Lies! Murder! Lexicography!

SnakI Survived the Great Vowel Shift

Bliv bruger af LibraryThing, hvis du vil skrive et indlæg

Lies! Murder! Lexicography!

Dette emne er markeret som "i hvile"—det seneste indlæg er mere end 90 dage gammel. Du kan vække emnet til live ved at poste et indlæg.

Redigeret: dec 3, 2012, 5:56am

This is an article about press 'scandals' misunderstanding what dictionaries are about.

dec 4, 2012, 5:52am

Yes, I read the Guardian article that the link refers to, and thought the 'scandal' a storm in a teacup. But, to be fair to the paper (and the article writer Alison Flood, former news editor of The Bookseller) it was reporting on the sensationalist claims made by an Australian academic Sarah Ogilvie (a linguist, lexicographer and former OED editor), and if you read on to the end of the article there is some balancing comments from an OED spokesperson. Not to mention some of the amusing comments added by readers.

dec 4, 2012, 6:32am

Oh I don't know. While I accept that the Grauniad is a paper that actually reports news most of the time (rather than 18 pages on the forthcoming, so far barely existing, royal baby, as many of the lesser papers will be doing this morning), in a world where 'news' generally seems to consist of pics of some half-startved celebrity falling out of a cab, I thought this was one of the more interesting stories of last week.

dec 4, 2012, 11:45am

As a confirmed royalist (I am King of all I survey) I must protest at your treasonable comments, booksloth. It is not generally realised that Mrs Wales' extreme nausea is a reassuring sign of 'The Royals' showing solidarity with the majority of the UK population in their reaction to news that yet another 'celeb' has managed to work out what their 'bits' are for.

dec 4, 2012, 1:00pm

So behead me. ;-)

(Btw, can't help noticing that nobody whisked me off into hospital after I'd been throwing up morning, noon and night for 7 months before my first child was born, but then I couldn't have afforded to take the time off work anyway. Not that I have any objections to this rather pleasant young woman having proper treatment for a very unpleasant condition but it might be nice if the rest of the country got similar attention - especially after the general whining on last night's news that the eldery are filling too many hospital beds. Inconsiderate of them or wot?)

Redigeret: dec 5, 2012, 7:12am

>5 Booksloth:
Oh, get your priorities right! Rich people matter more than poor scumbags, and icons matter even more.

dec 5, 2012, 9:21am

It's true. Maybe I should use this Xmas's charity donation to buy the happy couple a 'Names for Baby' book, then they might even be able to come up with something before the kid signs up for Eton. (What is it with royals? Why does it always take them so long to think of names? Isn't 9 months enough warning? Especially when it always winds up being called Charles anyway?)

dec 7, 2012, 3:35pm

>7 Booksloth:
They usually have a string of names, don't they, to keep all the relatives happy. Didn't Diana famously get Charlie-boy's four names in the wrong order? (At some televised spectacle, can't remember which one...)

dec 8, 2012, 3:08am

#8 No excuse. The names are only ever from the usual shortlist of uncles, fathers etc. In nine months most people could name a small battalion.

As for Di getting the names wrong - with hindsight I think it's possible she did that on purpose in the hopes that she might find herself married to somebody (anybody) else.

dec 12, 2012, 11:37am

>5 Booksloth: Perhaps I should have made clear that my monarchy is benevolent, and I allow, even encourage, treason, as long as it is similarly benevolent.

Regarding 'royal' names, amongst themselves they call themselves quite different names anyway. I liked the way 'Private Eye' used to call Elizabeth Brenda, and her husband Keith. Today's equivalent for the morning sickness generation would probably be Clint and Tracey.

dec 12, 2012, 1:47pm

sensationalist claims made by an Australian academic Sarah Ogilvie

No, actually: sensationalist claims constructed by journalists and internet chatterers taking her comments out of context.

Here is a response by Sarah Ogilvie: "An article in the Guardian on Monday took six pages of the book and made a big story out of it, ignoring the other 235 pages."

And another one: "Like all authors, I have a simple plea: read my book before talking about it. It is clear that few of those discussing it in newspapers and on the web in the past few days have actually done so."