Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "Daniel Masse" <pas_de_spam_masse.dan@free.fr>
Newsgroups: alt.languages.english
References: <43947900$0$7366$636a55ce@news.free.fr> <mp69p19mrb67v46so1088g81j6jt0n38es@4ax.com>
Subject: Re: Show vs shew...
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 22:42:05 +0100
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <4394b432$0$7361$636a55ce@news.free.fr>
Organization: Guest of ProXad - France
NNTP-Posting-Date: 05 Dec 2005 22:42:11 MET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.194.28.134
X-Trace: 1133818931 nnrp6-1.free.fr 7361 83.194.28.134:2628
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.languages.english:1058
Bob Cunningham wrote:
> I haven't, but both British and American unabridged
> dictionaries say that it's an obsolete or archaic variant of
> "show".
>
> "Shew" appeared as a pronunciation spelling of the way Ed
> Sullivan supposedly said "show". (Ed Sullivan was the
> master of ceremonies of a popular television show forty or
> fifty years ago.)
You're right ! I had not thought of checking my old Webster (1953) : it says
that "show" may be spelled "shew", specially by the British... Harrap's also
mentions it.
Thanks !
|
|