<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Which ever word it replaces, why make up a new work when there is a perfectly adequate one in existence?<br><br>Sent from Richard Offen's iPad</div><div><br>On 16/07/2013, at 3:30 PM, John Camp <<a href="mailto:camp@...">camp@...</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<span style="display:none"> </span>
<div id="ygrp-text">
<p>At 23:30 on 15 July 2013, Richard Offen wrote:<br>
<br>
> Why has it been felt necessary to invent the new noun,<br>
> 'carillonist' for those who play a carillon? The word 'carillonneur'<br>
> has served the English language perfectly well for some considerable<br>
> time, so what precipitated the desire for this new(ish) invention??<br>
<br>
The word 'carillonneur' may have served the English language but<br>
is, of course, French. OED also gives "carilloner".<br>
<br>
At 04:28 on 16 July 2013, Richard Offen wrote:<br>
<br>
> No, I think it's from the same place that decided 'envision' was a<br>
> better word than visualise (which is probably spelt with a 'z' there!)! <br>
<br>
'Envision' is US for 'envisage', isn't it, rather than 'visualise'?<br>
<br>
John Camp<br>
<br>
</p>
</div>
<!-- end group email -->
</div></blockquote></body></html>