Whip vs wip, pen vs pin (OT)

[Dave Nereson]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Phillip Ford" <fordpiano@earthlink.net>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 10:44 AM
Subject: Whip vs wip, pen vs pin


> I see that a new front has opened in the long raging whippen vs
> wippen battle.  I have a boxed set of these Renner thingees setting
> in my shop.  I see that Renner has affixed a label to the outside of
> the box stating that there are wippins inside.  Since they make the
> things, you would expect them to know.  So, you now have another
> alternative spelling to contend with.
>
> Phil Ford
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
>

    "Whippen," I'm afraid, has become an accepted "alternative spelling,"
but until recent years it was an incorrect one.  I hope "wippin" never gains
any ground.
    See the Feb. 1994 Journal, p.13.  The 1947 Funk & Wagnalls New Standard
Dictionary of the English Language listed it as 'wippen.'  Most dictionaries
don't have it at all since it's specific to the piano trade only.  William
Braid White used 'wippen'.  "Whippen" is a corruption and appears in more
recent publications.  It's one of those popular misusages like "orangutang"
for 'orangutan', "heighth" for 'height', "Westminister" for 'Westminster',
"vice-a versa" for 'vice versa', "oral" when 'aural' is meant, "masonary"
for 'masonry,' "bridal" instead of 'bridle', in reference to those little
straps, "vetinarian" for 'veterinarian', "calvary" when 'cavalry' was
intended, "garnish wages" when 'garnishee' is correct, ad infinitum.  Oh
yes, and "real-a-tor" instead of "realtor." --David Nereson, RPT