|
Post by amanda on Aug 19, 2008 9:30:22 GMT
I would write: stripy, nosy, smily, rosy. More and more I am coming across these words with an 'extra' e: stripey, pricey and so on.
Spotting a children's book entitled "Rosey the Nosey Goat" has prompted me to ask what is happening, and whether there is a right/wrong spelling?
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Aug 19, 2008 9:58:41 GMT
Interesting. I would use nosey, smiley and pricey but I would be happy with stripy and rosy. Is there a rule here that we don't know about or is it random and / or variable?
|
|
Glyn
Bronze
Posts: 87
|
Post by Glyn on Aug 19, 2008 15:00:36 GMT
Amanda A prickly problem with no definitive solution. When dealing with formations from nouns ending in a mute e, the usual practice is to delete the e and add y. Thus hasty, rosy, slimy, scaly, noisy, though there are many examples with two accepted spellings, e.g. pricy/pricey, shaky/shakey, nosy/nosey, spongy/spongey. With a few exceptions, notably "pricey", "matey", and "homey", the SOED appears to prefer the e-less spellings. There's also "cagy" and "cagey", but they have nothing to do with "cage". On the rare occasion when the mute e is preceded by a vowel, the e is retained - a "gluey/bluey" mixture. Also, where there is danger of confusion with other words, the e is normally retained. "Holey" is needed to distinguish it from "holy", and, if you wished to use such a formation from "tine", "tiney" would be preferable to "tiny".
Glyn
|
|
|
Post by amanda on Aug 19, 2008 17:01:11 GMT
Thanks Glyn, most helpful.
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Aug 19, 2008 20:59:57 GMT
Glyn, > if you wished to use such a formation from "tine", "tiney" would be preferable to "tiny".<And if you wished to use such a formation from "hone" ...? (As in something that had the attributes of a whetstone.) Tone
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Aug 20, 2008 8:49:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Aug 20, 2008 8:50:17 GMT
And another from the news. In my editorial capacity I frequently need to correct people's misspelling (by Oz standards) of metre as meter (in its many forms as a lone term or part of another, such as kilometre). But this is the first time I've seen the solecism in reverse. From ABC News Online < www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/20/2341381.htm >:
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Aug 20, 2008 10:15:23 GMT
Verbivore, The standard of writing in that whole article on the use of modern technology in exams is poor. There are typographical (I assume) errors all the way through it. Not a good advertisement for Aunty at all. Then there's this: English teacher and project coordinator Dierdre Coleman says in a very time-limited assessment task, students can bring notes into class.
"They can bring their laptops so they can access the internet or social networking sites and they can also bring their phones to phone whoever they have set up to talk to," she said. Some might argue that there's nothing wrong here, but I don't like it.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Palmer on Aug 20, 2008 10:22:45 GMT
I wonder. Although there are of course plenty of exceptions, police are not really known for their wit. I have a feeling the soubriquet was in fact invented by the press in most of these "Police called him ..." reports.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Aug 20, 2008 10:47:32 GMT
The standard of writing in that whole article on the use of modern technology in exams is poor. There are typographical (I assume) errors all the way through it. Not a good advertisement for Aunty at all. Geoff: I agree, but have given up trying to educate Aunty's employees; they take no notice, do not even bother to acknowledge (beyond an auto-robot response), and seem no longer to care. And whilst Aunty's "children" no longer speak like traditional BBC announcers (which is a good thing, as this is Australia, not the toffy end of Britain), I winced tonight when thrice in one report the announcer/reporter pronounced vulnerable vunrable! I was expecting the next solecism to be nucular (in an item about vunrable families).
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Aug 20, 2008 10:57:45 GMT
I wonder. Although there are of course plenty of exceptions, police are not really known for their wit. I have a feeling the soubriquet was in fact invented by the press in most of these "Police called him ..." reports. I'm inclined to agree with your speculation, Alan. I have a next-door neighbour who's a copper - a genuine "Plod" if ever one existed. I've known some fine and intelligent members of the constabulary, but this fellow is known throughout the local police establishment by the sobriquet "Rocket" - because he is so "slow". No sense of humour at all, probably because his grasp of anything polysyllabled is so limited, and just doesn't get the simplest attempts at humour. When he moved into the neighbourhood and introduced himself, I asked why he was called "Rock(et)". He thought (and this has been confirmed by his boss!) that it related to his being on highway patrol (i.e. a booker of speedsters) in a souped-up Fraud, er, Ford. But he does manage to "not see" me when we pass on the road - he in his highway patrol car and me in my (usually, um, rapid) Benz. So that makes him an okay human being.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Aug 20, 2008 13:57:35 GMT
Something of a digression from the main theme of this thread, folks. Should we move back to the rambling area?
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Aug 20, 2008 14:19:24 GMT
Something of a digression from the main theme of this thread, folks. Should we move back to the rambling area? Oh. I thought the thread headed "Spelling" was an appropriate place for a misspelling. Move it, by all means. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Aug 20, 2008 21:24:53 GMT
Oh. I thought the thread headed "Spelling" was an appropriate place for a misspelling. It's not a question though. The posts were good fun, and I'm not going to rush round moving things just for the sake of it, but I will lock this now as it's hopelessly off-topic. If anyone has anything to add about the spelling of nosy/nosey and so on, they are welcome to start a "part two" thread. I hope we see more of Aunty's misdemeanors on the general board, Verbivore.
|
|