Don Pearce wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 14:10:56 GMT, Randy Yates wrote:
>
>
>>Don Pearce <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:57:47 GMT, Randy Yates wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Don Pearce <[email protected]> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 06:41:56 -0700, Richard Crowley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Jon Harris" wrote ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You may be correct, but common usage seems to be to use
>>>>>>>acronym for either one. In fact, I've never heard of the word
>>>>>>>initialism (and neither has the MS spell-checker).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I prefer Merriam-Webster as an arbiter of language
>>>>>>over the MS spell-checker. www.m-w.com Handy.
>>>>>
>>>>>No good. It can't spell colour.
>>>>
>>>>Huh? I get:
>>>>
>>>>Main Entry: col·our
>>>>Pronunciation: 'k&-l&r
>>>>chiefly British variant of COLOR
>>>
>>>Exactly - we don't have variants, we have the correct spelling. I
>>>understand there is an American variant, however.
>>
>>Yes, I suppose that's correct if you insist your viewpoint is the
>>authoritative one.
>
>
> Well, certainly original. I think we have to agree that a variant is that
> which came after - not before.

Both "colour" and "color" are variants. "Coloure" preceded them. The OED
shows the progression as ..., coloure, colour, color. Colour would seem
to be less highly evolved, but the British are moving in our direction.
They write "colorimeter", not "colourimeter".

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