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.