Mahimahi vs. Muckamuck; "Limited Resources"

Bapopik at AOL.COM Bapopik at AOL.COM
Mon Nov 11 08:25:37 UTC 2002


   "Mahimahi" is not English in 1836?
   OED's first citation is 1905.  DARE's first citation is 1926.
   The book I cited from is in English.  It lists "mahimahi" as a
species--what else would you call it?  As I've said before, it could be the
first citation, or put in parenthesis, or put in "etymology" (which just
lists "Hawaiian" and nothing else).  But if I'm looking up "mahimahi," it's a
citation I'd like to know about.  Why not make things easy for dictionary
   Look at OED's revised "Mazurka," for example.  That gives you the dates in
other languages.
   But look at both DARE and OED for "muckamuck"--a term I've come across as
well.  Both give an 1847 citation.  The "muckamuck" citation is in a list of
"Chinook jargon."  Is that English?
   DARE puts it in parenthesis.
   OED uses it as the first citation.  No parenthesis.  The "Chinook" side of
a jargon list is considered English!
   Why is what's good enough for "muckamuck" not good enough for "mahimahi"?



   From the NEW YORK TIMES on the web today:

   "In India, a nation of limited resources, how much should be spent to care
for people infected with H.I.V."

   India is a country of "limited resources."  That implies that other
countries have "unlimited resources."  What countries are they?
   "Poor country" is not politcally correct?

More information about the Ads-l mailing list