Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish,net.nlang
Subject: Re: Writing from right to left
Message-ID: <1400@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 15-Feb-85 00:03:21 EST
Article-I.D.: dciem.1400
Posted: Fri Feb 15 00:03:21 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Feb-85 02:08:23 EST
References: <2050@pegasus.UUCP> <128@ihn5l.UUCP> <443@hou2f.UUCP> <5849@rochester.UUCP> <71@spar.UUCP> <lanl.21285>
Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 24
Summary: 


>> > Believe it or not, Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (Merriam-Webste
>r,
>> > 1983) lists "lens also lense".  I was amazed.  I still wince when I see the
>> > less-standard form.
>>
>> It was probably always spelled 'lense'.  Daniel Webster himself probably
>> introduced the 'lens' spelling as part of his spelling reform campaign.
>> A way of testing this is to ask our British readers which spelling they
>> use most - the british remain mostly immune to Websterisms.
> 
> 
>So, what about it?  Is this one of Webster's changes?  I don't know where
>to look to find out.

The Oxford English Dictionary (compact Edition) gives only "lens",
from the Latin "lens" a lentil, from the similarity of shape.
There IS a word "lense", meaning to make or become lean, to macerate.
Perhaps Webster put an "e" on for the benefit of American readers:-)
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt