=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= EDline Vol. 7, no. 28 (3 February 2002) Editorial mailing list (digest version) Published by the Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Contents: Q & A [2rt] OED's historical aspect [Offshoot of [2rp] Evolution of language] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ---[2]-- Q & A -------------------------------------------------- ** [2rt] OED's historical aspect [Offshoot of [2rp] Evolution of language] Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 From: Michael Lewis, mlewis@brandle.com.au Esther Shchory wrote: > Worse is the fact that educators are now afraid of being > accused of being discriminatory and so are loathe to set rules. > Then there are people like me: sure that the OED is becoming > too trendy for its own good but with nowhere to turn. Depends what you want from a dictionary. If your interest is in "This is how the language is currently used", then "trendiness" (assuming it's the same as "up-to-date-ness") is a good thing -- especially if it's accompanied by a comprehensive historical trail. If your interest is in "This is how we think the language should be used", then you want a dictionary produced by people who share your opinions; you might need to write your own! One interesting possibility: We are used to the idea that -- thanks to "universal literacy" etc -- misusages are a modern phenomenon. But, given the OED's reliance on citations without any corresponding reliance on statistical weighting, isn't it possible that some of the examples Jane quotes were themselves solecistic? It's something I've often wondered about the historical aspect of the OED... ---------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 From: Jane Lyle, jlyle@indiana.edu Highly unlikely. The OED's examples are normally taken from reputable published works over a range of years. Here, for your perusal, are the entries for the two verbs in their entirety. The similarity in root meaning (to intensify the harshness of vs. to intensify the roughness of), the fact that "exacerbate" entered the language well after "exasperate," and the changes in meaning of both verbs over the years show clearly why their uses have overlapped. It will be up to future generations to determine whether the divergence will ever be complete. exacerbate exacerbate egz-, eks;srbeit, , v. [f. L. exacerbat- ppl. stem of exacerba-re, f. ex- intensive + acerb-us harsh, bitter, grievous. ] 1. trans. To increase the smart of (a pain), the virulence of (disease), the bitterness of (feeling, speech, etc.); to embitter, aggravate. Also, to embitter or sour the feelings of (a person); to irritate, provoke. 1660 Hist. Wars Scot. under Montrose App. 206 The Ministers never ceased to exacerbate his misery. 1755 in Johnson. 1818 Art Preserv. Feet 11 The radical cause of the complaint is often attributed to that which..merely exacerbates the pain. 1843 Poe Gold Bug Wks. 1864 I. 56, I thought it prudent not to exacerbate the growing moodiness of his temper. 1852 Miss Yonge Cameos (1877) II. viii. 102 Exacerbated by disappointment..he had let loose his rage and passion. 1876 J. Weiss Wit, Hum. & Shaks; vii. 243 A woman's language becomes exacerbated because she is so inadequate to protest by actions. 2. intr. for refl. 1837 Penny Cycl. VIII. 410/1 The feverish symptoms disappear or remit soon to recur or exacerbate. 1837 Carlyle Fr. Rev. ii. iv. v, The sour doubting humour has had leave to accumulate and exacerbate. Hence e'xacerbated ppl. a. 1730-6 Bailey (folio), Exacerbated, provoked or vexed, afresh. 1804 Miniature No. I. (1806) I. 6 The ponderous dignity of the Rambler would, with `exacerbated' severity, lament the sad degeneracy of the present day, etc. 1853 Kane Grinnell Exp. xxxvi. (1856) 326 The disease had come back with..exacerbated virulence. 1857 G. Gilfillan in Waller & Denham's Poems 208 Butler, then a disappointed and exacerbated man, was malignant enough to lampoon him for lunacy. exasperate exasperate egza.spereit, , v. Also 6-7 exasperat. [f. L. exasperat- ppl. stem of exasperare to roughen, irritate, f. ex- (see ex- pref.1) + asper rough. ] [obsolete sense] 1. To make harsh or rugged; to add harshness to (language, sounds, etc.); to render (laws) more severe. Obs. 1597 Morley Introd. Mus. 177 Cadences bound with the fourth or seuenth..being in long notes will exasperat the harmonie. 1634 H. R. Salerne Regim. 155 Nuts..exasperate the voyce and make it like a Cranes voyce. 1643 Milton Divorce ii. xvii, Not considering that the Law should be exasperated according to our estimation of the injury. 