Is this use of 'chuse' a spelling mistake, a digitization error or the correct spelling for the time?
I am currently reading Emma, by Jane Austen. The version I am reading is the digitized ebook version and in chapter 12 the word choose is spelled chuse:
"My dear Isabella," exclaimed he, hastily, "pray do not concern
yourself about my looks. Be satisfied with doctoring and coddling
yourself and the children, and let me look as I chuse."
Since I don't have the physical book, I am unable to determine if this spelling is an error introduced during the digitization process, which is sometimes the case. If it is part of the original, is this spelling correct for the time period or is it a spelling mistake?
orthography historical-change
edited Jan 23 '17 at 11:31
Tushar Raj
18.5k864112
add a comment |
I am currently reading Emma, by Jane Austen. The version I am reading is the digitized ebook version and in chapter 12 the word choose is spelled chuse:
"My dear Isabella," exclaimed he, hastily, "pray do not concern
yourself about my looks. Be satisfied with doctoring and coddling
yourself and the children, and let me look as I chuse."
Since I don't have the physical book, I am unable to determine if this spelling is an error introduced during the digitization process, which is sometimes the case. If it is part of the original, is this spelling correct for the time period or is it a spelling mistake?
orthography historical-change
edited Jan 23 '17 at 11:31
Tushar Raj
18.5k864112
3
If "the original" means "the first edition", it's worth pointing out that the first edition of "Emma" had an initial print run of only twelve copies, and nobody knows what happened to eleven of the twelve. The known surviving copy was sold at auction in 2012 (the price was £180,000), but the seller and buyer are both anonymous. So strictly speaking, the question is unanswerable!
– alephzero
Jan 24 '17 at 4:24
3
@alephzero in the context of digitization, the original I'm referring to is the print from which the digital copy was made. I suppose I'd be happy with any printed copy.
– user77261
Jan 24 '17 at 10:27
add a comment |
I am currently reading Emma, by Jane Austen. The version I am reading is the digitized ebook version and in chapter 12 the word choose is spelled chuse:
"My dear Isabella," exclaimed he, hastily, "pray do not concern
yourself about my looks. Be satisfied with doctoring and coddling
yourself and the children, and let me look as I chuse."
Since I don't have the physical book, I am unable to determine if this spelling is an error introduced during the digitization process, which is sometimes the case. If it is part of the original, is this spelling correct for the time period or is it a spelling mistake?
orthography historical-change
edited Jan 23 '17 at 11:31
Tushar Raj
18.5k864112
I am currently reading Emma, by Jane Austen. The version I am reading is the digitized ebook version and in chapter 12 the word choose is spelled chuse:
"My dear Isabella," exclaimed he, hastily, "pray do not concern
yourself about my looks. Be satisfied with doctoring and coddling
yourself and the children, and let me look as I chuse."
Since I don't have the physical book, I am unable to determine if this spelling is an error introduced during the digitization process, which is sometimes the case. If it is part of the original, is this spelling correct for the time period or is it a spelling mistake?
orthography historical-change
orthography historical-change
edited Jan 23 '17 at 11:31
Tushar Raj
18.5k864112
edited Jan 23 '17 at 11:31
Tushar Raj
18.5k864112
edited Jan 23 '17 at 11:31
Tushar Raj
18.5k864112
edited Jan 23 '17 at 11:31
Tushar Raj
18.5k864112
edited Jan 23 '17 at 11:31
Tushar Raj
18.5k864112
18.5k864112
asked Jan 23 '17 at 10:21
user77261
3
If "the original" means "the first edition", it's worth pointing out that the first edition of "Emma" had an initial print run of only twelve copies, and nobody knows what happened to eleven of the twelve. The known surviving copy was sold at auction in 2012 (the price was £180,000), but the seller and buyer are both anonymous. So strictly speaking, the question is unanswerable!
– alephzero
Jan 24 '17 at 4:24
3
@alephzero in the context of digitization, the original I'm referring to is the print from which the digital copy was made. I suppose I'd be happy with any printed copy.
