Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece
From: preece@uicsl.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: 'employe' flame - (nf)
Message-ID: <5307@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 1-Feb-84 23:38:51 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.5307
Posted: Wed Feb  1 23:38:51 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 7-Feb-84 15:40:32 EST
Lines: 17

#R:linus:-64100:uicsl:8600038:000:658
uicsl!preece    Feb  1 09:50:00 1984

		A major weekly news magazine (who shall remain nameless)
	insists on using the word "employe"!  Is this spelling legitimate?
	It grates on my nerves.  I suspect that they are just trying to 
	save on print.  
----------
Webster's gives both spellings.  The origin is French; in French the
extra 'e' would be there for females only -- it's for gender matching.
Webster's does not give the alternates you suggest for payee or lessee,
but both are also of French descent, so I suppose the same argument
would hold.  A more blatant case, of course, is fiance(e). In that case
the one-e form seems to be the common one.

scott preece
ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece