Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site uiucdcsb Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcsb!kenny From: kenny@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: Etymology (originally Re: C Bit Message-ID: <139200015@uiucdcsb> Date: Sun, 3-Nov-85 12:28:00 EST Article-I.D.: uiucdcsb.139200015 Posted: Sun Nov 3 12:28:00 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Nov-85 23:03:42 EST References: <204@rpics.UUCP> Lines: 16 Nf-ID: #R:rpics.UUCP:-20400:uiucdcsb:139200015:000:575 Nf-From: uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU!kenny Nov 3 11:28:00 1985 Andrew Macpherson.writes: > > Gentlemen, it's really very simple, the use of `x' in English derives > directly from the etymology of the word: > > connexion derives from latin: con- and nectere, nexum to tie. > > Since this x in the gerund is rather rare, English has very few such > words spelt with an x, whereas American tends to use x's frequently > since it reduces the amount one has to write :-) > ( hence `sox' == half-hosen, socks) > Then how come we don't have conduxion? Dux, ducere is another case where the 'x' turns up in the gerund.