– user77261
Jan 24 '17 at 10:27
add a comment |
3
If "the original" means "the first edition", it's worth pointing out that the first edition of "Emma" had an initial print run of only twelve copies, and nobody knows what happened to eleven of the twelve. The known surviving copy was sold at auction in 2012 (the price was £180,000), but the seller and buyer are both anonymous. So strictly speaking, the question is unanswerable!
– alephzero
Jan 24 '17 at 4:24
3
@alephzero in the context of digitization, the original I'm referring to is the print from which the digital copy was made. I suppose I'd be happy with any printed copy.
– user77261
Jan 24 '17 at 10:27
3
3
If "the original" means "the first edition", it's worth pointing out that the first edition of "Emma" had an initial print run of only twelve copies, and nobody knows what happened to eleven of the twelve. The known surviving copy was sold at auction in 2012 (the price was £180,000), but the seller and buyer are both anonymous. So strictly speaking, the question is unanswerable!
– alephzero
Jan 24 '17 at 4:24
If "the original" means "the first edition", it's worth pointing out that the first edition of "Emma" had an initial print run of only twelve copies, and nobody knows what happened to eleven of the twelve. The known surviving copy was sold at auction in 2012 (the price was £180,000), but the seller and buyer are both anonymous. So strictly speaking, the question is unanswerable!
– alephzero
Jan 24 '17 at 4:24
3
3
@alephzero in the context of digitization, the original I'm referring to is the print from which the digital copy was made. I suppose I'd be happy with any printed copy.
– user77261
Jan 24 '17 at 10:27
@alephzero in the context of digitization, the original I'm referring to is the print from which the digital copy was made. I suppose I'd be happy with any printed copy.
– user77261
Jan 24 '17 at 10:27
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
'Chuse' was actually a variant spelling which went out-of-style around 1840, after enjoying singnificant popularity in the 1700s.
Since your novel was published in 1815, I'd say it's not an error.
Link for some example usages from Google Books.
answered Jan 23 '17 at 11:13
Tushar Raj
18.5k864112
24
"Chuse" is the spelling used in the original 1787 Constitution of the United States.
– bof
Jan 23 '17 at 11:45
7
That's a very interesting google tool. It's also interesting to set the scale back to 1700 and see how much more popular 'chuse' was before 1800.
– user77261
Jan 23 '17 at 12:26
@stanri: Edited the post to reflect that. Good catch.
– Tushar Raj
Jan 23 '17 at 12:30
I did a bit more counting and 'chuse' occurs 28 times in Emma. ('Choose' occurs once).
– user77261
Jan 24 '17 at 10:33
That's what I was thinking!! Will need to get my hands on a hard-copy at the library to see! I will accept shortly.
– user77261
Jan 24 '17 at 11:00
add a comment |
"Chuse" was a common alternative spelling. Today, it's obsolete, but many authors from the 19th century and earlier (ch)use it. For example,
I would the Colledge of the Cardinalls Would chuse him Pope. – William Shakespeare, Henry VI, Pt. 2 i. iii. 65 (1616/1623)
Chuse an Author as you chuse a Friend. – Wentworth Dillon, 4th Earl of Roscommon, An Essay on Translated Verse (1684)
At Liberty to chuse their Business. – Samuel Johnson, The Idler (2nd February, 1760)
Sing another song, or chuse another tree. – William Wordsworth, Lyrical Ballads II.77 (1800)
Would not Mr. Waverley chuse some refreshment after his journey? – Sir Walter Scott, Waverley I. ix. 121 (1814)
answered Jan 23 '17 at 13:41
David Richerby
3,45611431
Also 'I know very well my Bible, and shall chuse for myself': G.F. Handel, on writing (I think) Messiah, 1741.
– user207421
Jan 24 '17 at 15:25
@Kevin "Chuse" has indeed been essentially nonexistent for 150 years. However, the OED attempts to give the entire history of the language, and it lists obsolete spellings as well as current ones. In fact, it does include "chuse" in its list of obsolete spellings of "choose" but that list is so complex that I missed it. I'll edit that part of my answer in a second.
– David Richerby
Jan 24 '17 at 19:24
add a comment |
https://books.google.ie/books?id=HySf4w0fBZgC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34#v=onepage&q&f=false is a scanned version of the 2008 edition of the 1896 version that had illustrations by Hugh Thomson, and the use of chuse is quite clearly not a digitalisation error.
