Re: OT: Azurian.

>>> On 8/6/07, Elliott Lash <erelion12@...> wrote:
>>>> Then this was frequently lossed completely,
>>> Now that's a cute misspelling! And not even so unjustified (i.e. I can
>>> see how it could have been derived by analogy, for example).
>>>
>>> Worthy, perhaps, of a John Vertical :)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> --
>>> Philip Newton
>>
>> ...Should I parse that as "a johnvertical-smiley", or what? The "worthy of"
>> would seem to discourage an analysis as a simple synonym for "cute
>> misspelling"...
>
>As "a person like John Vertical (in some unspecified way)". The
>unspecified way, of course, is your habit of spelling with a non-
>standard orthography. Hence, it means:
>
>Now that's a cute and not unjustified misspelling, which might be good
>enough to be used by someone who, like John Vertical, uses a basis other
>than the standard to determine their spelling scheme.
>
>It is a fairly normal expression in English.
>
>--
>Tristan.
Oh, right... the "a" threw me off the loop here.

On the word itself tho, I could see some distinction between "lossed"
and "lost" - the former feels more like a causativ of some sort. OTOH,
since "lost" is one of the few exceptions to the rule of <o> being /o/
before /st/, there would also be some sense in adopting this as a respelling.
After this discussion, I might even be obliged to. :)

John Vertical

Reply