The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Toni:

I'm a "write it down" speller as well. And I don't recall the age at which I knew I had a knack for spelling (with the obvious exception of the word dammit, ahem). But it was pretty young. I'd attributed it to reading so much as a child, but later learned it was a function of memory. It really does feel like an innate skill. If anyone comes across a good article on this, as introduced by Nina, I'd love to read it (I'll do the same should I stumble across a good link).

~Toni

Whoa, Anne. You might not want to toke on the Nyquil via hookah next time. Teaspoons, teaspoons!

Hope you feel better, and see Nathanial's entry above; he dusted off his OED and found that dammit is indeed the proper form, in usage.

~Toni, who "just says no" to Nyquil, as it tends to send her to other, less friendly, dimensions

Nathaniel!

Please tell me you don't have the OED sitting around your home. (Mine's still sitting in boxes from the move 2 years ago).

While I still disagree with the spelling as far as it making logical sense (it doesn't), I'm not too proud to eat crow in learning that it's a common usage rule, which, in the English language, is equally valid and more often than not, the norm. :)

(grumble grumble)

~Toni, who would throw her coat over a puddle for someone who takes the time to consult the OED.

(sticking out tongue): Brown-noser.

Wouldn't the logic of the spelling be, "I can't find my goddammed sock," then, too? I've never seen "God dammit" in print; it's usually "Goddamnit/God Damnit." Of course, this is reliance upon my admittedly faulty memory.

I'm thinking anyone could check this if they have a Stephen King novel handy. (waiting)

~Toni, knawing like a ferret on your favorite futon frame

Via a Google for "damnit dammit," I found a random opinion that rather favors both of us (a nod to the "technical" correctness + a call for the more creative, phonetic in usage):

http://www.heavyboots.org/opinions/damnit.htm

Yes, okay, technically it is "damn it", so obliterating the space between them implies a sense of urgency, potency, hurriedness. BUT, there's something lost in the spirit of writing out "damnit" as opposed to the colloquial "dammit".

The latter bespeaks a feeling of abandonment in the face of emotion; the former makes only a conciliatory nod to real passion, but within the confines of staid, dryasdust proper convention.

Staidly yours,

Toni

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=damn

Here's one source, where, while not listing "damnit/dammit," keeps the "n" at the end for words such as "damning," (which would be "damming" under your logic), and "damned," (or "dammed").

Well, I disagree with both of you. :) I've never seen "damnit" spelled "dammit" except in your blog. I'll go hunting for a source to back this up, and if I find one, I'll post it.

To me, if the "n" is silent in "damn," it stands to reason that it could remain equally silent when combined to spell "damnit." If anything, "dammit" could be seen as a colloquial spelling of "damnit," or an alternate spelling, but not necessarily correct merely by virtue of its phonetics. Following that logic, the original word would be "dam." "Column" would be "colum," etc. (and "columned" would become "colummed,").

Enjoying your blog, btw.

Yours in grammatical geekiness,

Toni, who finds source hunting for colloquialisms--in addition to blog-surfing--an excellent procrastination technqiue

I'm curious about your stated rule for the word "damnit/dammit." Why is the "n" retained when used as two words, but dropped and supplanted with an "m" when used as one? What's the origin of this spelling rule?

I'll hang up and listen for my answer.

Comment statistics for Toni on the Making Light blog

Total: 8 comments. View all these comments on a single page.