Re: The one already done

[AIRPORT]
At 3:56 pm -0400 30/6/01, David Peterson wrote:
>In a message dated 6/30/01 9:23:07 AM, pbrown@POLARIS.UMUC.EDU writes:
>
><< Cos English was too hard for us to spell right; so after tossing
>all the tea into Bristol Channel we decided to spell "hard" words
>like 'aerodrome' and 'lift' and 'biscuit' as 'airport' and 'elevator'
>and 'cooky'. >>
>
>    You mean "cookie", right?  And you guys actually call airports
>"aerodromes"?!
Not sure who you mean "you guys".  But here in Britain we call airports
_airports_.

At 1:31 pm +1000 1/7/01, tristan alexander mcleay wrote:
>O'Connell James wrote:
>
> >Americans use the word airport to mean aerodrome -
> >that's rather a shift in meaning :)
> >
>
>Is that no matter the size? I've always used airport for big ones (like
>Tullamarine Airport (aka Melbourne Airport)) and aerodrome for smaller
>ones (Geelong Aerodrome). I always thought this was normal usage.
To which at 11:46 pm -0400 30/6/01, John Cowan wrote:
[snip]
>
>I believe that the true American equivalent of "aerodrome" is
>"airfield".  An Air Force base is an airfield, but it is not
>an airport, e.g.
Yes, so too here in Britain.  "Aerodrome" to me has a somewhat archaic ring
to it.  Those with long memories who can still recall thae airfield at
Croydon being the main airport for London may talk nostalgically about
"Croydon Aerodrome".

But current Brit usage seems to be in line with American - maybe the result
of post-war American influence   :)
----------------------------------------------------------------

[O(U)R]
At 3:10 am -0400 1/7/01, John Cowan wrote:
>tristan alexander mcleay scripsit:
>
>> Also, does anyone know Webster's logic behind respelling 'colour' as
>> "color", but not 'source' as "sorce", which, being a stressed vowel,
>> would need it more, IMHO.
>
>Webster was basically merging the suffixes "-our" and "-or", which have
>for many centuries been pronounced the same.  As a consequence,
>he cleaned up the derivatives:  why "honour" and "honourable"
>but "honorific"?
>
>(There is a theory that "-or" is used only for Latin derivatives,
>and "-our" for words that came in through French, but this has
>been shown to be false.)
It is.  What is more, Webster was merely carrying through a trend or reform
that had already started in Britain.  The older spellings _terrour_ and
_horrour_ had already given way to _terror_ and _horror_; there was a
definite trend to simplify the Norman French ending -our to just plain -or,
partly for the reasons that John gave above.

Sadly, my fellow countrymen seem to have reacted to Webster's wholesale
simplification by resolutely holding onto the -our spelling where the
change had not yet been effected and raised the -our spelling as a
shibboleth.

>Webster's treatment of "-er" and "-re" was founded on the same
>principle.
Yep - a sensible reform IMHO and greeted with same silly reaction here
where my fellow countrymen happily write _enter_, tho etymologically
'entre' would be expected, but with lack of logic appeal to etymology when
writing _centre_   {sigh}

In fact, of course, the -o(u)r and -re/-er endings are all pronounced the
same.  I would write the whole damn lot simply as -r, e.g. entr.

BTW I agree that the -our- in 'source' is a different sound than the -o(u)r
in 'colour'

Ray.

=========================================
A mind which thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language.
                   [J.G. Hamann 1760]
=========================================