On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 07:57:02 -0000, "Captain Pedantic"
<theharlequin36@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"John Carlson" <jwcarlson1@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:ci9i2195d32iejs0lpm60r7b4fsg8jmk05@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 16:18:23 -0500, "Art S. Kagel"
>> <kagel@bloomberg.net> wrote:
>
>>> From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)
>>>Affine \\Af*fine"\\, v. t. [F. affiner to refine; ? (L. ad) + fin fine. See
>>>{Fine}.] To refine. [Obs.] --Holland.
>>>
>>>Art S. Kagel
>>
>>
>> Score one for the Yanks . . .8-)
Understood, as Obnoxio pointed out . . .
Given time, the theoretical 'verbed' form may be in the dictionary.
Look at all the other stuff added over time . . .
>
>He didn't say there wasn't any such word, just that there isn't a verb
>"affine" related to the noun "affinity". The definition above is clearly of
>a word from a different root. And anyway, Noah Webster was a Yank too: his
>eponymous dictionary probably has "incentivize", "de-plane", and the wrong
>definition of "momentarily" in it!
>
Might be a bit difficult to blame Webster for 'de-plane' . . . but I
can understand your frustration. I still have difficulty accepting
"y'all" as a word, but I also live in the southern United States . . .
Makes for some interesting Scrabble, though . . .
JWC