Scott Horne wrote:
>
> > > Permissive dictionaries unwisely tolerate the omission of accent marks
> > > in those words.
> >
> > Dictionary authorities (not just Webster's) do not agree with you, nor do I or
> > any of the native English speakers I encounter.
>
> What do you mean by "Webster's"? Many dictionaries are published
> under that name or variants thereof.
This discussion just occurred on the American Dialect Society list. There are
several dictionaries published under the name of Webster's. There is also the
American Heritage Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Oxford, etc.
>
> > You can try to be prescriptivist with living languages,
>
> Not for nothing do we speak of _orthography_. The prevailing
> heterography has not improved English.
>
> > but they will continue
> > to evolve.
>
> The evolution of _résumé_ into _resume_ (ambiguous), _resumé_
> (incorrect), and even _resumè_ (godawful) was driven by laziness and
> ignorance. You may take the low road if you wish, but I shall
> take the high road. And I'll be in Scotland afore ye.
It is not laziness. English is a language with a rich etymology. Over time,
many words which came from elsewhere have been orthographically adapted, their
diacritics dropped, their original wirtten form changed, their meanings
altered. This is the nature of language evolution, which happens in the written
as well as the spoken form. An illustration of this is the difference even
between British English and American English spelling.
>
> (By the way, I do not need a lecture on descriptive/prescriptive
> linguistics.)
That was not a lecture. It was related to what happens to written language in
the course of time.
Andrea
-- Andrea Vine Sun Internet Mail Server i18n architect avine@eng.sun.com Romanes eunt domus.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:48 EDT