Is "volumn" a correct word? or there is only "volume" only, and "volumn" is just a spelling mistake?
Cannot find volumn on any online dictionary.
-
1If you can't find it in any dictionary, then there is no justification to use it and you can safely assume it's a mistake.– Andrew Leach ♦Mar 7, 2013 at 7:00
-
13,220,000 results for volumn on GoogleSearch; 27,600 results for GoogleBooks.– KrisMar 7, 2013 at 7:39
-
@Kris: Did you find any instances among those millions (or thousands) of search results that would lead you to believe this is a correct word for the 21st century? If so, I'd like to know. I think it's an antiquated spelling at best. Raw totals don't tell the full answer.– J.R.Mar 7, 2013 at 10:24
-
@JR Antiquated is a valid answer. You should have posted that as an answer.– KrisMar 7, 2013 at 11:23
-
1To post an answer, please vote to re-open. Invalid edits will be rolled back.– Andrew Leach ♦Aug 30, 2014 at 15:47
|
Show 1 more comment
1 Answer
I've never heard of "volumn," and a few searches turn up nothing except several people who claim to have seen this word in use. Here a couple of researchers took on the task of finding it in the OED, but they couldn't. I think it's safe to say not a proper word.
It's quite possible for Google books to return instances of a word that are really typos or scanning errors, like this:
although sometimes the scanned book unmistakeably contains the word in question:
That latter example, though, was published in 1906. If volumn was once an acceptable alternate spelling of volume, it appears to have gone out of vogue, to the point where the dictionary editors don't want to acknowledge it in current editions.