1651 W. G. tr. Cowel's Inst. 264 So great hath been the bloody wickednesse of these times, that this Law hath been somewhat more exasperated. 1692 Christ Exalted 99 Our Translators do rather mollifie, than exasperate, the word timeas, and say, Thou hast aborred. 1765 Beattie On Churchill 87 Did hate to vice exasperate thy style, No-Bufo match'd the vilest of the vile. 2. To increase the fierceness or violence of (a disease, pain, appetite, etc.). Now with mixed notion of 3, 4. 1611 Cotgr., Aigrun, any thing that encreases, or exasperates, a disease, or sore. A. 1677 Barrow Serm. in Beauties of B. (1846) 59 Rubbing the sore doth tend to exasperate and inflame it. 1710 T. Fuller Pharm. Extemp. 197 All the other Symptoms will be exasperated by the tumult which Evacuations cause. 1783 P. Pott Chirurg. Wks. II. 311 Scirrhus or cancer..was exasperated, and made worse by it. 1843 Prescott Mexico (1874) II. 347 Two injuries on the head, one of which was so much exasperated by fatigue. 1850 Lynch Theoph. Trinal v. 83 If we do not heed the claim of the different appetites..we exasperate them. [obsolete sense] b. To make more grievous or painful; to aggravate. Also, to represent as worse; to exaggerate, magnify. Obs. 1561 Daus tr. Bullinger on Apoc. (1573) 36 He speaketh modestly, least by exasperating ouermuch the sinne and errour in the faythfull, he should discourage them vtterly. 1591 Sylvester Du Bartas i. vi. (1605) 167 Why didst thou..Create These harmefull Beasts, which but exasperate Our thorny life? 1646 Sir T. Browne Pseud. Ep. vii. xvii. 376 Judas..having sinned beyond aggravation, and committed one villany which cannot bee exasperated by all other. 1651 Reliq. Wotton. 33 Not to exasperate the Case of my Lord of Southampton. 1681 Lond. Gaz. No. 1625/1 They of Liege do every day more and more exasperate things. 1750 Johnson Rambler No. 73 P5 This visionary opulence..exasperated our necessities. 3. To embitter, intensify (ill-feeling, passion, wickedness.) Now chiefly with mixed notion of 4. Also, in good sense: +To heighten (courage). 1548 Udall, etc. Erasm. Par. Matt. ii. 26 b, That..the vngodlines of Herode..might more and more be exasperated. 1614 Raleigh Hist. World II. iv. vii. Sect.i. 248 The Roman Dictator..to exasperate his souldiers courage, threw their owne ensignes amidst the enemies. 1677 Otway Titus & Berenice iii. i, Why come you thus, t'exasperate my Despair? 1773 Johnson in Boswell 1 May II. 107 The pride of a common man is very little exasperated by the supposed usurpation of an acknowledged superior. 1794 Paley Evid. ii. ix. Sect.3 (1817) 265 These feuds were exasperated by the mutual persecutions of the Jews and Christians. 1855 Prescott Philip II, I. iv. vii. 490 His naturally wild and headstrong temper was exasperated by disease. 4. To irritate (a person); to provoke to anger; to enrage, incense. Const. to, also to with inf. 1534 More Let. Marg. Roper Wks. 1429/2, I should..but further exasperate hys highnes. 1586 Jas. VI, in Ellis Orig. Lett. i. 224 III. 19 If I shall persist in that course ye shall rather be exasperattet to passionis in reading the uordis. 1625 Shirley Traitor iv. i, I did exasperate you to kill or murder him. 1768 Franklin Ess. Wks. 1840 II. 367 The poor are..exasperated against the rich, and excited to insurrections. 1773 Goldsm. Stoops to Conq. iv. Wks. (Globe) 670/1 You know my hasty temper, and should not exasperate it. 1818 Scott Hrt. Midl. iv, The burghers..were greatly exasperated at the unexpected respite. 1819 Shelley Cenci ii. ii. 37 Thus he is exasperated to ill. 1867 Emerson Lett. & Soc. Aims, Progr; Culture Wks. (Bohn) III. 236 In England..the game laws..exasperated the farmers to carry the Reform Bill. refl. 1547 Boorde, Brev. Health, Pref. 2 a, Exasperate not yourselfe agaynste me for makynge of this lytle volume of Phisycke. 1871 Smiles Charac. vi. (1876) 175 We shall not mend matters by exasperating ourselves against them. absol. 1606 G. W[oodcocke] tr. Justin's Hist. 100 a, Phillip exasperated what he could do, to perswade the Etolians to ioyn warre with him. 1614 Raleigh Hist. World ii. 254 Not knowing whether such a deniall might satisfie or exasperate. 1645 Milton Tetrach. Ded., Those who ceased not to exasperate without cause. b. transf. 1654 R. Codrington tr. Justin's Hist. 67 Injury on this side, and indignitie on the other side did exasperate their swords. 1865 Merivale Rom. Emp. VIII. lxiii. 30 The stream..foams in a furious torrent, exasperated by the rocky ledges which at some points intercept its course. [obsolete sense] 5. To irritate physically; to render sore, chafe. 1552 Huloet, Exasperate, vlcero. 1610 Markham Masterp. ii. clxxiii. 494 Though it [myrrh] doth cleanse much, yet it doth not exasperate the arteries. 1621 Venner Tobacco (1650) 411 Not sucking it with a sudden or strong attraction: for then it will exasperate the winde pipe. A. 1682 Sir T. Browne Tracts 105 The Mugil, being somewhat rough and hard-skinned, did more exasperate the gutts of such offenders. [obsolete sense] 6. intr. a. Of persons: To become enraged or incensed. Cf. 4. b. Of things: To become worse or more serious. Cf. 2 b. c. Of a disease, etc.: To increase in violence or severity. Cf. 2. Obs. 1632 J. Hayward tr. Biondi's Eromena 94 The more his external wounds healed, the more did his internall exasperate and fret. C. 1645 Howell Lett. (1650) II. ii. 18 Notwithstanding..that matters began to exasperat more and more..he would abate nothing. 1659 Heylin Animadv. in Fuller's Appeal (1840) 339 The University of Oxford frequently quarrelled and exasperated, upon slight occasions. A. 1734 North Life Ld. Guildford 83 The Distemper exasperated, till it was manifest she could not last many Weeks. ---------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 From: Mark Hendy, markhendy1@compuserve.com Oxford was taken to task over attributions and the selection of examples some years ago by Richard Boston in the Guardian. He went so far as to accuse one of its assistant editors - by name - of favouring her own not particularly distinguished or original published literary works here, and the dictionary compilers generally of giving or implying anonymous origins for phrases or usages that in fact came from the pens or keyboards of known authors, among them Richard Boston. I can't recall any reply from the OUP, or indeed from the assistant editor in question. ---------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 From: David Ibbetson, isserlis@rogers.com Michael Lewis wrote: > We are used to the idea that -- thanks to "universal literacy" > etc -- misusages are a modern phenomenon. But, given the OED's > reliance on citations without any corresponding reliance on > statistical weighting, isn't it possible that some of the > examples Jane quotes were themselves solecistic? I once asked when modern sub-editing dated from and didn't get a reply. (I asked on CE-L, so I wrote "copy-editing".) The First Folio and other early books have corrections made by the printer during the print-run. Our texts of many Greek, Latin and Anglo-Saxon works depend on the accuracy with which a single manuscript was typeset before 1500, when printers were discovering how to do their job. The source-manuscript itself would have contained errors. For that matter, consider the Spencerian words with meanings deduced from the context. ---------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 From: Michael Lewis, mlewis@brandle.com.au Jane Lyle wrote: > Highly unlikely. The OED's examples are normally taken from > reputable published works over a range of years. Here, for your > perusal, are the entries for the two verbs in their entirety. > ... You went on from here to provide a complete and detailed transcript (at least, I assume it's complete -- I haven't compared). I hope you used an electronic source, rather than transcribe manually! Your points are well taken. However, at least in the first edition we know that the OED methodology did leave a few doors open. F'rinstance, Shakespeare was credited with an astonishing number of coinages, in part because Murray's correspondents didn't read the older sources from which WS took them. In the present discussion, as David Ibbetson implies (if I understand him correctly), we can't eliminate the possibility that printers imposed their own judgment. A caveat: I do not in any sense wish to disparage the OED. One of my most treasured possessions is the micrographic "New Edition" -- I use it as the best and most reliable (not to say biggest!) authority on the history of the English lexicon, and it's full of insights into grammatical evolution too. But at the same time I'm aware that errors of fact can creep past the most rigorous scholarship. So, while I agree that the evidence in this case suggests otherwise, I still consider the lack of statistical weighting to leave room for uncertainty. ---------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 From: Jane Lyle, jlyle@indiana.edu Michael Lewis wrote: > Your points are well taken. However, at least in the first > edition we know that the OED methodology did leave a few doors > open. F'rinstance, Shakespeare was credited with an > astonishing number of coinages, in part because Murray's > correspondents didn't read the older sources from which WS took > them. I have never considered the OED citations as indicative of the writers or speakers who originally used those