<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
No quibbles at all, actually - and no need to prolong it. I
completely agree with John that a) the OED records usage (not
correctness), b) that language evolves and the meaning of words
changes (and new words come into being), and c) that it's right for
dictionaries to reflect that<br>
<br>
All I was suggesting is that it's possible for a word to be given
authority when it had been misused used in the first place - i.e.
not a genuine new usage. I was simply questioning whether the filter
mechanisms used by the OED are sufficiently robust at filtering out
words / changes that don't really reflect new meanings / concepts or
uses<br>
<br>
Carilloner sounds to me like a word that shouldn't have got through
the filters<br>
<br>
C<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 16/07/2013 13:25, John Camp wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:1829824566.20130716132559@..."
type="cite">
<span style="display:none"> </span>
<div id="ygrp-text">
<p>At 09:36 on 16 July 2013, Chris Pickford wrote:<br>
> Interesting that the OED offers "Carilloner"<br>
<br>
> I'm quite often unsure whether to trust the OED as a
definitive guide. I<br>
> feel that their system for picking up on the usage of
words sometimes <br>
> treats misuses as being correct - so words that have
been incorrectly <br>
> used find themselves given authority<br>
<br>
Perhaps this isn't the right list for this discussion, but
I am<br>
tempted to join issue with Chris. It's the old, old debate
(often<br>
fought out on ringing-chat) about linguistic change.<br>
<br>
If we didn't have any change at all, then we would be
speaking a quite<br>
different language. Dictionaries are there primarily to
record usage,<br>
not "correctness". Most dictionaries have a system of
noting that a<br>
usage is regarded as sub-standard. But 30 years ago, if
you<br>
introduced someone as your "partner", it would be taken to
mean that<br>
you were in business together. Shouldn't dictionaries
record this<br>
kind of change?<br>
<br>
To bring the topic back to ringing, there is the word
"carillion",<br>
which has never been "correct", but which is widely used.
Should a<br>
dictionary record this?<br>
<br>
John Camp<br>
<br>
</p>
</div>
<!-- end group email -->
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Chris Pickford
4 Walmsley Court, High Street, Kinver, DY7 6HG
Tel: 01384 878435 or (mobile) 07811 453525
E-mail: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:c.j.pickford@...">c.j.pickford@...</a> or (interchangeably)
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:c.j.pickford.t21@...">c.j.pickford.t21@...</a></div>
</body>
</html>