English Language & Usage: Multi-Layered Discourse Room

tchrist

12:03 AM

Marthaª

12:38 AM

@tchrist Those be not cats. I be disturbed.

KitFox

Hola, @Marthaª!

Cerberus

Here she is again!!

tchrist

Please consider this:

0

Q: Do any words have multiple correct spellings?

I can call to mind several words with another correct spelling (colour, analogue, disc, barbeque) but I can't think of any with multiple correct spellings, i.e. three or more equally acceptable, semantically identical variants of the same word. Do any exist?

I say this because I am conflicted.

I understand and agree with the close reason given by FF.

But I wish there were a definitive answer about this. I’m somewhat surprised there is not.

KitFox

Hmm.

tchrist

In other words, I’d rather see it closed as a dupe, if I could find one.

Cerberus

12:48 AM

Perhaps there is such a word.

But by "multiple" he means "more than two". He should have made that explicit.

tchrist

Have you noticed that the OED now uses an "or pipe" to separate alternate spellings?

colour | color

Cerberus

"Now"?

I only use the 2nd edition.

tchrist

Well, they started it about 8 years ago.

I mean on their online site.

And also on their quarterly updates!!

Which anybody can and should access.

Let me find a recent example from their updates for you.

Cerberus

I have to use my VPN to get on the site. It's too much work.

@tchrist Do they still include the century numbers?

tchrist

@Cerberus The quarterlies just list the words, unfortunately.

KitFox

12:52 AM

I'd like the question to be somehow more interesting.

Maybe if it were how you normally have three or more correct spellings, given that what's seemly is BrE v. AmE variants.

Cerberus

I'm sure if you wade through the OED you'll find some word that has 3 or more current spellings.

tchrist

@Cerberus Here. That is this month’s new entries. Go to the complete bottom of the page. Note Charley | Charlie n.

Marthaª

I'm not finding any duplicates of that spelling question, btw.

tchrist

@Cerberus I don’t wade. I grep.

Cerberus

@tchrist Yes. I suppose that is clear enough?

KitFox

12:54 AM

Show off.

Cerberus

@tchrist But I don't think you can grep this?

tchrist

@Cerberus I can see that you still do not fully understand whom you are addressing.

Marthaª

(I disagree that it's a list question, nor is it overly subjective.)

KitFox

@Marthaª I'm with you.

tchrist

So for example, the entry for colour looks like this:

<E>
  <HG>
    <HL>
      <LF>colour</LF>
      <SF>colour</SF>
      <MF>colour</MF>
    </HL><b>,</b>
    <HL>
      <LF>color</LF>
      <SF>color</SF>
      <MF>color</MF>
    </HL>
    <MPR>k<i>&reva.</i>&sd.l&schwa.&revr.</MPR>
    <IPR>
      <IPH>&sm.k&revv.l&schwa.(r)</IPH>
    </IPR>,
    <PS>sb.</PS>
    <HO>1</HO>
  </HG>

So all I have to do is grep out entries with more than two HL sections in their leading HG section.

Piece of cake.

Cerberus

12:57 AM

@tchrist But how will you know whether they are current or not?

KitFox

Then look for patterns and do some counts.

tchrist

crunching

Cerberus

I think you mean current spellings are all in the title of the entry, not in the "spellings" section?

tchrist

Oh my goodness.

Maybe I had best limit it to greater than 2. There are many with 2.

Few with more.

KitFox

Good night, good night. See you tomorrow. I can't wait to see the results of the amazing spelling experiment.

tchrist

1:06 AM

4: banderol, banderole, bandrol, bannerol

Now, this is interesting:

<E>
  <HG>
    <HL>
      <LF>banderol</LF>
      <LF>banderole</LF>
      <SF>banderol(e</SF>
      <MF>banderol(e</MF>
    </HL><b>,</b>
    <HL>
      <LF>bandrol</LF>
      <SF>bandrol</SF>
      <MF>bandrol</MF>
    </HL><b>,</b>
    <HL>
      <LF>bannerol</LF>
      <SF>bannerol</SF>
      <MF>bannerol</MF>
    </HL>

I was counting up the LFs.

And I see that the first one has two.

Oh, I see why.

They are using the SF or MF for printing.

The LF seems to be the expansion of the (e optional part.

Transcript for

English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…