Fact vs Fancy
Posted by Word Camel on April 03, 2002 In Reply to: About the OED posted by R.
Berg on April 02, 2002
: : : What's wrong, does my explanation make more sense then your
Oxford English Dictionary? You know as well as I do the 2002 edition
doesn't look anything like the 1669 edition. I'm sorry that your
ego is so fragile that it can't take questioning.
: : Insults don't help--and then there's always "Don't trash the
volunteers who provide a service." I'll try to make my point another
way. This will be the same explanation as before, but in different
words.
: : You (that is, anyone) are free to pick your clothes, your friends,
and the decor for your home by "what feels right." When it comes
to deciding the origin of a word, however, a more scientific mode
of thought is called for, because we're talking about things that
happened. A series of past events. External reality. Once in a while
the OED does get something wrong, but I won't apologize for accepting
their theory of "redskin" over yours. They arrive at their explanations
with the help of old documents that most of us haven't seen.
: : You're welcome to make a case for the bloody-hands theory of
"redskin," but imagination--"Well, it could have gone like this"--isn't
enough. You'd have to show some evidence. I didn't make up that
requirement; that's just the way it is when we're talking about
the real world.
: By the way, there is no 1669 edition of the OED. There is no
2002 edition. Right now they're working on the 2009 (they hope)
edition. The OED's entry for a word or phrase includes quotations
showing how it was used, in context, at different times throughout
its history. Some quotations go back to the year 725 (Beowulf).
The history of "redskin" as documented by the OED editors goes back
only to 1669.
Knowing the the first time a phrase is important because it gives
us the best clue as to the origin of the phrase. Sometimes we know
by the context and sometimes, as in this case - we can see what
it meant but not necessarily why.
It's fun to wonder why people started using particular phrases
and we can speculate endlessly. But ultimately without finding a
reference where someone writing around the time the phrase started
to be used explains why it was used that way, we can't really know
one way or another. If you found one - you could send it to the
OED and they'd use it!
In a previous post I was practically salivating to discover that
straw man was some blood thirsty refrence to human sacrifice. But
references prove that I'm wrong. It's all about men lurking outside
the courts in London with straw in their shoes. If I was really
bothered, I could do some research and try to make a case for it.
Actually, I confess I spent an hour at the library yesterday looking!
I think hunting down the origins of phrases is fun precisely because
we can find proof to confirm our theories.
|