Is it doughnut or donut?
Options
Replies
-
Originally Doughnut - I think it was a baker in america in 1900's that coined the shorter "donut" version. And of course, Dunkin' Donuts immortalized it.
Krispy Kreme still spells it correctly!
edited to add - And they make a better doughnut too!!!
Yes, but they are apparently incapable of spelling "crispy" or "cream" correctly. Just sayin'... (and they do make an awesome doughnut. I nearly cried when the one location where I live closed down).0 -
The notion that there is no correct spelling of any word only subjects language to further degradation.
Are you honestly telling me that you will be okay if I "axe" you a question?
Just because it is a commonly used substitution, doesn't make it right, nor should it be considered acceptable.
You wouldn't even recognize English in its original form. It has evolved and continues evolving.
"Axe" has not become correct because it isn't widely accepted and mostly it's a pronunciation issue rather than a spelling issue. I know many people who SAY "axe," but spell it "ask." (It still grates.)
But, really, language evolution is fascinating and if you know a little about it, things like whether it's "donut" or "doughnut" or people making up words or changing the use of some words bothers you much less.
There are correct spellings of words that we widely accept. That doesn't mean those spellings will always be what they are now and that eventually the new spelling will be correct and the current spelling incorrect. Standardized spelling itself is a relatively modern concept.0 -
Doughnut. And I am American. Born and raised in the South. Honestly, I have JUST started noticing this "donut" trend. I thought it was just an improper abbreviation like "drive-thru". It's not formally correct and it gets auto-corrected or marked by spell check. So, the answer is "doughnut" is the correct, formal spelling, "donut" is just an abbreviation.0
-
The notion that there is no correct spelling of any word only subjects language to further degradation.
Are you honestly telling me that you will be okay if I "axe" you a question?
Just because it is a commonly used substitution, doesn't make it right, nor should it be considered acceptable.
You wouldn't even recognize English in its original form. It has evolved and continues evolving.
"Axe" has not become correct because it isn't widely accepted and mostly it's a pronunciation issue rather than a spelling issue. I know many people who SAY "axe," but spell it "ask." (It still grates.)
But, really, language evolution is fascinating and if you know a little about it, things like whether it's "donut" or "doughnut" or people making up words or changing the use of some words bothers you much less.
There are correct spellings of words that we widely accept. That doesn't mean those spellings will always be what they are now and that eventually the new spelling will be correct and the current spelling incorrect. Standardized spelling itself is a relatively modern concept.
I don't know. Considering that the English-speaking population was once so illiterate and that most words were spelled phonetically, saying that "donut" is just as correct as "doughnut" seems a bit like a devolution of language rather than an evolution, as such.
I'm sure I could write a whole paper around this opinion. Unfortunately, however, I am not an English major.
*edited to add - I'm obviously not an English major with my craptastic grammar in this post. :grumble:0 -
I don't know. Considering that the English-speaking population was once illiterate and then spelled most word phonetically, saying that "donut" is just as correct as "doughnut" seems a bit like a devolution of language rather than an evolution, as such.
I'm sure I could write a whole paper around this opinion. Unfortunately, however, I am not an English major.
I am. :-) And an editor.
To add to what I said above, I worked for newspapers for years. We mostly followed the Associated Press style guide, but we also had some variations that were our own style to use in our newspapers.
What makes a style guide? It isn't because some on-high publisher or editor or Ph.D. said, "This is correct." The "style" comes from usage. Someone sits down and looks at how journalists are most commonly writing things and says, "Well, I guess we'll do it this way, then!"
And even that changes over time. The AP Style Guide has changed its stance on certain things that were standard for many, many years. It changed because people in the profession decided to do it differently and the guide followed. Spelling and language is the same.
If "donut" is devolution of "doughnut," then "color" is a devolution of "colour."
Try reading Beowulf or Chaucer untranslated and you'll understand what I'm saying a little better.0 -
I don't know. Considering that the English-speaking population was once illiterate and then spelled most word phonetically, saying that "donut" is just as correct as "doughnut" seems a bit like a devolution of language rather than an evolution, as such.
I'm sure I could write a whole paper around this opinion. Unfortunately, however, I am not an English major.
I am. :-) And an editor.
To add to what I said above, I worked for newspapers for years. We mostly followed the Associated Press style guide, but we also had some variations that were our own style to use in our newspapers.
What makes a style guide? It isn't because some on-high publisher or editor or Ph.D. said, "This is correct." The "style" comes from usage. Someone sits down and looks at how journalists are most commonly writing things and says, "Well, I guess we'll do it this way, then!"
And even that changes over time. The AP Style Guide has changed its stance on certain things that were standard for many, many years. It changed because people in the profession decided to do it differently and the guide followed. Spelling and language is the same.
If "donut" is devolution of "doughnut," then "color" is a devolution of "colour."
