On 2018-02-17, J. J. Lodder <***@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> Peter Duncanson [BrE] <***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 13:12:10 -0800 (PST), Paul <***@gmail.com>
>> >According to https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/the-folly-o
>> >Ta Nehisi-Coates said " I was skeptical of war, but if the U.S. was going
>> >to take out a mad tyrant, who was I to object? "
>> >This is referenced in a recent London Review of Books article:
>> >which says BEGIN QUOTE
>> >He, too, was 'sceptical', he wrote a decade later in a blog post for the
>> >Atlantic, 'but if the US was going to take out a mad tyrant, who was I to
>> >END QUOTE
>> >Surely, he was "skeptical" rather than "sceptical".
>> >What on earth is the justification for changing the written text?
>> >Paul Epstein
>> Possible because the spelling "skeptical" could be distracting to a BrE
>> reader. My impression is that in general we Brits are familiar with the
>> AmE spellings of words such as "color" and "center", but we don't see
>> "skeptical" frequently enough to accept it without noticing.
>> Some Brits could be so unfamiliar with that spelling that they might
>> wonder whether "skeptical" is simply a spelling of "sceptical" or a
>> different word or whether is wordplay that has them whooshed.
> Organised British skeptics do use the 'skeptic' spelling exclusively.
I seem to remember a time when 'sceptic' was the usual BrE word for the
concept, but pronounced to sound like 'septic', which was an annoying
confusion. So I was quite pleased to discover that 'skeptic' was an
alternative and more helpful spelling and pronunciation. I think this
led to at least one class-room discussion.