doomsday device

Victor Steinbok aardvark66 at GMAIL.COM
Thu Jan 20 01:16:30 UTC 2011

That was the only plausible interpretation, but there are still several
things wrong with it. Some are questions of style and readability, but
also questions of definition. Even a simple semicolon (after "attrib.")
would have been helpful. But I also think the entry lumps apples and
orages together.


On 1/19/2011 7:47 PM, Shapiro, Fred wrote:
> The OED lemma referred to at the end of Victor's message is not "doomsday machine," but rather "doomsday, attributive."
> Fred Shapiro

> ...
> The header is "attrib. doomsday machine n. (see quot. 1961); also
> doomsday bomb", so there is not a lot of wiggle room. "Doomsday Book" is
> the Book of Judgment, so it hardly belongs here at all. And the other
> two, while responding to "attrib.", have nothing whatsoever to do with
> "doomsday machine". In fact, they have completely different
> meanings--the latter corresponds to 1.b. (end of the world), while the
> former to 1.a. (judgment day).
> VS-)

The American Dialect Society -

More information about the Ads-l mailing list