I am sorry to see that the OED is considering including the oxymoronic term "quad bike". I trust they will fully explain its unnecessary and illogical formation.
Richard English
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK
FWIW: I wrote to Jesse S. some time ago regarding new entries into OED (including epicaricacy). His response was that, generally speaking, OED are out of the mode of listing every word that was ever used anywhere, or maybe only found once in an olde dictionary (like Bailey). The current thinking is that in order to make the grade as a new entry, a word must be found *in print* in multiple citations of some minimal and catholic nature. (web words not in general print usage need not apply.)
OTOH, I've heard the rumo(u)r that epicaricacy is going to make it in, so perhaps it has found its way into print.
BTW, I read somewhere, perhaps in Winchester's book on the making of the OED, that the reason the online OED started making updates at MNO was that they didn't want to build their learning curve into the ABC section, adding to the original's weakness(!) in that area.
OTOH, I've heard the rumo(u)r that epicaricacy is going to make it in, so perhaps it has found its way into print.
Yes, I've heard that rumor, too. I just don't know how anyone could know that a word has never been used in a book, especially when they are talking about such a long time ago. I suspect that if "epicaricacy" ever does get into the OED, they will have a note saying, "Because of the constant nudging of Kalleh, we felt compelled to include this non-word." This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,
well, I see this comment didn't make the grade. ; )
what I would have said in reply to that: I've been an irregular correspondent of Jesse's since his Random House "Jesse's Word of the Day" days. now that he's NA Editor of OED, I'm lucky if he finds the time to write a one line reply to my importunities.
quote:Originally posted by tsuwm: BTW, I read somewhere, perhaps in Winchester's book on the making of the OED, that the reason the online OED started making updates at MNO was that they didn't want to build their learning curve into the ABC section, adding to the original's weakness(!) in that area.
Correct as to both content and source. Since my reading of that book was recently, I was able to find it in ch. 6 ftn 8: "[The revisors] feared that any hesitancy that they might display in their early work should not be allowed to compound any of Murray's perceived hesitancy that he admitted was a small problem with A. They began instead with M."
Quite some time ago I brought it to their attention that their etymology for "political football" was wrong. I gave them a cite 80 years before their earliest, and in the US rather than their solely-Commonwealth cites.
I received back a form e-mail. Apparently no human being had bothered to read what I sent them.
