Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply |
<Proofreader> |
to the front | ||
Member |
I'm guessing some time in the early 1920s It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. -J. Krishnamurti | |||
|
Member |
Well, I am going to select "none of the above." Allergy, chain store and D-Day? Couldn't be, unless it's a trick question, which it must be. | |||
|
Member |
I could look it up but I'll go (D-Day notwithstanding) even ealier and go for the 1910s "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson. | |||
|
Member |
I'll go even earlier. 1890s. Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life. | |||
|
<Proofreader> |
Maybe I should have posted a poll | ||
Member |
I'd say the first decade of the last century. —Ceci n'est pas un seing. | |||
|
<Proofreader> |
According to Oxford's A Century of New Words, by John Ayton, all of those terms entered the English vocabulary between 1910 - 1920. | ||
Member |
Well, those are all impossible, unless of course D-Day is added for a trick question. Allergy, I know, originated in the early 1900s so none of this makes sense to me. | |||
|
Member |
Homosexual is attested in 1892 in the OED but the other ones I looked up are from around 1910-1920, including D-Day. | |||
|
Member |
Then it is a trick question because the normally used D-Day is from 1944. But, then, I suspected that from the beginning. | |||
|
Member |
I don't think it's a trick question at all. D-Day is military code for the day an operation is scheduled to begin. The OED Online's first citation is from 1918: "Field Order No. 8, First Army, A.E.F. 7 Sept., The First Army will attack at H-Hour on D-Day with the object of forcing the evacuation of St. Mihiel salient." Granted, the best-known D-Day is day of the Allied landing at Normandy, June 6, 1944 (originally scheduled for June 5, but delayed because of bad weather). | |||
|
Member |
Remember the question wasn't "when did they acquire their current common usage" it was "when did they enter the language". "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson. | |||
|
<Proofreader> |
exactly | ||
Member |
That's why it was I trick. Sorry, fellas, but I disagree. At least, though, I didn't spend a lot of time on it because I figured that from the beginning. | |||
|
Member |
Disagree about what? That is wasn't a trick question? I don't see how the question could be stated any plainer.This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy, | |||
|
Member |
Trick questions can be plain. They just make the answer seem obvious when it isn't. I know. I've developed many questions for students. For example, "Every patient on chemotherapy loses his hair" (or is nauseated or whatever). It doesn't take long for students to learn that "every," always," and "never" are almost never the correct answer. [Note the addition of "almost"] Certainly most patients lose their hair (at least with certain kinds of chemo), but not every. There are a few exceptional situations, particularly in medicine. | |||
|
Member |
So, you are saying that it was a trick question? What was the trick? Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life. | |||
|
Member |
Ah well, no one agrees with me, so I guess I am wrong. To me, the trick is that some of the terms, like D-Day, are well-known and easily discernible for when they originated. But, lo and behold, it is a military term to denote the day on which combat is to be initiated. Of course, according to Wikipedia, the best known D-Day is June 6, 1944. I give up on this one. With all these bright people here arguing against me, you've convinced me that I am wrong. It wasn't a trick question.This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh, | |||
|
Member |
Don't give up so easily, Kalleh. It's pretty much a "trick" question. I'm sure it did not originate with Proof. Where did he come across the list of words? —Ceci n'est pas un seing. | |||
|
Member |
I guess it depends on how you define "trick question." Here's what Adviceopedia says:
And here's what Wikipedia says:
All I can say to that is, Huh? But I like what Calvin and Hobbes says. I didn't consider it a trick question because we were told the words all entered the language at about the same time. The words sounded fairly modern, but I assumed they were older that they appeared. That was the whole purpose of asking the question. The words were all taken from A Century of New Words, by John Ayto, as Proof said. The book is divided up into decades, the 1900s, 1910s, and so on. His information comes from the OED, and he stresses that these are the first known written uses of the words, but they may have been in use much longer. Here's what the OED Online says:
Ayto begins the book with these sentences:
If crinoline had not been heard of by 1900, when did it appear? Ayto never answers this question. Now, I had never heard of crinoline, so I looked it up. Crinoline was originally a stiff fabric made of horsehair and cotton or linen used to make petticoats, them it was extended to any material used for the purpose, and still later to the petticoat. The earliest citation is from 1829. | |||
|
Member |
he words were all taken from A Century of New Words, by John Ayto, as Proof said. I have not been following this thread too closely. It was not stated in the opening post, and I skimmed over his answer. From the dates you cite, the list seems to stretch over two decades. I call it a trick question because of the inclusion of atomic bomb and D day which in most everybody's minds are associated with World War II. I knew atomic bomb was earlier. From quantum theory and Alzheimer's disease I assumed the first quarter of the previous decade. But I rapidly lost interest in the pursuit of first citations and posted nothing until coming to Kalleh's post yesterday. —Ceci n'est pas un seing. | |||
|
<Proofreader> |
