Erm, yes, well, I think I'll let the poem speak for itself and not attempt to explain any further. :-p
I, am I'm sure all of my fellow Americans, appreciate your and Mr. Holmes's kind words. In my experience not everyone shares your progressive opinions!
Heck no, in America we slap a K on it and call it "kreosote!"
Just kidding! While the substance is indeed commonly referred to as "creosote" here (as I assume it is in England) "creasote" was the spelling used in The Project Gutenberg Edition of "The Sign of the Four" that I read. (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2097/2097-h/2097-h.htm). The spelling looked odd to me as well, but further research indicated that it's an an archaic version of "creosote". Not having Dr. Watson's original published account on hand, I went with what my source said.
(Thank you for the advice! I confess I do have lousy vision which leads to awkward typos on a regular basis. In this case, however, the odd spelling was deliberate!)
no subject
Date: 2015-02-01 09:49 pm (UTC)I, am I'm sure all of my fellow Americans, appreciate your and Mr. Holmes's kind words. In my experience not everyone shares your progressive opinions!
Heck no, in America we slap a K on it and call it "kreosote!"
Just kidding! While the substance is indeed commonly referred to as "creosote" here (as I assume it is in England) "creasote" was the spelling used in The Project Gutenberg Edition of "The Sign of the Four" that I read. (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2097/2097-h/2097-h.htm). The spelling looked odd to me as well, but further research indicated that it's an an archaic version of "creosote". Not having Dr. Watson's original published account on hand, I went with what my source said.
(Thank you for the advice! I confess I do have lousy vision which leads to awkward typos on a regular basis. In this case, however, the odd spelling was deliberate!)