> > > Both "buses" and "busses" are acceptable plurals of "bus". At least according to dictionary.com, anyway.
> >
> > "Busses" is the second spelling listed in some dictionaries and not listed at all in other dictionaries. Generally one should not trust the second spelling or pronunciation variation listed in dictionaries. Lexicographers tend to be too permissive and eager to decrease the literacy rate by making language errors correct as quickly as they occur.
>
> But the point of this is that the OED lists "busses" as an American alternative to "buses". Given that it is an American English word rather than a British English word (according to OED), I would be interested to know what Webster's has on the subject, if anyone has a copy.
>

Lexicographers chart the drifts and changes in a language; they're not supposed to 'invent' new spellings and common usages (although we know that Webster himself did exactly that). Generally there is a tendancy for native speakers in a population to 'correct' any grammatical and orthographic usage which is perceived as faulty. Thus, spelling 'busses' for 'buses' only makes sense if one's initial urge in reading 'buses' aloud is to say "boosiz" instead of "bŭsiz". Not being a strict grammarian myself -- it's Sam who knows the precise convention -- I presume that adding the extra 's' in the middle is consistent with standard grammatical practise, in that the double-consonant modifies the preceding 'u' into a short vowel.

This is similar to what I mentioned in 14612.shtml when people once decided 'pease' was the plural form for a bunch of peas, for which pea must be the singular, and so a new word -- pea -- was born. The same thing might happen if we ever decided that the word 'cheese' refers to having more than one 'chee.'

Wolf "every topic eventually finds its way back to cheese" spirit