From: george knysh
>*****GK: Yes, the bad coins may occasionally drive out
> >Sine neCeSSitate Glen. The site spells it wrong.
> Yes, I wasn't sure. I'm not very fluent in Latin. I
> just understand
> much of it thanks to French. It was more economical
> (or is it
> "oeconomical"?), at least mentally, to accept the
> spelling as it was :)
> >Also, for what it's worth, OCKHAM's (ca. 1288-1348)
> name is no longer
> >spelt OCCAM, not even by the French, except where
> the serious literature
> >used pre-dates WWII.
> Ironically, your assertion counters the facts and
> would appear to violate
> the principle of parsley. No wait, I mean the
> principle of parsimony, I'm
> getting tired, it's late. According to a Google
> search, "Occam's Razor"
> yields 29,700 links. In contrast, "Ockham's Razor"
> yields only 17,700.
>******GK: Don't be touchy Glen. This has nothing to do
> So this, combined with the ease of spelling "Occam"
> over the more awkward
> "Ockham", has produced a popularity of the former
> rather than the latter on
> the internet. Perhaps people are choosing the old
> spelling variant now.
> >Interestingly, the preferred mediaeval English
> spelling was HOKAM ( and
> >then the h was dropped).
> I don't see much connexion/connection any of this
> has to the topic/topick
> of Occam's/Ockham's/Hokam's
> Razor/Rasor/Rasoir/Racer. If mediaeval/medieval
> English were so confused on spellin(g), why should I
> be the one/won to
> keep it straight/strait?
> - gLeN
> Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months__________________________________________________