| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 962.1 | | SHALOT::ANDERSON | Brown for Messiah | Mon May 04 1992 07:24 | 6 |
| Not sure why you want the OED as your source (knowing it's all-
inclusiveness, it'll probably have both varieties), but my
dictionary (Merriam Webster's) has only "aging." "Ageism" seems
to be the only construction that keeps the "e."
-- Cliff
|
| 962.2 | Why OED? Xenophobia! | PAOIS::HILL | Another migrant worker! | Mon May 04 1992 08:41 | 9 |
| Cliff
Being xenophobic about spelling I'm seeking the English spelling used
in the UK.
My cheap Collins dictionary lists both spellings, so I was hoping the
OED might offer a preferred spelling.
Nick
|
| 962.3 | | FRMWRK::SMITH | Tom Smith AKO1-3/H4 dtn 244-7079 | Mon May 04 1992 13:38 | 8 |
| According to the Concise Oxford (8th edition), "aging" is a "variant"
of "ageing", which is the preferred form. Neither is noted as being
either British- or US-specific.
Webster's New World also gives both spellings, with no preference for
either and no notation that either one is British- or US-specific.
-Tom
|
| 962.4 | to add to the confusion | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | | Tue May 05 1992 08:25 | 6 |
|
...and the American Heritage lists "ageing" as the British
variant of "aging".
Di
|
| 962.5 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue May 05 1992 12:32 | 1 |
| This topic is getting old fast.
|
| 962.6 | Give it 5 more notes and it qualifies for... | RICKS::PHIPPS | | Tue May 05 1992 15:22 | 1 |
| SERP - Special Early Retirement Program
|
| 962.7 | | JIT081::DIAMOND | bad wiring. That was probably it. Very bad. | Wed May 06 1992 01:44 | 5 |
| >Not sure why you want the OED as your source (knowing it's all-
>inclusiveness, it'll probably have both varieties),
Do you know if their are Oxford grammer book's? We don't have much left
too loose....
|
| 962.8 | | SSDEVO::EGGERS | Anybody can fly with an engine. | Wed May 06 1992 08:10 | 1 |
| Four in 1+ lines. Very good! :-)
|
| 962.9 | hmmm | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | | Wed May 06 1992 09:47 | 5 |
|
>> Four in 1+ lines. Very good! :-)
I make that five, or were you just kidding?
|
| 962.10 | Re .7: yes and no | MARVIN::KNOWLES | Caveat vendor | Wed May 06 1992 09:54 | 25 |
| To answer .7's question, yes, but they don't have `Oxford' in the
title. Fowler's The King's English and Modern English Usage are both
published by OUP (and are held in the same esteem as the OED by OUP
editors). On points of OUP house style, there is Hart's Rules (now in
its 19th or 39th or nty ninth edition) to pontificate on things like
the possessive of Jesus. The nearest OUP gets to something about usage
with `Oxford' in the title is the Oxford Dictionary for Writers and
Editors (`ODWE' - formerly known as `Collins' - I don't know why). OUP
have just published on CD-ROM (or are about to publish it - I read
about it in a trade journal) a reference shelf that includes ODWE,
some small Oxford dict'y (smaller than The Smaller, smaller even than
the Concise or the Pocket; I think they call it the Mini), a thesaurus;
and a grammar reference (probably one of the Fowlers). But ODWE doesn't
say much about usage (just nit-picky points about quirks of spelling
and style: `"no one" but "nobody", "insofaras" but "in as much as"' -
that sort of thing.)
[Note: this reference shelf on CD-ROM has nothing to do with the
Compact OED, which is a two-volume hardcopy set that you read with
a magnifying glass. There is an online `OED' _service_ provided to
big customers (like newspapers); but ordinary punters still
have to use their eyes.]
b
|
| 962.11 | Re: .9 | SSDEVO::EGGERS | Anybody can fly with an engine. | Wed May 06 1992 13:49 | 1 |
| I missed one. It was late at night.
|
| 962.12 | | SSDEVO::EGGERS | Anybody can fly with an engine. | Wed May 06 1992 13:52 | 5 |
| Re: .10
>> ... to pontificate on things like the possessive of Jesus.
Well, that seems appropriate.
|
| 962.13 | The best ones are the millennial ones | MARVIN::KNOWLES | Caveat vendor | Thu May 07 1992 06:57 | 5 |
| Yes, that occurred to me. I tried to milk a laugh out of it, but
nothing very punchy came to mind. Perhaps they've got a word for
`pontifex' in Honk Kong.
b
|
| 962.14 | I see | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | | Fri May 08 1992 08:06 | 8 |
|
>> I missed one. It was late at night.
Somehow, I was certain there was a good explanation. Most
uncharacteristic of you. 8^)
Di
|