Try reading Beowulf or Chaucer untranslated and you'll understand what I'm saying a little better.
Oh I know what you are talking about. I'm just saying that "donut" is obviously the phonetic spelling, which for me, if phonetics is the most appropriate usage of a word, then we aren't evolving our language.0 -
Oh I know what you are talking about. I'm just saying that "donut" is obviously the phonetic spelling, which for me, if phonetics is the most appropriate usage of a word, then we aren't evolving our language.
I don't see anything wrong with a word being spelled the way it sounds. Most languages work that way. English makes no blood sense in that way!
And "doughnut" is also phonetic. It's a compound of "dough" and "nut." "Donut" is at least its own word.0 -
Oh I know what you are talking about. I'm just saying that "donut" is obviously the phonetic spelling, which for me, if phonetics is the most appropriate usage of a word, then we aren't evolving our language.
I don't see anything wrong with a word being spelled the way it sounds. Most languages work that way. English makes no blood sense in that way!
And "doughnut" is also phonetic. It's a compound of "dough" and "nut." "Donut" is at least its own word.
A word that uses silent letters... in the case of "doughnut" silent "ugh" is not phonetically spelt.0 -
But it's a compound of "dough" and "nut." So someone just put two unrelated words together to describe something that, while it is "dough," is not a "nut." It doesn't make sense.Oh I know what you are talking about. I'm just saying that "donut" is obviously the phonetic spelling, which for me, if phonetics is the most appropriate usage of a word, then we aren't evolving our language.
I don't see anything wrong with a word being spelled the way it sounds. Most languages work that way. English makes no blood sense in that way!
And "doughnut" is also phonetic. It's a compound of "dough" and "nut." "Donut" is at least its own word.
A word that uses silent letters... in the case of "doughnut" silent "ugh" is not phonetically spelt.0 -
When it looks like this:
It is spelled "T-A-S-T-Y"!0 -
And you're right, it's not technically phonetic. It's even less creative than that! lol0
-
Wahhhhh! Want doughnuts!0
-
donut is the American way
doughnut is the British way.
so you are saying donut is the correct spelling
that's my interpretation too.
+10 -
When it looks like this:
It is spelled "T-A-S-T-Y"!
Holy mother of...MARRY ME!!!0 -
But it's a compound of "dough" and "nut." So someone just put two unrelated words together to describe something that, while it is "dough," is not a "nut." It doesn't make sense.Oh I know what you are talking about. I'm just saying that "donut" is obviously the phonetic spelling, which for me, if phonetics is the most appropriate usage of a word, then we aren't evolving our language.
I don't see anything wrong with a word being spelled the way it sounds. Most languages work that way. English makes no blood sense in that way!
And "doughnut" is also phonetic. It's a compound of "dough" and "nut." "Donut" is at least its own word.
A word that uses silent letters... in the case of "doughnut" silent "ugh" is not phonetically spelt.
Well... I could look up that history in Wiki, but I'm pretty sure the "nut" comes from it looking like the hardward component "nut". Or at least, that is what I've always thought.
This is what Wiki says:The earliest known recorded usage of the term dates to an 1808 short story[7] describing a spread of "fire-cakes and dough-nuts." Washington Irving's reference to "doughnuts" in 1809 in his History of New York is more commonly cited as the first written recording of the term. Irving described "balls of sweetened dough, fried in hog's fat, and called doughnuts, or olykoeks."[8] These "nuts" of fried dough might now be called doughnut holes. Doughnut is the more traditional spelling, and still dominates outside the US.[9][10] At present, doughnut and the shortened form donut are both pervasive in American English.[11]
So basically, the first doughnuts were small balls that resembled nuts.0 -
Well... I could look up that history in Wiki, but I'm pretty sure the "nut" comes from it looking like the hardward component "nut". Or at least, that is what I've always thought.
Oh, that does make sense.0 -
When it looks like this:
It is spelled "T-A-S-T-Y"!
Holy mother of...MARRY ME!!!
Well... I like you. And since that other woman didn't come through with the aspargus, brussels sprouts, and black licorice... You're on.
ETA: Not that you were second choice. I just didn't know how to get out of that engagement made over a hasty food post.0 -
This topic is passé.
Can we talk about Cronuts? I want one.0 -
This topic is passé.
Can we talk about Cronuts? I want one.
Those look good. How come I have never heard of them before now?0 -
Well... I could look up that history in Wiki, but I'm pretty sure the "nut" comes from it looking like the hardward component "nut". Or at least, that is what I've always thought.
Oh, that does make sense.
Actually, it's because doughnuts were originally just balls of fried dough before the hole got added in some 50-60 years later. Which meant that, when fried up in the oil, their rough, brown, exteriors made them resemble the outer shell of a nut. So they were balls of dough that looked like nuts.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions