Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/01/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]What can I say? I'm general editor of one series and have dealt in various ways with several presses, both commercial and academic. They all have the same policy, though most allow for "Americanisms" and neologisms that arise from rapidly emerging technologies and what have you. I'm perfectly aware of the OED's shortcomings as a philological resource. The question isn't about etymology; rather about usage. "Unquote" has appeared in print precisely in the sense that Ball suggests since 1935 (at least). What's here to quibble about? Most Americans instinctively understand the colloquial and often ironical use of the phrase, "quote unquote," as in "We watched the OJ--quote unquote-- 'trial' on television." For non--native speakers of American, this means that it was anything *but* a trial in the conventional sense of the word. Chandos At 05:14 PM 1/21/99 -0500, you wrote: >At 03:36 PM 1999-01-21 -0500, Chandos Michael Brown wrote: >>No editor of whom I am aware would challenge the OED in matters of usage. > > >Alas, but this, too, is sadly wrong. Most editors have never heard of the >OED and, of those who have, most are aware of its shaky -- and undeserved! >-- current academic reputation. Spend some time over on ANSAXNET for >learned discussions about the shortfalls of the OED! > >Marc > >msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 >Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir! >