ;-) -- Michael
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
