|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 6, 2008 22:43:47 GMT
From the APS:
Jeff.
>"Supercede" is the incorrect but more common way to spell "supersede." This spelling makes more sense, since the word supersede is derived from the Middle English "superceden" from Old French "superceder" (to postpone)...<
This is one of those instances, ukexpat, where words can become acceptable through usage. In fact it is quite acceptable in NA, although, like you, I wouldn't use it. Jeff.
Paul Doherty
Really, Jeff? I'm amazed. I'd definitely regard supercede (and concensus, come to that) as incorrect, common though they are.
I'd always write artefact although I accept artifact, and the jury is out on whether miniscule is an acceptable form of minuscule.
Tone
SOED accepts both, but it does note that the "c" version is an earlier spelling!
It adds: L15. [OFr. supercéder, later - séder, f. L supersedere (in med.L freq. -cedere) set above, be superior to, refrain from, omit, f. as SUPER- + sedere sit.]
Tone
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 6, 2008 22:45:45 GMT
Tone, when you say SOED accepts both, do you mean it claims they are both equally acceptable in modern standard English? Or just that it lists both?
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Jun 7, 2008 20:35:39 GMT
Header line of SOED entry for supersede reads:
supersede /su:p<schwa>"si:d, "sju:-/ v. Also (earlier) -cede.
And entry for supercede reads:
supercede v. see SUPERSEDE.
I would call that acceptance (in comparison with other old-version word spelling entries which state that the spelling is archaic.)
Tone
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 7, 2008 23:38:27 GMT
I think the (earlier) denies it acceptance as current usage.
|
|
|
Post by SusanB on Jun 8, 2008 1:00:06 GMT
No - it's probably okay if you write it in the morning!
|
|
|
Post by Vadim on Jun 8, 2008 8:13:09 GMT
No - it's probably okay if you write it in the morning! Hah! Hah! Nice work, Susan.
|
|