12.0145 OED's trustworthiness

Humanist Discussion Group (humanist@kcl.ac.uk)
Tue, 28 Jul 1998 23:31:27 +0100 (BST)

Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 12, No. 145.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
<http://www.princeton.edu/~mccarty/humanist/>
<http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/>

[1] From: Gary Shawver <gshawver@chass.utoronto.ca> (5)
Subject: Re: 12.0144 OED's trustworthiness

[2] From: Norman Hinton <hinton@uis.edu> (28)
Subject: Re: 12.0144 OED's trustworthiness; BC/CE

--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 09:03:22 +0100
From: Gary Shawver <gshawver@chass.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: 12.0144 OED's trustworthiness

Norman is certainly right to question the accuracy of the OED, but I still
find it a useful starting point in any English language study. Perhaps its
lack of trustworthiness is a function of the nature of lexicography itself
which tries to make generalizations about meaning that often do not obtain
in individual cases.

gary

--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 09:07:50 -0600 (CDT)
From: Norman Hinton <hinton@uis.edu>
Subject: Re: 12.0144 OED's trustworthiness; BC/CE

> > ----------
> >The OED is an untrustworthy source?
>
> Considering the fact that we live in a world in which language is always
> changing. . .where girls are called "dudes" and "G.I. Jane" (American movie)
> has a protagonist that throws out one-liners anatomically-impossible to
> achieve, just to prove she's good at male-bonding.
>
> where Walt Whitman and many historical others elevate slang to the
sublime. .
> .. . .and are proved right about the power of these words from the unwashed
> masses. . .
>
> where we keep inventing terms like cyberspace and astronaut, death metal and
> punk rock. . .
>
> The OED isn't perfect, but it's better that than some "trustworthy" source
> which people have operated on to take out the messy bits.

None of that has anything at all to do with the untrustworthiness of the
OED: that is merely common everyday language development.

The OED was done by rank amateurs for many years (except of course for
Murray, its guiding spirit and splendid editor): much of the work was done
at a time when dates and provenances of medieval and early modern materials
was unknown or wrongly attributed: linguistic research has had over 50
years of development since OED (1) was finished, and OED (2) added precious
little to the mix -- some 5000 new words in 50-60 years ?....I own an OED
and use it when I have to, but only as a last resort and with a pinch of
salt.

-- 
Norman Hinton				hinton@uis.edu

------------------------------------------------------------------------- Humanist Discussion Group Information at <http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/> <http://www.princeton.edu/~mccarty/humanist/> =========================================================================