jon (07/03/82)
a) "Ov" is not an unconventional spelling, it is a misspelling. Since the rules of English derive not from any Academy, but from usage, it is sometimes difficult to say what is "correct." Nevertheless, it is safe to say that "ov" as a spelling of "of" is virtually unheard-of. (Furthermore, it's annoying.) b) Words are but conventions. If one deviates too far from the conventional, one ceases to use the language in question. "Ov" is not a word in written English. Jon Mauney
rvpalliende (07/04/82)
word (werd) n. 1. Any sound or combination of sounds (or its written
printed symbol, customarily shown with a space on either side of it
of it but none within it) forming meaningful element of speech,
conveying an idea or alternative ideas, and capable of serving as
a member of, the whole of, or a substitute for, a sentence; basic
unit of expression of data and instructions in a computer;
>From The Concise Oxford Dictionary
It seems that Jon Mauney thinks ov words only as what is after
the first semicolon, in the above definition.
I don't see any reference to conventional spelling.
Some people spell "thanx". Isn't that a word, by the definition?
(I don't give any magic value to dictionary definitions. I only
quoted this one to have an informed opinion)
And remeber, spelling REPRESENTS language. Only in computers
the written form IS the language.
Pablo Alliende