Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Savior versus Saviour

Not that it matters to me how Savior is spelled, but I see Candy is selectively utilizing online dictionaries again.

Candy writes:
Savior - noun
1. a person who saves, rescues, or delivers: the savior of the country.

Saviour - noun
1. a teacher and prophet born in Bethlehem and active in Nazareth; his life and sermons form the basis for Christianity (circa 4 BC - AD 29)
- WordNet dictionary

From the WordNet dictionary:
Savior - noun
1. a teacher and prophet born in Bethlehem and active in Nazareth; his life and sermons form the basis for Christianity (circa 4 BC - AD 29)
- WordNet dictionary
They list that meaning first, regardless of the spelling.

The listing, American Heritage, and Merriam-Webster all had this meaning listed second, rather than first, as the WordNet dictionary did.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


faithful catholic said...

Well, imagine that! I just now finished posting the "whole" definition for 'saviour' including #1 AND #2 from the WordNet dictionary over at Candy's. Wanna guess whether or not my comment will get through?

"WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This

1. a teacher and prophet born in Bethlehem and active in Nazareth; his life and sermons form the basis for Christianity (circa 4 BC - AD 29)
2. a person who rescues you from harm or danger [syn: savior]

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University. "

Perplexity said...

This supposed difference only comes up in American English. In British/Australian/Canadian/South American English, there is only one way to spell it, regardless of its intended meaning.


Just like favourite, favour, etc.

It seems so irrelevant.

Elena said...

Candy once posted that she thinks the English language has been tainted with modern usage. I then suggested that she should only speak and write in old English... so far she hasn't taken me up on it!

faithful catholic said...

OFF TOPIC. Anybody been following along at Ashley's "helpmeet in training" blog? Yikes!

Elena said...

I was sorry to see that. I was also surprised to see my name in the post just under it.

Since she is taking her blog down, for documentation purposes, here is my comment.

Hi Ashley,

I found it interesting that you just recently left the Catholic Church and then comment on Candy's blog, commending her for telling the "truth."

We just recently on my blog refuted every point she made on her "Whore of Babylon" post and her "Vatican vs. God."

If you care to check it out, I think you can see that Most of Candy's research is flawed. We have gone to great lengths to pull from the catechism, the scriptures, early church fathers and from other Catholic sites what Catholics really believe and what the Catholic Church really teaches.

Interestingly when I was right out of high school until my early 30s, I knew almost nothing about my Catholic faith. It really wasn't until I started having children and my own sister started challenging me about being Catholic, that I started to re-learn all the stuff I should have learned in catechism class and high school!. It was through that in depth self-study of scripture and the catechism that I came right back to embracing the richness of my Catholic faith.

Please realize that Candy is not giving the entire story of what Catholic's believe and that in fact she is so unsure of her position that she won't even allow it to be challenged in a friendly, scholarly fashion. If she really thinks she is correct, she should have no problem defending her position in a logical, persuasive and compelling manner. She won't. I'm guessing because she can't.

Good luck with your recent move. I hope that this period of transition in your life is a smooth and happy one!


And apparently because of that Ashley wrote: "And this is really no woman to be giving out religious advice."

That actually might go on my side bar!

My reply back to her on My Domestic Church is here.

Rachel said...

I wonder if anyone who reads her blog is gonna take it upon themselves to LOOK, or just take her word as the truth?

Nancy Parode said...

Oh, here we go again. I am getting sick of the ex-nun thing. Maybe I should borrow one of Candy's favorite words..."putrid."

At least Candy could bother to put true captions under her photos. Bad journalism bothers me.

Sorry to comment here, but no one's posted about Candy's latest recycled rant here yet, and I think I know what will happen if I try to comment on Candy's blog.

faithful catholic said...

Me thinks Clare's got Candy back on her heels a bit! I CANNOT even believe she is so fixated on this issue that she likes 'saviour' better than 'savior' because the former has seven letters (the number of God) and the latter has six (the number of man). For crying out loud, what about Jesus (five letters) or Christ (uh oh six letters) and on and on and on.
I wonder if this is one of the doctrines of her 'church' or if it's just some 'manmade' dictate?

BrandyandJason said...

I was laughing at the numbers reasoning as well, because as was pointed out, on other languages it will not be seven letters, but for her to then say she does not care what it is in other languages, only english because SHE reads only english proves the point once again..flawed research....terrible academics...much need for prayer

Nancy Parode said...

You know, back in the day, spelling was not very standardized. In fact, it was downright creative. I wonder if Candy has read any handwritten letters from the days of King James - "saviour" could just as easily have been printed with some other spelling, and with a different number of letters in the word.

Isn't counting up numbers and relying on their significance, well, sort of anti-Christian?

Perplexity said...

Not only was spelling random in the 17th century, word choice was random as well. The English language is a combination, of sorts, of Old English, Old Norman, and various Anglo-Saxon tribal languages spoken throughout England; lest anyone forget, even England didn't speak all the same language - or even the English language - for many centuries. The Norman Conquest in 1066 brought the first steps in the development of "Modern English", as it is called but certainly not defined. Norman English, as it is called, is really just a cobbled together bunch of dialects from throughout England with German and French influence brought with the conquest. Until the 15th century, English wasn't even the official language of England. There were more French speakers than cobbled English speakers. (Forgive the lack of completeness; I'm currently doing this from memory; I suppose I could look up the facts...but why? Ahem).

By the time the King James Bible was written, the English language was only officially spoken in England for less than 100 years. And it certainly did not resemble the language spoken today, or even a 100 years later. And it certainly was not one official dialect. All anyone needs to do is read a letter written at that time, or any time prior to roughly the reign of Queen Victoria. And, there are thousands to choose from.

Language is not static. It is ever changing and ever adapting. There never was a true or "pure" English, and there never will be.

Therein lies just one of the many faults with this ridiculous argument.

Not only does she pick up on something that is irrelevant to anyone or anything, she makes an issue out of it when there is no issue to be made. She doesn't care about other translations...because she doesn't care about anyone else. It is all about her and what she sees and how she interprets and to hell with everyone else; they're all wrong! Candy is, apparently, divinely inspired herself and knows things no one else could ever know. Her language issues prove it! She is especially chosen by God to what? Preach to Catholics? Oh, and didn't somewhere along the line she say she had a "special" gift for interpreting the Bible? That kind of arrogance is what will ultimately trip her up.

I am not a catechized Catholic and can argue little on that front. I am, however, a college graduate with Bachelors Degrees in Written Communications and English, both of which required a study of the history of the English language. I also have two minors; one in Humanities, which required the study of cultures and societies around the world, and History. Does that really mean anything? No. Nothing other than the fact that I can at least refute this "pure" language crap she harps on.

Milehimama said...

Isn't preferring a "saviour" vs. "savior" because one has 7 letters, and one 6 letters, putting your faith in numbers? (And, since Jesus was GOD and MAN, either would be appropriate anyway!)

Isn't this a huge part of the Bible Code and also Kabbalah?

And how silly to use ENGLISH for biblical numerology, any way.