Re:The word “lox” hasn't changed in sound or meaning in 8k y...
by bovine3dom on Wednesday May 15, 2019 @02:29AM
(#19916899)
You just need to find en-GB-oxendict [1]. Oxford spelling is used quite heavily in academia so it ought to be easy to burglarise ;)
Re:The word “lox” hasn't changed in sound or meaning in 8k y...
by kwhitefoot on Friday May 17, 2019 @04:04PM
(#19943045)
Shouldn't that be burglarize? Except of course that in British English it would just be burgle.
Re:The word “lox” hasn't changed in sound or meaning in 8k y...
by bovine3dom on Friday May 17, 2019 @04:14PM
(#19943146)
Yeah - it was a joke :)
Re:The word “lox” hasn't changed in sound or meaning in 8k y...
by dboreham on Wednesday May 15, 2019 @07:23AM
(#19918304)
Hmm...somewhere in Scotland other than where I grew up. For me gotten only existed in US movies, and "I'll gotten gains".
Re:The word “lox” hasn't changed in sound or meaning in 8k y...
by NeedMoreTea on Wednesday May 15, 2019 @04:17AM
(#19917362)
Everyone seems to want the 50 year old Fowler's. :)
And -ize is perfectly acceptable to many British English spell checkers. Unfortunately it seems impossible to find one that will reject -ise spellings when the -ize one is the more etymologically 'correct'.
For instance, I am using Firefox with a British English checker and it, correctly, allows "advertise" but not "advertize"; however, it also allows both "mythologize" and "mythologise" when only the first would be accepted in the Oxford tradition.
I'll be sticking with the advice in Fowler's Modern English Usage, Second Edition.