Für Grammatikfragen ist das Forum "Sprachlabor" zuständig, pausello!

Wo steht das? Und wer bist Du überhaupt?

Im Australischen (und damit wahrscheinlich auch Britischen): supersede

Siehe auch related discussion: to supersede (also: supercede) - an die Stell...

Demnach gilt "supercede" allgemein als falsch.

both is correct

Definitions of supersede on the Web:
supplant: take the place or move into the position of; "Smith replaced Miller as CEO after Miller left"; "the computer has supplanted the slide rule"; "Mary replaced Susan as the team's captain and the highest-ranked player in the school"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Definitions of supercede on the Web:
supplant: take the place or move into the position of; "Smith replaced Miller as CEO after Miller left"; "the computer has supplanted the slide rule"; "Mary replaced Susan as the team's captain and the highest-ranked player in the school"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

see?

@sammy
you can find almost anything on the internet.
both are used, but this doesn't necessarily mean both are correct

"(Donkey):SUPERCEDE
(Owl): SUPERSEDE
This word, meaning to replace, originally meant “to sit higher” than, from Latin sedere, “to sit.” In the 18th century, rich people were often carried about as they sat in sedan chairs. Don’t be misled by the fact that this word rhymes with words having quite different roots, such as intercede."
http://wsu.edu/~brians/errors/supercede.html

"supersede verb (superseded, superseding) 1 to take the place of (something, especially something outdated or no longer valid) • CD-ROMs will supersede many reference books. 2 to adopt, appoint or promote in favour of another. supersedence noun. superseder noun. supersession noun.
ETYMOLOGY: 15c: from Latin super above + sedere to sit."

"Sorry, no entries for supercede were found."
http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/feat...

@pausello: "Wo steht das?"

Am linken Rand im Kasten "Navigation", pausello, und die Einteilung in verschiedene Rubriken wurde nicht zum Spaß gemacht!

@M-A-Z
Und was ist mit meiner zweiten Frage? Wer bist Du überhaupt? Der Admin vom System?

@M-A-Z
Und meine erste Frage hast Du auch nicht beantwortet. Wo steht, daß für Grammatikfragen das Forum "Sprachlabor" zuständig ist? Woher soll ich das als seltener Gast wissen? Und wer sagt, daß das überhaupt eine Grammatikfrage ist?

Worüber zankt Ihr eigentlich?? Ist das Imponiergehabe?

@UMG2
Ich kann Leute wie M-A-Z nicht leiden, die anstatt Antworten zu geben, ihre Zeit darauf verschwenden einen in ein anderes Forum zu weisen. Aber Du hast recht, ich sollte mir die Mühe auch sparen.

Ich halt mich jetzt zurück. Danke für den Einwand.

Marianne (BE) is perfectly right. And in support of her sources here's the first sentence from Fowler's:

"supersede. Under the influence of accede, cede, intercede, etc., supersede ... is frequently, but erroneously, spelt supercede."

my Webster's Collegiate (among other sources) contains both; for "supercede," it simply says "variation of supersede."

I therefore support all those who support both spellings. :-)

Well both spellings may exist, but "supercede" appears to be more tolerated than correct. Even Webster's online points out that "supercede" is "still widely regarded as an error."

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/supercede

@Bill: According to Marianne, "you can find almost anything on the web." (#7) On the other hand, sammy's source (#6) is WordNet, "a lexical database for the English language" put together by the "Cognitive Science Laboratory Princeton University 221 Nassau St. Princeton, NJ 08542." Seems highly authoritative to me.

I've come across both versions throughout the years, but maybe there's another AE/BE difference.

@dude
I know you love to disagree with me on principle, but this time there is no AE/BE difference - supercede is merely wrong.

There is a parallel discussion going on even now, here:
related discussion: Correct spelling of "supersede"?
perhaps you will listen to hm--us if not to me ;-)

@Dude, So you don't think that Webster's online dictionary is authoritative?

@Bill: I didn't say that; I was merely quoting Marianne. :-)

@Marianne: with all due respect: I don't think hm -- us (despite her fine knowledge of many things) is the final arbiter when it come to the use or history of the English language. I do have to give Princeton University a bit more credit than hm; for one thing, it's been around a bit longer. ;-)

...when it comeS.. (sorry)

WordNet is certainly a lot less authoritative than any published, edited dictionary, just as LEO is a lot less authoritative than Duden or Wahrig. The same is true of most online dictionaries, including those from Chemnitz or Leipzig or wherever. Just being affiliated with a university doesn't guarantee anything at all, though it usually does suggest that the site is at least one step above really dubious online sources like dict.cc or websters-online-dictionary.org that aren't affiliated with anything at all.

And even published dictionaries aren't always 100% right. Duden now permits some usages that careful writers of German still shun, and as I said in the other thread, Merriam-Webster's weak point has long been spelling. Precisely because M-W was so lax on spelling for so many decades, particularly around, say, the 70s and 80s, it's even more significant that it now at least includes a note (however wimpy) about this word -- possibly because the misspelling is so infamous that a lot of users have (rightly) complained.

