Funny...Chrome is putting a red squiggly line under "theif" when I type it, but when I Google "define:theif" it gives me the definition of it and links to a page on Wikipedia titled "Theif".
Urban dictionary even has a page for "theif", claiming it's often used in past tense (which is untrue, because the true spelling, 'thief', is a noun...)
[twitter]Casey_Hardman[/twitter]
Funny...Chrome is putting a red squiggly line under "theif" when I type it, but when I Google "define:theif" it gives me the definition of it and links to a page on Wikipedia titled "Theif".
Urban dictionary even has a page for "theif", claiming it's often used in past tense (which is untrue, because the true spelling, 'thief', is a noun...)
It's not as bad a mistake as it looks. Theif was the old spelling according to the complete Oxford English dictionary. So yes, it is incorrect in modern usage, but that spelling did exist in the past and was used.
Firefox has various dictionaries. I know I had to change mine from British to American.
Funny...Chrome is putting a red squiggly line under "theif" when I type it, but when I Google "define:theif" it gives me the definition of it and links to a page on Wikipedia titled "Theif".
Urban dictionary even has a page for "theif", claiming it's often used in past tense (which is untrue, because the true spelling, 'thief', is a noun...)
Actually, I believe that "theif" is generally a synonym for "theft," (the act) not "thief" (the person) when it is used (very rarely) in modern English.
Actually, I believe that "theif" is generally a synonym for "theft," (the act) not "thief" (the person) when it is used (very rarely) in modern English.
Oxford Dictionaries shows nothing for "theif" in US English.
Oxford Dictionaries shows nothing for "theif" in US English.
Actually, I believe that "theif" is generally a synonym for "theft," (the act) not "thief" (the person) when it is used (very rarely) in modern English.
Oxford Dictionaries shows nothing for "theif" in US English.
Do keep in mind that there is a HUGE difference between Oxford Dictionaries, and the Oxford English Dictionary. The OED's goal is a complete history of the English language, while the smaller Oxford dictionaries are meant to only provide a reference for the language in its more current usage. Stuff comes and goes from one, while everything stays in the other.
Actually, I believe that "theif" is generally a synonym for "theft," (the act) not "thief" (the person) when it is used (very rarely) in modern English.
Oxford Dictionaries shows nothing for "theif" in US English.
Do keep in mind that there is a HUGE difference between Oxford Dictionaries, and the Oxford English Dictionary. The OED's goal is a complete history of the English language, while the smaller Oxford dictionaries are meant to only provide a reference for the language in its more current usage. Stuff comes and goes from one, while everything stays in the other.
Which is why the full Oxford English Dictionary was the best Christmas present I've ever received :). It is truly awesome in its completeness.
Do keep in mind that there is a HUGE difference between Oxford Dictionaries, and the Oxford English Dictionary. The OED's goal is a complete history of the English language, while the smaller Oxford dictionaries are meant to only provide a reference for the language in its more current usage. Stuff comes and goes from one, while everything stays in the other.
If you read cowsarenotevil's post, it suggests that it's still used (albeit rarely) in modern English. Its lack of entry in the Oxford Dictionaries suggests it's not a part of modern English (not to say it wasn't part of Old English).
Didn't English spelling kind of morph like this anyway before the invention of dictionaries?
With that perspective, it's like Google is taking spelling back in a way. 
