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