Not worth getting upset about. Personally, I'm more concerned that we're going to lose the word "lose". Everywhere I look, I see people sticking an extra o in there. "You loose" etc.
Sure, languages change over time and so on, but there's already a verb "loose", meaning "release", more or less.
When I become a billionaire and there are trespassers on my estate, I want to be able to cry "Loose the hounds!" without my overly-subservient toady thinking he should misplace them.
Comments
Not worth getting upset about. Personally, I'm more concerned that we're going to lose the word "lose". Everywhere I look, I see people sticking an extra o in there. "You loose" etc.
Agreed, that's a much harder one to swallow.
Sure, languages change over time and so on, but there's already a verb "loose", meaning "release", more or less.
When I become a billionaire and there are trespassers on my estate, I want to be able to cry "Loose the hounds!" without my overly-subservient toady thinking he should misplace them.
Or "then", as in "My spelling is worse then a child's"
I suggest a new, combined form: looose. The meaning will be drawn from context. I anticipate efficiency improvements world-wide.
The English language doesn't have a word with three or more repetitions of a letter. "LOOOL" and "mmmmmmuah" excepted.
From /usr/share/dict/words on OSX, I get the following:
whenceeer (probable corruption of whenceever, and hence not legit)
wallless
bossship
demigoddessship
goddessship
headmistressship
patronessship
First one is probably a contraction missing the apostrophe: "whencee'er". But that doesn't explain why "wheree'er" doesn't show up.
orly? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/viii
VIII? That's not a word, it's a number.
Or, more accurately, it's a representation of a number using characters which happen to be letters of the alphabet.
Just as words are representations of ideas using characters which happen to be letters of the alphabet. This is all sarcasm, by the way.
Yo' momma loose.