Some editions have choose but editors generally consider it their prerogative to change spelling.
More generally, Austen did indeed prefer chuse, but not consistently. Likewise scissars for scissors is rarely found now, but the form Austen preferred. Shew for show is perhaps a better-known example, having been the more common spelling until a few years after Austen's death.
answered Jan 24 '17 at 14:48
Jon Hanna
47.7k193176
add a comment |
In his A Dictionary of the English Language published in 1755, Dr. Samuel Johnson opted for "choose". (I'm looking at an online version http://www.whichenglish.com/Johnsons-Dictionary/1755-Letter-C.html)
It's interesting to see that the popularity of "chuse" starts declining a few years after 1750 according to the Google Books Ngram Viewer image in an earlier answer. Coincidence or cause?
answered Nov 13 at 20:27
M L
111
1
This is a worthwhile contribution that adds to the other answers. One slight flaw: it doesn't explicitly answer the question asked... although it very easily could, with some slight editing... if you so chuse.
– tmgr
Nov 13 at 21:39
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f369759%2fis-this-use-of-chuse-a-spelling-mistake-a-digitization-error-or-the-correct-s%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
'Chuse' was actually a variant spelling which went out-of-style around 1840, after enjoying singnificant popularity in the 1700s.
Since your novel was published in 1815, I'd say it's not an error.
Link for some example usages from Google Books.
answered Jan 23 '17 at 11:13
Tushar Raj
18.5k864112
24
"Chuse" is the spelling used in the original 1787 Constitution of the United States.
– bof
Jan 23 '17 at 11:45
7
That's a very interesting google tool. It's also interesting to set the scale back to 1700 and see how much more popular 'chuse' was before 1800.
– user77261
Jan 23 '17 at 12:26
@stanri: Edited the post to reflect that. Good catch.
– Tushar Raj
Jan 23 '17 at 12:30
I did a bit more counting and 'chuse' occurs 28 times in Emma. ('Choose' occurs once).
– user77261
Jan 24 '17 at 10:33
That's what I was thinking!! Will need to get my hands on a hard-copy at the library to see! I will accept shortly.
– user77261
Jan 24 '17 at 11:00
add a comment |
'Chuse' was actually a variant spelling which went out-of-style around 1840, after enjoying singnificant popularity in the 1700s.
Since your novel was published in 1815, I'd say it's not an error.
Link for some example usages from Google Books.
answered Jan 23 '17 at 11:13
Tushar Raj
18.5k864112
24
"Chuse" is the spelling used in the original 1787 Constitution of the United States.
– bof
Jan 23 '17 at 11:45
7
That's a very interesting google tool. It's also interesting to set the scale back to 1700 and see how much more popular 'chuse' was before 1800.
– user77261
Jan 23 '17 at 12:26
@stanri: Edited the post to reflect that. Good catch.
– Tushar Raj
Jan 23 '17 at 12:30
I did a bit more counting and 'chuse' occurs 28 times in Emma. ('Choose' occurs once).
– user77261
Jan 24 '17 at 10:33
That's what I was thinking!! Will need to get my hands on a hard-copy at the library to see! I will accept shortly.
– user77261
Jan 24 '17 at 11:00
add a comment |
'Chuse' was actually a variant spelling which went out-of-style around 1840, after enjoying singnificant popularity in the 1700s.
Since your novel was published in 1815, I'd say it's not an error.
Link for some example usages from Google Books.
answered Jan 23 '17 at 11:13
Tushar Raj
18.5k864112
'Chuse' was actually a variant spelling which went out-of-style around 1840, after enjoying singnificant popularity in the 1700s.
Since your novel was published in 1815, I'd say it's not an error.
Link for some example usages from Google Books.
answered Jan 23 '17 at 11:13
Tushar Raj
18.5k864112
edited Dec 22 at 14:53
answered Jan 23 '17 at 11:13
Tushar Raj
18.5k864112
answered Jan 23 '17 at 11:13
Tushar Raj
18.5k864112
answered Jan 23 '17 at 11:13
Tushar Raj
18.5k864112
18.5k864112
24
"Chuse" is the spelling used in the original 1787 Constitution of the United States.
