wrote:

} On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 13:22:33 GMT, "L, not -L" > wrote:
}
} >I first heard it around 1984-1985 and thought it sounded so strange. The
} >Merriam-Webster dictionary list it (along with funner) as inflections of
} >fun; but, it sounds too weird to work its way into my everyday
} >conversations.
} >
} >http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?funnest
}
} I can't believe the dictionary has made that an acceptable word now.
} I must be getting old.

It is a matter of the 'style' of the dictionary, and the M-W dictionaries
have always been descriptive, rather than proscriptive. Easiest way to see
the difference is to think about a dictionary for writers and a dictionary
for readers. If the dictionary is intended to be at a *reader's* side,
then you want as close to 'everything' in it as possible [since if you run
across the word in something you're reading, you certainly want to be able
to find out what it means]. On the other side of the coin, there are
dictionaries intended to assist _writers_ and those include a lot more
usage info and try to discourage writers from using unacceptable words and
such. The American Heritage dictionary, for example, does *NOT* list any
of those inflected forms of "fun":

<http://www.bartleby.com/61/11/F0361100.html>

/Bernie\

--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--