Ce sujet est actuellement indiqué comme "en sommeil"—le dernier message date de plus de 90 jours. Vous pouvez le réveiller en postant une réponse.
1thorold
From an FT article about the Scottish Question: Those most fervent about the union have become uncurious about how it came about and what has made it endure so well.
(see here: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/df8e3328-34df-11e4-ba5d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3D7bcDpq... )
I hadn't come across "uncurious" before, but the OED records it - with examples mainly from the 17th and 18th centuries - as meaning the same as "incurious", especially in its two most current senses ("not enquiring" and "not unusual"). So I suppose it's legitimate simply to use it as a quaint alternative spelling: maybe it's even in the FT style guide that way.
But I wonder if the author of this article is trying to do something more with it, perhaps thinking that uncuriosity is something stronger, more active, than the traditionally passive pursuit of incuriosity?
(see here: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/df8e3328-34df-11e4-ba5d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3D7bcDpq... )
I hadn't come across "uncurious" before, but the OED records it - with examples mainly from the 17th and 18th centuries - as meaning the same as "incurious", especially in its two most current senses ("not enquiring" and "not unusual"). So I suppose it's legitimate simply to use it as a quaint alternative spelling: maybe it's even in the FT style guide that way.
But I wonder if the author of this article is trying to do something more with it, perhaps thinking that uncuriosity is something stronger, more active, than the traditionally passive pursuit of incuriosity?