words. Rather, they are simply examples of the earliest written uses that the dictionary's compilers found. If I saw a quotation from Shakespeare in the OED, I would never think that Shakespeare was the first to use the word being documented. His writing reflected the common usage of his context. Thus he is a reputable source on which to base the approximate age of use of a certain word in a certain sense. Are you saying that the OED itself claims otherwise--that by including those citations the OED is claiming that Shakespeare actually coined the words? ---------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 From: Michael Lewis, mlewis@brandle.com.au No. I am saying that, simply because the OED has a (richly deserved) air of historical authority, many people have interpreted the citations that way. Lexicographers of my acquaintance speak of the special pleasure to be derived from "ante-dating an Oxford first citation"; they aren't claiming that they have proved the OED wrong, but merely that they have found something the OED's sources missed. Nevertheless, such ante-dating does demonstrate that the popular belief in the OED's infallibility is based on a misconception. In consequence, I'm suggesting as a possibility -- certainly not claiming or asserting as fact -- that, just as the OED's first citations aren't necessarily the earliest written uses of words, so they might not always be "correct" uses (in the sense of complying with the usage of the time, as opposed to complying with the preferences or mistakes of a printer). Nobody can deny that the OED is an extraordinary feat of scholarship, but we need to remember that the very methodology that made it possible is a potential source of some kinds of inaccuracy. The fact that so few inaccuracies have been found is a tribute to the quality of the work; but still, let's not lose sight of the complexity -- and therefore susceptibility to error -- of the undertaking. ---------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 From: Jane Lyle, jlyle@indiana.edu That could certainly be true; but if so, it negates the reliability of any dictionary or language history, does it not? If so many examples from so many reliable writers have misused "exasperate" in the sense of "exacerbate"--and were somehow misusing it in that sense more than a hundred years before "exacerbate" can even be documented as having entered the language--then how can we say anything with any confidence about when and how any word was used in English? (And how do we know that "exacerbate" didn't come into the language as a misuse? After all, the Latin root meanings are very similar, and they do sound alike.) Merriam Webster 10 lists this sense of "exasperate" as obsolete. American Heritage, however, includes it as sense 2 without comment, with yet another citation, this time from Samuel Beckett: 1. To make very angry or impatient; annoy greatly. 2. To increase the gravity or intensity of: a scene . . . that exasperates his rose fever and makes him sneeze (Samuel Beckett). ----------------------- Date: Tues, 22 Jan 2002 From: Michael Lewis, mlewis@brandle.com.au Jane Lyle wrote: > That could certainly be true; but if so, it negates the > reliability of any dictionary or language history, does it not? Not so much "negate" as "diminish" -- not necessarily to a significant degree. That the OED is the most reliable historical record is probably undeniable; whether it is of total and universal accuracy is a different matter. (What is "accuracy" when we are discussing the past? How can it be measured?) > If so many examples from so many reliable writers have misused > "exasperate" in the sense of "exacerbate" ... then how can we > say anything with any confidence about when and how any word > was used in English? ... On this point, I yield. In this instance, and no doubt in countless others, the statistical weighting that I was asking for is indeed present. Still, I think your parenthetical remark is apposite. We can't _know_; we can only place the most plausible available interpretation on our observations. What the compilers of the OED have done is to furnish the observations. It's up to us to choose the interpretation. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= END OF EDline 7.28 Admin page: < http://www.electriceditors.net/edline/admin.htm > ** The views expressed in this mailing list are strictly those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the moderators or of the Electric Editors. ** Articles (c) 2001, 2002, by individual contributors Design (c) 1996--2002 Iain Brown Compilation (c) 2002, Iain Brown / The Electric Editors =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=