– bof
Jan 23 '17 at 11:45
7
That's a very interesting google tool. It's also interesting to set the scale back to 1700 and see how much more popular 'chuse' was before 1800.
– user77261
Jan 23 '17 at 12:26
@stanri: Edited the post to reflect that. Good catch.
– Tushar Raj
Jan 23 '17 at 12:30
I did a bit more counting and 'chuse' occurs 28 times in Emma. ('Choose' occurs once).
– user77261
Jan 24 '17 at 10:33
That's what I was thinking!! Will need to get my hands on a hard-copy at the library to see! I will accept shortly.
– user77261
Jan 24 '17 at 11:00
add a comment |
24
"Chuse" is the spelling used in the original 1787 Constitution of the United States.
– bof
Jan 23 '17 at 11:45
7
That's a very interesting google tool. It's also interesting to set the scale back to 1700 and see how much more popular 'chuse' was before 1800.
– user77261
Jan 23 '17 at 12:26
@stanri: Edited the post to reflect that. Good catch.
– Tushar Raj
Jan 23 '17 at 12:30
I did a bit more counting and 'chuse' occurs 28 times in Emma. ('Choose' occurs once).
– user77261
Jan 24 '17 at 10:33
That's what I was thinking!! Will need to get my hands on a hard-copy at the library to see! I will accept shortly.
– user77261
Jan 24 '17 at 11:00
24
24
"Chuse" is the spelling used in the original 1787 Constitution of the United States.
– bof
Jan 23 '17 at 11:45
"Chuse" is the spelling used in the original 1787 Constitution of the United States.
– bof
Jan 23 '17 at 11:45
7
7
That's a very interesting google tool. It's also interesting to set the scale back to 1700 and see how much more popular 'chuse' was before 1800.
– user77261
Jan 23 '17 at 12:26
That's a very interesting google tool. It's also interesting to set the scale back to 1700 and see how much more popular 'chuse' was before 1800.
– user77261
Jan 23 '17 at 12:26
@stanri: Edited the post to reflect that. Good catch.
– Tushar Raj
Jan 23 '17 at 12:30
@stanri: Edited the post to reflect that. Good catch.
– Tushar Raj
Jan 23 '17 at 12:30
I did a bit more counting and 'chuse' occurs 28 times in Emma. ('Choose' occurs once).
– user77261
Jan 24 '17 at 10:33
I did a bit more counting and 'chuse' occurs 28 times in Emma. ('Choose' occurs once).
– user77261
Jan 24 '17 at 10:33
That's what I was thinking!! Will need to get my hands on a hard-copy at the library to see! I will accept shortly.
– user77261
Jan 24 '17 at 11:00
That's what I was thinking!! Will need to get my hands on a hard-copy at the library to see! I will accept shortly.
– user77261
Jan 24 '17 at 11:00
add a comment |
"Chuse" was a common alternative spelling. Today, it's obsolete, but many authors from the 19th century and earlier (ch)use it. For example,
I would the Colledge of the Cardinalls Would chuse him Pope. – William Shakespeare, Henry VI, Pt. 2 i. iii. 65 (1616/1623)
Chuse an Author as you chuse a Friend. – Wentworth Dillon, 4th Earl of Roscommon, An Essay on Translated Verse (1684)
At Liberty to chuse their Business. – Samuel Johnson, The Idler (2nd February, 1760)
Sing another song, or chuse another tree. – William Wordsworth, Lyrical Ballads II.77 (1800)
Would not Mr. Waverley chuse some refreshment after his journey? – Sir Walter Scott, Waverley I. ix. 121 (1814)
answered Jan 23 '17 at 13:41
David Richerby
3,45611431
Also 'I know very well my Bible, and shall chuse for myself': G.F. Handel, on writing (I think) Messiah, 1741.
