The AFU and Urban Legend Archive Language reliability of dics Select a topic - - - - - - - - Home Searches AFU FAQ - - - - - - - - AFU Animals Books Celebrities Classic Collegiate Death Disney Drugs Food GIF Language Legal Medical Misc Movies Politics Products Religion Science Sex Songs TV - - - - - - - - Other sites

From: jester@panix.com (Jesse T Sheidlower)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: More on "Posh"
Date: 23 Apr 1996 13:08:08 -0400

In article <4lj0kv$28f@panix2.panix.com>, Michele Tepper <mtepper@panix.com> wrote: >In article <4l32b5$kb1@panix.com>, Jesse T Sheidlower <jester@panix.com> wrote:

>>, which quote verbatim two of the most etymologically unreliable
>>books ever written, and praise them in passing.
>
>Now, this is the bit that concerns me. Both the Ciardi and ADSUE are
>"etymologically unreliable"? How does an amateur know, without relying
>exclusively on the OED2 and of course the fine products of Random House,
>of course, that the books to which he or she has recourse are
>etymologically unreliable?

You don't, necessarily.

First of all, the accepted abbreviation for Partridge's book is _DSUE._

The most important thing for the reliability of any reference book of this type is how well the information is backed up. If a book claims that an expression was in use at a given time, and does not cite any reference, you should immediately be suspicious. Partridge in particular is notorious for totally unreliable dating that's based on guesswork; he never indicates what dates are based on real evidence. (Note that his _Dictionary of the Underworld_ is much better in this regard, although it too has many flaws.) Then you have other reference works that pick up these specious dates as factual, and misinformation gets spread everywhere.

The advantage of OED2 (which is not without its flaws either, but that's not relevant for the present purposes) is that it gives citations for everything. The interested amateur can then make informed decisions on _certain_ aspects of etymology. The advantage of that or other dictionaries produced by reputable dictionary publishers is that the person who worked on the etymologies generally bothered to research the relevant information and furthermore was competent to do so. Ciardi, for example, while a reasonable poet, knows absolutely nothing about linguistics and proves it over and over in his (entertainingly written, to be sure) book. His information is copied from other unreliable sources and he doesn't know enough to separate the right from the wrong. A better alternative to this method is to always check with experts, which is the practice of William Safire, himself an entertaining writer with no great knowledge of linguistics.

So, the best advice I would give is (1) always check a historical dictionary first (OED, DARE, DA, DAE, Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang (plug plug)); (2) check a nonhistorical but professionally produced dictionary next; (3) check certain other popular reference works that are generally trustworthy or at least honest in their claims; (4) with extreme care and large pinches of salt at every stage, look at dodgy reference works. I'd add (5) ask me, but I'm pretty busy and would appreciate a break.

ObDisclaimer: I'm a dictionary editor, but not an etymologist. Most of the etymology questions raised on a.u.e, however, don't really fall into the realm of hardcore etymological work (e.g. Ph.D.-level historical linguistics training is irrelevant for tracking down the earliest example of _Murphy's Law_). Besides, I can recognize when I don't know what I'm talking about.

Jesse "_epenthesis_--isn't that from Choctaw?" Sheidlower <jester@panix.com>