judgment only has one "e" in it
what would wikipedia know about correct editing.
it's written by anonymii just like this forum.
Meh. It was a convenient link. I write and edit for U.S. and Canadian audiences, and I have had long conversations about this VERY WORD with various editors and publishers. We usually default to M-W (as AndrewF linked) but Wiki was the first link that came up for me. "Judgement" is becoming the standard in non-legal contexts in Canada (likely because we see the U.S. spelling frequently).
webster's is a college dictionary, not an editing authority.
the new york times insists upon judgment. In so doing, america's leading newspaper is following publishing standards laid down by the ne plus ultra of US style masters, the venerable chicago manual of style.
all newspaper & publishing style guides anywhere in north america are based on the massive chicago manual of style, updated through 16 editions. PMLA publications are based on the chicago manual of style. Canadian Press style is based on chicago manual of style. On this continent, in this year of our lord 2012, one is hard-pressed to find an exception.
chicago spells it j-u-d-g-m-e-n-t.
all this being said, we all know that language is continually shifting & evolving. If enough north americans begin mis-spelling judgment as judgement, the latter version will, eventually, become first the widely-accepted version & then, finally, the correct version.
my point is that such an evolutionary shift in this particular word has not yet occurred.
Judgment is only insisted on in American English or in legal contexts, per the wikipedia article. I am not American, and feel no need to be bound by their conventions of spelling for a multitude of other words, including color, neighbor, etc. More to the point, why are you throwing a foreign style guide at me when I am not writing for the NYT, but a humble Canadian web forum. Why point out only this deviation from that style guide? I spelling dozens of words differently. You don't use proper capitalization. This is not the NYT, and the Chicago Manual of Style is irrelevant.
I wonder whether this digression is really a fruitful path to continue along. It seems asinine to me.
Last edited by andrewf; 2012-09-12 at 12:17 AM.
I don't think this was a 'nitpick' per se, it's just that little escapes eagle eyes.
The interesting evolution of grammar: below are the archaic versions of what word?
cnaulage, cnoulech, knauleche, knaulege, knaulach, knaulage, knawlache, knawlage, kneuelich, kneuleche, kneuliche, knoleche, knolege, knoleige, knolych, knouelache, knouelech, knouelich, knoulecche, knoulegge, knouliche, knowlache, knowlage, knowleche, knowledg, knowlege, knowlesche, knowliche, knowlych, knowlech.
Speaking of evolution/borrowed words & other influences, I wonder what English [& other languages] will look like, say 50 years from now.
“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.”
Perhaps those eagle eyes should be cast on the keyboard before their owner. I'm sure they will find a 'Shift' key or two. As long as we're picking nits. I think the Chicago Manual of Style or the NYT's editors might also insist on proper capitalization, syntax and punctuation.