Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 20:15:32 +1100
From: Stephen Calder <calder9@in.com.au>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.languages.english
Subject: Re: Show vs shew...
References: <43947900$0$7366$636a55ce@news.free.fr> <mp69p19mrb67v46so1088g81j6jt0n38es@4ax.com> <4394b432$0$7361$636a55ce@news.free.fr> <dn2k5g$tl0$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <dn2k5g$tl0$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <440171b5$0$503$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.182.108.205
X-Trace: 1140945333 uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au 503 202.182.108.205:2007
X-Complaints-To: Abuse, including message IDs to abuse@pipenetworks.com
Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.languages.english:1120
John Dean wrote:
> 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.
Right. But still prnounced the same way as "show."
--
Stephen
Lennox Head, Australia
|
|