Talk:heighth

Is this actually an archaic spelling of height or a missprint in the referenced book?--Williamsayers79 14:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Dunno about the Catcher reference, but I added three cites. Jeffqyzt 15:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, it is a variant. WSU.EDU : “Width” has a TH at the end, so why doesn’t “height”? In fact it used to [...].  Even more informative, WWW.ORG : [Q] The words width and length are correct, what about the word heighth? Was it ever used in the past? [A] It was. In fact, until the end of the seventeenth century, highth or heighth were its standard spellings. The word was formed in Old English from high, plus -th, the exact analogue of width, breadth, and length. [...] Because of its odd history, we can hardly argue that highth is truly an error, more an archaism. Though nearly everyone now spells it height, it’s not that uncommon to hear it said as  among educated people in North America, and some authorities there consider it to be a permissible variant on the usual way of saying it. Beobach972 16:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Isn't this spelling used currently in the phrase/idiom "heighth of fashion"?  I suppose that still qualifies as "archaic"-sounding.  --Connel MacKenzie 13:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

rfvpassed. - Andrew massyn 20:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The phrase "heighth of fashion" is used multiple times in A Clockwork Orange

Contradicting definitions?
Isn't the article basically saying "obsolete" in def. 1 and "used in the US" in def 2? So basically "not used, but used in the US". I'd also consider it to be rare rather than obsolete, not only in the US. Korn (talk) 11:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction?
Isn't there a contradiction of having the subsection "Alternative forms" and then the descriptions "alternative form of height" and "proscribed ... alternative form of height" in subsection "Noun"? Shouldn't only the other article, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/height, have the subsection "Alternative forms"? --Mortense (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Some understandably think of "alternative form of" as a two-way, symmetric relationship. But there is increasingly a consensus to present "alternative forms" under a heading only on lemmas, which implies that the alternative forms are junior to the lemmas in some sense. DCDuring TALK 22:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)