Subject:
|
Re: John E. Doolittle.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.pirates
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Jan 2000 16:05:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2232 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.pirates, Tony Priestman writes:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2000, Richard Parsons (<FoBLH7.DHF@lugnet.com>) wrote at
> 10:13:06
>
> >
> > I've gone with the k instead of ck on the basis that since the words are
> > going to be read, a close visual similarity would be helpful. Its a
> > trade-off obviously, but rest assured it is not an accident, nor just a
> > colonial contraction.
> >
> > British
> > Brikish
> > Brickish
> >
> > Britannic
> > Brikannic
> > Brickannic
> >
> > Great Britain
> > Great Brikain
> > Great Brickain
> >
> > Consistency has a value also, and since the idea was indeed Tony's in the
> > first place, whatever happens there will have a persuasive value.
> >
> > So, what do you all reckon?
>
> Given that this is an imaginary world, I have no problem with either,
> and can see advantages in either spelling.
> I can see where you're coming from completely, Richard. But I feel that
> 'ck' has the aesthetic edge over plain 'k'.
>
> Actually, I'm inclined to mix and match. After all, there's no such word
> as Britainnic, so I don't see why Brikannic shouldn't be the 'proper'
> word. Or Brikish, come to think of it. Although that would tend to be
> pronounced brI-kish without the c, if you were to look at it out of
> context.
>
> But I'm sticking with Great Brickain, because all of the place names
> I've come up with tie in with it.
>
> YMMV :-)
>
> (my spell checker has just gone berserk! :-)
> --
> Tony Priestman
I'm for Great Brikain, Brikannic, and Brikish myself.
But then, I think "colour" is a silly way to spell color, and I like cheque
over check, so I'm not sure you should pay the slightest attention to my
opinions.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
 | | Re: John E. Doolittle.
|
| DISCLAIMER: I'm a little loopy today. Medication. (...) It also has the LEGO edge--"brik" to me brings to mind "blok," something about which no more should be spoken. 'Nuff said. *suppressing shudder* (...) I hope you mean to get at the (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
| | | Re: John E. Doolittle.
|
| (...) Snipping all that stuff that I didn't write.... (...) Kind of like someone from Boston, "I have to pahk the cah." Even my Boston Terrier has to bark, "Bahk, bahk!" :-) Canadians are hard to pick out, but I can usually do it (and these are (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
| | | Re: John E. Doolittle, weekly update
|
| <FoCEr4.D8C@lugnet.com> <FoFJJ0.76H@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) A cow? :) (...) *LOL* I love the name! I wonder, do they have a problem with the powder magazine on that ship...? Or (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
| | | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
| <38824981.7374FB63@p...t.msu.edu> <FoGAr7.1Fv@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Thank God it wasn't any better, or you would have "kewled" me or something (or is that a "1.5" cool?). It (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
| | | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
| <3882AC0B.420D2906@p...t.msu.edu> <FoHHML.7B6@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I like it! However, I still really like the theft-with-the-help-...ber-locals thing--after all, that ship (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: John E. Doolittle.
|
| On Fri, 14 Jan 2000, Richard Parsons (<FoBLH7.DHF@lugnet.com>) wrote at 10:13:06 (...) Given that this is an imaginary world, I have no problem with either, and can see advantages in either spelling. I can see where you're coming from completely, (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
99 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
