If we're allowed to make modifications here then it should really be lose => looze and loose => luce
replyFun fact — English did not have formalized spelling prior to the printing press
replyhttps://www.dictionary.com/articles/printing-press-frozen-sp...
So, technically we are allowed to make modifications! We just can't expect others to adhere to our modifications :)
I think that would make "loosely" not work out. Lucely/lucly catch the hard C there. I'm good with loozing/loozer, looks kind of funny though.
replyI would not pronounce lucely with a hard C
replyLucezly
replyThis was also the way I felt before I was introduced to "the magic e" (spoiler: it still doesn't make any sense)
replyWow, "magic e" just transported me back to primary school. And I had a little heart flutter fearing that I wouldn't be able to remember/explain it today.
replyLoose rhymes with moose, noose, caboose...
replyNow that you frame it that way, I'm surprised "lose" didn't evolve to be pronounced like "Lowe's"
replyI hate discussions like these because then I start reading words in weird ways and then I look at words as a random jumble of letters that don't even seem like words anymore. Is that just me? :)
replySince English has a glut of loaner words, I'd assume the two words just originate from different languages.
reply