– user207421
Jan 24 '17 at 15:25
@Kevin "Chuse" has indeed been essentially nonexistent for 150 years. However, the OED attempts to give the entire history of the language, and it lists obsolete spellings as well as current ones. In fact, it does include "chuse" in its list of obsolete spellings of "choose" but that list is so complex that I missed it. I'll edit that part of my answer in a second.
– David Richerby
Jan 24 '17 at 19:24
add a comment |
"Chuse" was a common alternative spelling. Today, it's obsolete, but many authors from the 19th century and earlier (ch)use it. For example,
I would the Colledge of the Cardinalls Would chuse him Pope. – William Shakespeare, Henry VI, Pt. 2 i. iii. 65 (1616/1623)
Chuse an Author as you chuse a Friend. – Wentworth Dillon, 4th Earl of Roscommon, An Essay on Translated Verse (1684)
At Liberty to chuse their Business. – Samuel Johnson, The Idler (2nd February, 1760)
Sing another song, or chuse another tree. – William Wordsworth, Lyrical Ballads II.77 (1800)
Would not Mr. Waverley chuse some refreshment after his journey? – Sir Walter Scott, Waverley I. ix. 121 (1814)
answered Jan 23 '17 at 13:41
David Richerby
3,45611431
Also 'I know very well my Bible, and shall chuse for myself': G.F. Handel, on writing (I think) Messiah, 1741.
– user207421
Jan 24 '17 at 15:25
@Kevin "Chuse" has indeed been essentially nonexistent for 150 years. However, the OED attempts to give the entire history of the language, and it lists obsolete spellings as well as current ones. In fact, it does include "chuse" in its list of obsolete spellings of "choose" but that list is so complex that I missed it. I'll edit that part of my answer in a second.
– David Richerby
Jan 24 '17 at 19:24
add a comment |
"Chuse" was a common alternative spelling. Today, it's obsolete, but many authors from the 19th century and earlier (ch)use it. For example,
I would the Colledge of the Cardinalls Would chuse him Pope. – William Shakespeare, Henry VI, Pt. 2 i. iii. 65 (1616/1623)
Chuse an Author as you chuse a Friend. – Wentworth Dillon, 4th Earl of Roscommon, An Essay on Translated Verse (1684)
At Liberty to chuse their Business. – Samuel Johnson, The Idler (2nd February, 1760)
Sing another song, or chuse another tree. – William Wordsworth, Lyrical Ballads II.77 (1800)
Would not Mr. Waverley chuse some refreshment after his journey? – Sir Walter Scott, Waverley I. ix. 121 (1814)
answered Jan 23 '17 at 13:41
David Richerby
3,45611431
"Chuse" was a common alternative spelling. Today, it's obsolete, but many authors from the 19th century and earlier (ch)use it. For example,
I would the Colledge of the Cardinalls Would chuse him Pope. – William Shakespeare, Henry VI, Pt. 2 i. iii. 65 (1616/1623)
Chuse an Author as you chuse a Friend. – Wentworth Dillon, 4th Earl of Roscommon, An Essay on Translated Verse (1684)
At Liberty to chuse their Business. – Samuel Johnson, The Idler (2nd February, 1760)
Sing another song, or chuse another tree. – William Wordsworth, Lyrical Ballads II.77 (1800)
Would not Mr. Waverley chuse some refreshment after his journey? – Sir Walter Scott, Waverley I. ix. 121 (1814)
answered Jan 23 '17 at 13:41
David Richerby
3,45611431
edited Jan 24 '17 at 19:25
answered Jan 23 '17 at 13:41
David Richerby
3,45611431
answered Jan 23 '17 at 13:41
David Richerby
3,45611431
answered Jan 23 '17 at 13:41
David Richerby
3,45611431
3,45611431
Also 'I know very well my Bible, and shall chuse for myself': G.F. Handel, on writing (I think) Messiah, 1741.
– user207421
Jan 24 '17 at 15:25
@Kevin "Chuse" has indeed been essentially nonexistent for 150 years. However, the OED attempts to give the entire history of the language, and it lists obsolete spellings as well as current ones. In fact, it does include "chuse" in its list of obsolete spellings of "choose" but that list is so complex that I missed it. I'll edit that part of my answer in a second.
