Yes, but does "pronunc" in "pronunciation" sound anything like "pronounce"? No, and you don't spell them the same, but they're related.
Similarly, at least the way I say it, "inform" doesn't sound like the first part of "information" (I would write it "infirmation" because it sounds more like "infirm" than "inform), yet it's spelt identically.
And remember that even perscriptivists generally concede when something had already passed into popular usage at least a generation ago - "reknowned" may not be etymologically correct, and tightwads such as yourself may peck to death those who have at some point or another decided that the word is properly spelt that way, but if you break it down - "re - known - ed" - it makes perfect sense because the definition of the word I pronunce (make that "pronounce") as /ri 'nau nd/ is something along the lines of "well-known". And please don't question the "re-" prefix because you can "refer" to something without having ever "fer"red to it before, you can "relate" to somebody without having ever "late"d to them before, and you can "relish" or "resign" or "refute" without having ever "lish"ed, "sign"ed, or "fute"d before.
Mark
On 28/05/05, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
he _is_ a world-reknowned expert
I highly doubt that. Although he might be a _world-renowned_ expert. Throughout the past week, I have fixed on the order of one hundred articles with that spelling mistake in them.
And here I am trying very hard to understand how someone can think that a word that is pronounced the way "renowned" is, can possibly have a k in it. It is not even pronounced anything like "know" or "knowledge". Furthermore, as "gnostic" versus "agnostic" clearly teaches us, letters do not tend to become silent when there is a prefix before them.
Timwi
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l