On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 11:05:57 -0400, Bernie Cosell
> wrote:

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\

This is probably why I'm still using the dictionary I got when I
graduated high school, in '78.

pepsi