– David Richerby
Jan 24 '17 at 19:24
add a comment |
Also 'I know very well my Bible, and shall chuse for myself': G.F. Handel, on writing (I think) Messiah, 1741.
– user207421
Jan 24 '17 at 15:25
@Kevin "Chuse" has indeed been essentially nonexistent for 150 years. However, the OED attempts to give the entire history of the language, and it lists obsolete spellings as well as current ones. In fact, it does include "chuse" in its list of obsolete spellings of "choose" but that list is so complex that I missed it. I'll edit that part of my answer in a second.
– David Richerby
Jan 24 '17 at 19:24
Also 'I know very well my Bible, and shall chuse for myself': G.F. Handel, on writing (I think) Messiah, 1741.
– user207421
Jan 24 '17 at 15:25
Also 'I know very well my Bible, and shall chuse for myself': G.F. Handel, on writing (I think) Messiah, 1741.
– user207421
Jan 24 '17 at 15:25
@Kevin "Chuse" has indeed been essentially nonexistent for 150 years. However, the OED attempts to give the entire history of the language, and it lists obsolete spellings as well as current ones. In fact, it does include "chuse" in its list of obsolete spellings of "choose" but that list is so complex that I missed it. I'll edit that part of my answer in a second.
– David Richerby
Jan 24 '17 at 19:24
@Kevin "Chuse" has indeed been essentially nonexistent for 150 years. However, the OED attempts to give the entire history of the language, and it lists obsolete spellings as well as current ones. In fact, it does include "chuse" in its list of obsolete spellings of "choose" but that list is so complex that I missed it. I'll edit that part of my answer in a second.
– David Richerby
Jan 24 '17 at 19:24
add a comment |
https://books.google.ie/books?id=HySf4w0fBZgC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34#v=onepage&q&f=false is a scanned version of the 2008 edition of the 1896 version that had illustrations by Hugh Thomson, and the use of chuse is quite clearly not a digitalisation error.
Some editions have choose but editors generally consider it their prerogative to change spelling.
More generally, Austen did indeed prefer chuse, but not consistently. Likewise scissars for scissors is rarely found now, but the form Austen preferred. Shew for show is perhaps a better-known example, having been the more common spelling until a few years after Austen's death.
answered Jan 24 '17 at 14:48
Jon Hanna
47.7k193176
add a comment |
https://books.google.ie/books?id=HySf4w0fBZgC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34#v=onepage&q&f=false is a scanned version of the 2008 edition of the 1896 version that had illustrations by Hugh Thomson, and the use of chuse is quite clearly not a digitalisation error.
Some editions have choose but editors generally consider it their prerogative to change spelling.
More generally, Austen did indeed prefer chuse, but not consistently. Likewise scissars for scissors is rarely found now, but the form Austen preferred. Shew for show is perhaps a better-known example, having been the more common spelling until a few years after Austen's death.
answered Jan 24 '17 at 14:48
Jon Hanna
47.7k193176
add a comment |
https://books.google.ie/books?id=HySf4w0fBZgC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34#v=onepage&q&f=false is a scanned version of the 2008 edition of the 1896 version that had illustrations by Hugh Thomson, and the use of chuse is quite clearly not a digitalisation error.
Some editions have choose but editors generally consider it their prerogative to change spelling.
More generally, Austen did indeed prefer chuse, but not consistently. Likewise scissars for scissors is rarely found now, but the form Austen preferred. Shew for show is perhaps a better-known example, having been the more common spelling until a few years after Austen's death.
answered Jan 24 '17 at 14:48
Jon Hanna
47.7k193176
https://books.google.ie/books?id=HySf4w0fBZgC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34#v=onepage&q&f=false is a scanned version of the 2008 edition of the 1896 version that had illustrations by Hugh Thomson, and the use of chuse is quite clearly not a digitalisation error.
Some editions have choose but editors generally consider it their prerogative to change spelling.