*f5* If it bothers anyone to have to hear this from me, you certainly don't have to take my word for it. I'm not saying it's right because I say so, but because it has long been the consensus among educated speakers. You can verify that all by yourself if you just take the time to survey other sources, such as AHD, Bryan Garner, Paul Brians, and any number of other style guides.

chiming in #22, that link was already given by Marianne (BE) at #7.

@Phillipp: but it's an on-line source! What do you guys want? Quote online sources on one hand, yet pooh-pooh them on the other? You can't have it both ways.

@hm -- us: far be it from me to dictate the correct usage of English; there are certainly brighter and more educated minds than mine holding forth on that topic. However, it seems to me (and I am basing my statement merely on what I think is a healthy dose of common sense) that as English and its various forms (American, Asian -particularly "Hinglish", African, etc.) has changed and influenced the "Queen's English" over the past centuries, many formerly wrong usages have become correct. They may not be included in all printed dictionaries, because especially in modern times, this would be highly impractical and probably impossible.

If, on the other hand, a word has been used for centuries already (as we all seem to agree in the case of "supercede/supersede") and has - wrongly or rightly - made its way into at least some respectable dictionaries (as I mentioned previously, it is in my printed Webster's), I think it should be accepted in whatever spelling form given in those dictionaries as a correct form.

In other words, were I an English professor at some university and pausello delivered a paper to me containing the word "supercede", I wouldn't hold it against him.

We got the word supersede/supercede from the Latin supersedere, by way of the Old French superceder (later superseder), so etymology offers arguments in favor of each spelling. Supersede is the overwhelming preference of Edited English, although supercede does occur in print.

Source: The Columbia Guide to Standard American English

..might help...

@dannniii: I understand all that, but I'm still sticking to my main argument in my previous post. :-)

I think (hope) pausello has got the picture!

"Forms: 5-9 supercede, (6 Sc. -ceid, 6-7 -sead, -e, Sc. 6-7 -seid, 7 -cid, -seed), 6- supersede. [a. OF. superceder, later -seder, ad. L. supersedre (in med.L. often -cedere) to sit above, be superior to, refrain from, omit, in med.L. to succeed to an estate, f. super- SUPER- I, II + sedre to SIT. Cf. It. soprassedere, Sp. sobreseer.]" -- OED Online 2nd edition entry (1989)

[5 denotes 15th century, 6 -> 16th, etc]

My impression, having looked at all the OED's quotations, is that the spelling was indeed mixed in the 15th and 16th centuries, perhaps partly under the influence of the Old French and mediaeval Latin variability. And that 'supersede' progressively predominated from the 17th century on; the more so, the more spelling became standardi[s|z]ed: no 'supercede' cited later than 1807. We seem to have been treating 'supsersede' as standard for well over two hundred years.

That being so, I expect and intend always to use 'supersede', and wouldn't lobby for the use of 'supercede'. I'd think of it as unjustified. That's not to say it may not happen. What have been thought of as errors do sometimes gain currency, perhaps more quickly and widely now than ever before. Conceivably the parallel use of variant spellings could even become more common again.

What about "superseed"? Is that OK? Or does that change the meaning?
(just trying to get some perspective here ;-)

Superseeds are what you plant when you want to grow supervegetables.

@wpr: Nah - the superseeds are playing at Wimbledon at the moment;-). I never did see whether Venus (or is it Serena?) Williams beat Sharapova today.

On topic: I'm in the "s" camp.

1607 TOPSELL Four-f. Beasts 230, I superseed any further discourse heereof, till we come to the declaration of the greater beast.

OED 2nd edition (1989)

Make of that what you will. :)

@lemming: What I make of it is that in 1607 the spelling had not been standardized, but the discussion is about current usage. While supercede/supersede might be debatable, superseed in modern usage is not. Are you also arguing for the 1607 spelling of heereof?

But if you really want to accept anything usable in 1607, then I get to write whil/whyle/while and manye other spelinges - after all you're not really educated unless you can spell a word at least three different ways. While we're at it, can we re-introduce the thorn and edh? Please? PLEASE?

For what it's worth, my Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary gives supercede as a variant of supersede, but lists only "supersession" as the noun for without a "c" variant.

noun forM (or is that forme?)

@Robert, #30 was my substantive contribution. #34 was a light-hearted but informative follow-up to the three subsequent postings, and did not superseed it.

@lemming: And I was so hoping we could start a movement to bring back variant spelling. ;b

Seriously, I enjoyed both posts - for different reasons. Probably should have separated my own joke better.

Is this thread long enough to be a supersession?

@Robertus, alas I mistook thy jest.

I got the message, thanks guys! Appreciate. Will continue to use supersede.