On Mar 15, 4:31*pm, Lars Chance <lars.cha...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> As much as we like to think the Yanks are the illiterate ones it's
> actually the Poms who made all the changes and made the spelling of
> words less phonetic.

I believe English is the only language in which the word phonetic does
not start with an "F" and finish with a "K".

Theo

theo wrote:
> On Mar 15, 4:31 pm, Lars Chance<lars.cha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As much as we like to think the Yanks are the illiterate ones it's
>> actually the Poms who made all the changes and made the spelling of
>> words less phonetic.
>
> I believe English is the only language in which the word phonetic does
> not start with an "F" and finish with a "K".
>
> Theo
phonetic is the word why should it start and finish with anything else?

On Mar 15, 6:54*pm, F Murtz <hagg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> theo wrote:
> > On Mar 15, 4:31 pm, Lars Chance<lars.cha...@hotmail.com> *wrote:
>
> >> As much as we like to think the Yanks are the illiterate ones it's
> >> actually the Poms who made all the changes and made the spelling of
> >> words less phonetic.
>
> > I believe English is the only language in which the word phonetic does
> > not start with an "F" and finish with a "K".
>
> > Theo
>
> phonetic is the word why should it start and finish with anything else?

Of course. Why should it be fonetik.

Theo

theo wrote:
>
> On Mar 15, 6:54?pm, F Murtz <hagg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > theo wrote:
> > > On Mar 15, 4:31 pm, Lars Chance<lars.cha...@hotmail.com> ?wrote:
> >
> > >> As much as we like to think the Yanks are the illiterate ones it's
> > >> actually the Poms who made all the changes and made the spelling of
> > >> words less phonetic.
> >
> > > I believe English is the only language in which the word phonetic does
> > > not start with an "F" and finish with a "K".
> >
> > > Theo
> >
> > phonetic is the word why should it start and finish with anything else?
>
> Of course. Why should it be fonetik.
>
> Theo
>
>

It isn't in French & 'phonetique' is one of the probable origins, at least
several centuries ago. Cheers

--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au

F Murtz wrote:
>
> JL wrote:
> > On Mar 15, 12:40 am, Lars Chance<lars.cha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> It would behoove you to find out if it's an oil-pressure or oil-level
light.
> >> P'raps you're running too heavy oil (i.e. too high viscosity index
> >> number). That can cause trouble.
> >> --
> >> Elsie.
> >> (Behoove would mean "add hooves to ..." right?)
> >
> > Given you've made the word up I guess it can mean what ever you would
> > like it to...
> >
> > Correct word (based on context) below
> >
> > http://fat.ly/iabhr
> >
> > JL
> depends where you are from.
>
> oxford compendium.
> behove // v.tr. (US behoove //) (prec. by it as subject; foll. by to +
> infin.) formal
> 1 be incumbent on.
> 2 (usu. with neg.) befit (ill behoves him to protest).
> [Old English behofian from behof: see behoof]
>
> Although in an australian group it would be better to speak English not
> American,but we still understand them.
>
>

Anglicised word goes back to at least the 10th-12th century A.D. Both
forms (behove, behoove) appear in English texts. The earler behoif
overlaps.

Two things to take into account:

1/ English spelling was largely at the whim of the scribe until well into
the 17th century at least; e.g.: Shakespeare's name appears in some
strange variations, including 'Shagspeen' and

2/ many American words that are blamed on Webster & his dictionary, can
possibly be traced all the way back to an old English spelling that
emigrated with the Pilgrim Fathers and remained in use in law, commerce
and the Church.

In a similar way, a lot (far from all) of our Australian vernacular has
its origins in our convict and later multinational past. Things are very
slow to change when it takes months to go to or from a foreign country.
Cheers

--
Posted at www.usenet.com.au