The rest of the message, ie that I pronounce the "inform" in "information" as if it were "infirm", or that I don't pronounce the "know" in "acknowledged" the same way I pronounce the "know" in "know" (more like "gnaw" - "acgnawledged"), or for that matter the "know" in "knowledge" the same as "know" when it's by itself...
Often, a morpheme (whether it's a morpheme any longer or a sub-morpheme is debatable) is spelt identically but pronounced differently in different words....... so "reknowned" does not seem at all illogical to me.
Mark
On 28/05/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
if you break it down - "re - known - ed" - it makes perfect sense
Well, you see, it doesn't make sense to me because it's not pronounced like "known".
I'm not as much of a prescriptivist as my previous message might make it seem. I do accept language evolution and I do accept changes in grammar and spelling. My previous message was not meant to belittle those who do not know the contents of dictionaries by heart. I certainly don't.
It's just that I think I have acquired somewhat of a language intuition and even so, I find it difficult to understand the thought process that would lead one to think that there should be a k in that word. Once someone came up with it, I can understand that other people might follow it, thinking it might be the correct spelling. But the thoughts of that first person are beyond me.
Timwi
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l