I had to check Webster's; it's in there as a form of foresee. What other words do you suppose are not acknowledged by your dictionary? Maybe you should get one with all of the new words like blog and google.
Ah, but you're using a concise dictionary, aren't you? There are an awful lot of perfectly legitimate words which are not to be found in concise dictionaries. You need to have the full set of volumes of a complete dictionary before you'll find all acceptable words in there.
My usual test is 'coloboma', which I know to be a perfectly good word, and I've actually seen a cat with one. However, none of my concise dictionaries have it in.
I found 'foresee' in my Chambers Dictionary under 'fore-', along with other words formed with that prefix, which seems to be way the it is organised. Under 'foresee' is 'foreseeability', 'foreseeable', 'foreseeing' and 'foreseeingly'.
Thanks all, as others have said, it's to be found under fore- rather than foresee. I should have realised there were lots of fore-words missing. But that's a silly way!
8 comments:
I had to check Webster's; it's in there as a form of foresee. What other words do you suppose are not acknowledged by your dictionary? Maybe you should get one with all of the new words like blog and google.
Foresee isn't there either, nancy. I wouldn't mind if it were a new word like blog but Chambers is the official reference dictionary for scrabble.
I keep thinking: it must be me. I must be looking in the wrong place!
Hi Liz, no your not looking in the wrong place. Very strange that it is not there.
FORESEE is in the Oxford Concise English Dictionary, and then foreseeable comes under that, as well as foreseeability, foreseeably and foreseer.
Well it is in my old Reader's Digest Universal and in my wife's Encarta Modern.
Ah, but you're using a concise dictionary, aren't you? There are an awful lot of perfectly legitimate words which are not to be found in concise dictionaries. You need to have the full set of volumes of a complete dictionary before you'll find all acceptable words in there.
My usual test is 'coloboma', which I know to be a perfectly good word, and I've actually seen a cat with one. However, none of my concise dictionaries have it in.
I found 'foresee' in my Chambers Dictionary under 'fore-', along with other words formed with that prefix, which seems to be way the it is organised. Under 'foresee' is 'foreseeability', 'foreseeable', 'foreseeing' and 'foreseeingly'.
Thanks all, as others have said, it's to be found under fore- rather than foresee. I should have realised there were lots of fore-words missing. But that's a silly way!
My 1948 Chambers's has foresee, foreseeing, andughforeseeingly. Very odd. It also has unforeseeable. Even odder! (And it's not under fore either!)
Post a Comment