tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27606211.post114690857794205085..comments2010-07-31T08:29:03.456-04:00Dick Margulishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10169512038331158003noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27606211.post-1147368131216601872006-05-11T13:22:00.000-04:002006-05-11T13:22:00.000-04:00Gordon,<BR/><BR/>I'm sure you know that Greeley did not originate "Go West, young man," but quoted someone less well known, <A HREF="http://www.trivia-library.com/b/origins-of-sayings-go-west-young-man.htm" REL="nofollow">John Soule</A>, and has been credited with it ever since.<BR/><BR/>That aside, you make a good point. A great deal of Elizabethan speech is preserved in Appalachia, both in vocabulary and in pronunciation. I think, though, that we have to acknowledge the extent to which Webster made a conscious, politically motivated decision to differentiate US English from British English through the mechanism of spelling reform.<BR/><BR/>Actually, now that I think about it, this may have been the most successful effort ever undertaken at spelling reform in English. Individual words have migrated in their spelling over the ensuing years, but organized efforts have generally failed (mostly, I think, because they were based on the wrong principles).<BR/><BR/>DickDick Margulishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02218958799767833798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27606211.post-1147366507920624192006-05-11T12:55:00.000-04:002006-05-11T12:55:00.000-04:00In many if not most cases the US forms are the older forms - for instance the 'ize' endings which some US spell checkers insist on inserting. If you read literature of the 18th century in the original English you will see that the spellings often resemble modern US rather than UK variants. <BR/><BR/>This is down to different evolutionary systems. <BR/>For similar reasons the UK dispensed with the Grand Jury aeons ago while the US legal system still uses the institution as a lynchpin. <BR/><BR/>So in many cases if you want to see the original UK systems still in use, as Horace Greely famously said ...<BR/><BR/>Gordon HillAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27606211.post-1147090835286457322006-05-08T08:20:00.000-04:002006-05-08T08:20:00.000-04:00Hi, rww.<BR/><BR/>You are free to spell any word any way you like, of course. I would not presume to dictate to you that only one way is correct. I suggested, and still maintain, that a reader who wants to know whether a self-published book has been edited (by an independent editor, rather than by the author's cousin) can use this quick test.<BR/><BR/>There is no law against an author's publishing an unedited book or self-consciously insisting on unconventional spellings, just as there is no rule that says such books are of less value than more conventionally edited books. Readers can buy what they want to buy.<BR/><BR/>My rule of thumb works, regardless, for those who choose to apply it.<BR/><BR/>As to whether an editorial convention is a foolish consistency or an aid to communication, well, you have your opinion and I have mine. Fortunately, my clients share mine.<BR/><BR/>DickDick Margulishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02218958799767833798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27606211.post-1147089931496189922006-05-08T08:05:00.000-04:002006-05-08T08:05:00.000-04:00"Flip to the front and see if <I>Acknowledgments</I> is spelled correctly."<BR/><BR/>So after arguing that this spelling is a self-fulfilling prophecy, you still state that only it is correct?<BR/><BR/>Well, then, by all means let us make the plurals of <I>badge</I> and <I>ridge, badgs</I> and <I>ridgs,</I> since we have added suffixes to them as well.<BR/><BR/>A foolish inconsistency? Perhaps, but I find it just as foolish to say that because I go along with Noah Webster dropping the <I>u</I> from <I>honor</I> and <I>color,</I> I must also follow his lead in dropping the <I>e</I> from these other words.Random Walk Writerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01819523018896952064noreply@blogger.com