That's the source, as I mentioned earlier. It was only a "trick" question if you incorrectly thought some words (D-Day, atomic bomb) were only used in the forties, and not earlier. I hadn[t intended it to be a "trick", just informational material about how long words are in our bvocabulary before they become almost universally or commonly used. | ||
Member |
Tinman, I'd not heard of Adviceopedia before. Is it a good source? When do you suggest using it? From that discussion of trick question, here is where I felt this question fell: And, while we were told the words all entered the language at the same time, I don't always believe what I read. They didn't all sound fairly modern to me. Indeed, I was shocked that "allergy" is as new as it is. | |||
|
Member |
The first time I heard of Adviceopedia is when I read that article. It seems to be modeled after Wikipedia. I haven't found a start-up date for it, but I did find this:
I just ran across Scholarpedia.org, which the MIT PressLog (news blog for the MIT Press) describes as a "a peer-reviewed version of Wikipedia."This message has been edited. Last edited by: tinman, | |||
|
Member |
The sentence is rather poorly worded, but he's talking about the start of the Victorian era, not 1900. Since the start of the Victorian era was 1837 and the crinoline is first mentioned in 1829 he does seem to be wrong, but not so far wrong. EDIT: He's not wrong. The crinoline, in the A stiffened petticoat or underskirt made with this material, designed to support the skirts of a woman’s dress; (hence) a rigid petticoat worn for this purpose, lined with, or consisting of, a framework of some other material, as whalebone, steel hoops, etc.; a hoop petticoat sense is first cited in the OED as 1847, ten years after Queen Victoria's accession.This message has been edited. Last edited by: arnie, Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life. | |||
|
Member |
Yes, I see it now. The first sentence is 1900. The second sentence is 60 years earlier. | |||
|
Member |
I'd think this "Adviceopedia" and "Scholarpedia" would be separate from Wikipedia, right? If so, it's odd that they look so similar to Wikipedia. Are they connected? | |||
|
Member |
I doubt it. They're all wikis, and a lot of wikis use the same Mediawiki software which gives them a similar look and feel. "Wiki" is a generic term, but its association with Wikipedia in recent years has become so strong that some people wrongly assume that all wikis are linked to it. | |||
|
Member |
I'd think this "Adviceopedia" and "Scholarpedia" would be separate from Wikipedia, right? As Guy says, wikis are a kind of software, separate from the content. (Confusing Wikipedia and wikis is like confusing MS Word and word processors, or in pre-computer terms confusing Tom Sawyer and a typewriter.) As Wikipedia is so famous now (going into its 2nd decade), and because it is "free", there are many other -paedias out there hoping to cash in on both its content and its name. You would have to compare an article in Wikipedia and one of the other ones you asked about, and even then who knows. As anybody can edit and change wikis, you don't know when a Wikipedia article got copied. —Ceci n'est pas un seing. | |||
|
Member |
Still, I'd think some of the software would be different, though I suppose you are right, Z, that they are trying to "cash in" on the name of Wikipedia. On the other hand, a more innovative person would develop a new look and a new function (i.e. Facebook versus MySpace) and perhaps overshadow Wikipedia. | |||
|
Member |
Mediawiki was custom-designed for Wikipedia, but is publicly available and suitable for tailoring to other applications. I suppose a lot of sites use it because it's familiar and easy to use.
To be fair, "-pedia" comes from "encyclopedia", so you'd have a hard time trying to prove that any of these sites were trading on Wikipedia's reputation.
Have you seen Citizendium? That was a project set up by a group of people who were dissatisfied with the Wikipedia model and wanted to improve on it. It certainly has a different look and feel to it. | |||
|
Member |
Yes, it does, and I am on record here for not liking Wikipedia as well as many do. I'll have to keep an eye on it, though I will say the "please donate!" put me off a bit. It took Wikipedia awhile to promote that. I suppose OEDILF will be next. | |||
|
Member |
We here at Wordcraft do have our own wiki, don't forget, at http://wordcraft.wetpaint.com/. It was created a few years ago for items that don't really fit into the context of a forum, but has never really taken off. The software is another variant of the wiki format, and looks fairly different from Mediawiki. Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life. | |||
|
Member |
Our Wiki really wasn't a collaborative project, which is the way Wikis are best used. We are building some modules with 12 different authors at my work, and using the Wiki, with all the reviews that are necessary, is a great way to use it. We really were using Wordcraft's much like a Blog. I know that OEDILF uses one, and I can see where that would be helpful when workshopping limericks. | |||
|
Member |
Our Wiki really wasn't a collaborative project, which is the way Wikis are best used. It's not so much the collaboration (as many other kinds of online media can be collaborative, e.g., blogs, cf. Language Log), but the type writing. In the case of Wikis, the entries tend to be geared more towards reference material. Blogs tend to be more diary-like. —Ceci n'est pas un seing. | |||
|
Member |
Much of my work is done with committees from our membership. We used to send out, in huge notebooks, paper versions of all our documents. When I came to the organization, I began sending out everything electronically. However, working on documents together created problems. Now we do all that work on our Wiki, and while the technology bothers some, it is so much easier to keep track of documents and to make revisions. What a change from sending out out reams of paper to everyone. | |||
|
Powered by Social Strata |
Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |