Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "John Dean" <john-dean@frag.lineone.net>
Newsgroups: alt.languages.english
Subject: Re: Show vs shew...
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 23:58:31 -0000
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <dn2k5g$tl0$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>
References: <43947900$0$7366$636a55ce@news.free.fr> <mp69p19mrb67v46so1088g81j6jt0n38es@4ax.com> <4394b432$0$7361$636a55ce@news.free.fr>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.76.253.187
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news8.svr.pol.co.uk 1133827056 30368 81.76.253.187 (5 Dec 2005 23:57:36 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: 5 Dec 2005 23:57:36 GMT
X-Complaints-To: abuse@theplanet.net
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.languages.english:1059
Daniel Masse wrote:
> 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.
>
You'll find it scattered through the King James Version of the Bible. I
actually worked with a bloke in the 1980s who chose to spell it that
way. It is considered strange and somewhat affected today.
--
John Dean
Oxford
|
|