More generally, Austen did indeed prefer chuse, but not consistently. Likewise scissars for scissors is rarely found now, but the form Austen preferred. Shew for show is perhaps a better-known example, having been the more common spelling until a few years after Austen's death.
answered Jan 24 '17 at 14:48
Jon Hanna
47.7k193176
answered Jan 24 '17 at 14:48
Jon Hanna
47.7k193176
answered Jan 24 '17 at 14:48
Jon Hanna
47.7k193176
answered Jan 24 '17 at 14:48
Jon Hanna
47.7k193176
47.7k193176
add a comment |
add a comment |
In his A Dictionary of the English Language published in 1755, Dr. Samuel Johnson opted for "choose". (I'm looking at an online version http://www.whichenglish.com/Johnsons-Dictionary/1755-Letter-C.html)
It's interesting to see that the popularity of "chuse" starts declining a few years after 1750 according to the Google Books Ngram Viewer image in an earlier answer. Coincidence or cause?
answered Nov 13 at 20:27
M L
111
1
This is a worthwhile contribution that adds to the other answers. One slight flaw: it doesn't explicitly answer the question asked... although it very easily could, with some slight editing... if you so chuse.
– tmgr
Nov 13 at 21:39
add a comment |
In his A Dictionary of the English Language published in 1755, Dr. Samuel Johnson opted for "choose". (I'm looking at an online version http://www.whichenglish.com/Johnsons-Dictionary/1755-Letter-C.html)
It's interesting to see that the popularity of "chuse" starts declining a few years after 1750 according to the Google Books Ngram Viewer image in an earlier answer. Coincidence or cause?
answered Nov 13 at 20:27
M L
111
1
This is a worthwhile contribution that adds to the other answers. One slight flaw: it doesn't explicitly answer the question asked... although it very easily could, with some slight editing... if you so chuse.
– tmgr
Nov 13 at 21:39
add a comment |
In his A Dictionary of the English Language published in 1755, Dr. Samuel Johnson opted for "choose". (I'm looking at an online version http://www.whichenglish.com/Johnsons-Dictionary/1755-Letter-C.html)
It's interesting to see that the popularity of "chuse" starts declining a few years after 1750 according to the Google Books Ngram Viewer image in an earlier answer. Coincidence or cause?
answered Nov 13 at 20:27
M L
111
In his A Dictionary of the English Language published in 1755, Dr. Samuel Johnson opted for "choose". (I'm looking at an online version http://www.whichenglish.com/Johnsons-Dictionary/1755-Letter-C.html)
It's interesting to see that the popularity of "chuse" starts declining a few years after 1750 according to the Google Books Ngram Viewer image in an earlier answer. Coincidence or cause?
answered Nov 13 at 20:27
M L
111
answered Nov 13 at 20:27
M L
111
answered Nov 13 at 20:27
M L
111
answered Nov 13 at 20:27
M L
111
111
1
This is a worthwhile contribution that adds to the other answers. One slight flaw: it doesn't explicitly answer the question asked... although it very easily could, with some slight editing... if you so chuse.
– tmgr
Nov 13 at 21:39
add a comment |
1
This is a worthwhile contribution that adds to the other answers. One slight flaw: it doesn't explicitly answer the question asked... although it very easily could, with some slight editing... if you so chuse.
– tmgr
Nov 13 at 21:39
1
1
This is a worthwhile contribution that adds to the other answers. One slight flaw: it doesn't explicitly answer the question asked... although it very easily could, with some slight editing... if you so chuse.
– tmgr
Nov 13 at 21:39
This is a worthwhile contribution that adds to the other answers. One slight flaw: it doesn't explicitly answer the question asked... although it very easily could, with some slight editing... if you so chuse.
– tmgr
Nov 13 at 21:39
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f369759%2fis-this-use-of-chuse-a-spelling-mistake-a-digitization-error-or-the-correct-s%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
If "the original" means "the first edition", it's worth pointing out that the first edition of "Emma" had an initial print run of only twelve copies, and nobody knows what happened to eleven of the twelve. The known surviving copy was sold at auction in 2012 (the price was £180,000), but the seller and buyer are both anonymous. So strictly speaking, the question is unanswerable!
– alephzero
Jan 24 '17 at 4:24
3
@alephzero in the context of digitization, the original I'm referring to is the print from which the digital copy was made. I suppose I'd be happy with any printed copy.
– user77261
Jan 24 '17 at 10:27