4 ms·
Because your pronounce them backwards. "Loose" is a short word that ends sharply, but "lose" is a long word that slowly peters out. They should be the other w
by Aerroon 6mo ago
Because your pronounce them backwards.
"Loose" is a short word that ends sharply, but "lose" is a long word that slowly peters out.
They should be the other way around imo.
- evanjrowley 6mo agoNow that you frame it that way, I'm surprised "lose" didn't evolve to be pronounced like "Lowe's"
- theowaway213456 6mo agoIf we're allowed to make modifications here then it should really be lose => looze and loose => luce
- irishcoffee 6mo agoI think that would make "loosely" not work out. Lucely/lucly catch the hard C there. I'm good with loozing/loozer, looks kind of funny though.
- abustamam 6mo agoFun fact — English did not have formalized spelling prior to the printing press https://www.dictionary.com/articles/printing-press-frozen-spelling https://www.dictionary.com/articles/printing-press-frozen-sp... So, technically we are allowed to make modifications! We just can't expect others to adhere to our modifications :)
- taffydavid 6mo agoLuce is already a word in English, if a little obscure
- dtj1123 6mo agoThis was also the way I felt before I was introduced to "the magic e" (spoiler: it still doesn't make any sense) https://www.academysimple.com/magic-e-words/ https://www.academysimple.com/magic-e-words/
- sd9 6mo agoWow, "magic e" just transported me back to primary school. And I had a little heart flutter fearing that I wouldn't be able to remember/explain it today.
- garbawarb 6mo agoLoose rhymes with moose, noose, caboose...
- parineum 6mo agoSince English has a glut of loaner words, I'd assume the two words just originate from different languages.