Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/02/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Concise Oxford - eh? My Funk and Wagnals NEW College Standard Dictionary (1947) lists only "lens" as well. Tim K - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Chefurka" <Paul_Chefurka@pmc-sierra.com> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2000 7:30 PM Subject: [Leica] Lense? > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard J. Wyble [mailto:rwyble@erols.com] > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2000 4:39 PM > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: Re: [Leica] FS: 35 1.4 aspherical (1st ver) > > > Excerpts from leica: 18-Feb-100 RE: [Leica] FS: 35 1.4 asp.. Paul > Chefurka@pmc-sierra (656*) > > > And BTW, I don't mean to get too usenettish on you or > anything, but it's > > spelled "lens". > > "Lens" is American useage outside of which "lense" is proper. > -- > rwyble@erols.com > Richard J. Wyble > American usage? We Canadians would never stoop so low. We insist that all our colours have the correct flavour. I just checked my Concise Oxford, and it doesn't list "lense" at all. Can you supply a reference? I believe that lense is a nettish spelling, fostered and supported solely by the denizens of rec.photo.equipment.35mm... Paul