Dodi Schultz
October 4th, 2006, 10:25 AM
>> According to the multiple databases based on M-W 1913, they did have
>> an entry for "aborigine". However, for clarity, the typo was in the
>> definition for "cooey" in that dictionary.
I understood that, Dan. But it suddenly occurred to me to look up
"aborigine," just in case it turned out that what seems to be a misspelling
was in fact some former spelling we didn't know about. Clearly not, from
their perfectly correct spelling of "aboriginal."
>> Is cooey in the 1864 M-W?
Alas, no. (It IS in the 1934, with "aborigine" spelled right.)
--Dodi
>> an entry for "aborigine". However, for clarity, the typo was in the
>> definition for "cooey" in that dictionary.
I understood that, Dan. But it suddenly occurred to me to look up
"aborigine," just in case it turned out that what seems to be a misspelling
was in fact some former spelling we didn't know about. Clearly not, from
their perfectly correct spelling of "aboriginal."
>> Is cooey in the 1864 M-W?
Alas, no. (It IS in the 1934, with "aborigine" spelled right.)
--Dodi