[Lexicog] Re: Oops on 'lacerta' (alligator) Shakespeare's contributions

[bolstar1]

Sorry, folks, but I stuck 'lacerta' ("probable" Latin source for the 
word 'alligator') under the history of the word 'event' -- not 
under 'alligator.' 
    For Rudy -- Yes, there are probably a number of attributed 
coinages of Shakespeare that would go to others if enough truth were 
known. That's the nature of etymology in general, though. The further 
back you go in time, the more tenuous the links become, whether 
speaking about "coinages" or "origins." 
    This is true for two reasons. First, the attributed source may 
have copied what was the vernacular of the time. The attributee may 
have simply recorded it first, or his/her recording is the only copy
(s)extant, the true coiner's work having disappeared......into the 
ages. (Remember, we have no original written pages of Shakespeares 
writing --and only six original signatures of Shakespeare -- all of 
which are spelled differently.) Original sources are hard to come by 
(or non-existent -- including the Bible, Homer, and all other ancient 
writers. 
    Second, I refer to the inference I made in my reply earlier 
today -- that it is statistically rare (except for newly 
discovered/patented objects) to find a coined word that was utterly 
unique, without leaning upon a previously-used word, morpheme, or 
utterance made in some form, in some language, by someone somewhere. 
Maybe supercalifragilisticexpialadocious (spelling?) 
    Lewis Carroll was good for this -- How else would we have known 
that things kept "getting curioser and curioser" without him? As 
to "meanings," the quaint phrasing H. Dumpty of the relative 
flexibility of the use of words was  'When I use a word,' Humpty 
Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose 
it to mean - neither more nor less." But shifts in meanings per se 
('semantic shift') is not enough for linguists to term it 
a "coinage."  
    Dr. Seuss was also good at making up words out of the blue. 
    But there have been other naysayers of Shakespeare. Henry Louis 
Mencken wasn't quite so awe-struck by Shakespeare, who said, "After 
all, all he did was string together a lot of old, well-known 
quotations." I wish I had the time to study which phrases he 
assumably plagiarized. I'm acquainted with some, but with his own 
flavor. (However, a sign of creativity is to take known phrases and 
turn them, or shape them with allusions to a particular point. His 
patterning-themes-after-others is well-known, but that was the 
standard of the time. 
    Neither was G.B. Shaw frozen in icy awe of Shakey. (More on that 
in a future submission.)
    As to your comment "Thanks to Fred Shapiro for disabusing us of 
the myth of Shakespeare's alleged "coinages", I'm not sure what 
the "myth" is. And I'm not sure who is propagating this myth. And 
which particular coinages are "alleged" -- that can be verifiably 
debunked? I can't argue with Fred about the over-focus of the earlier 
OED editions on Shakespeare, but that's a far cry from a 
wholesale "disabusing us of the myth." A case-by-case study of 
particular attributed references to Shakespeare will be needed to 
find a more accurate reading of his true coinagehood.
Scott Nelson 



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:lexicographylist-digest at yahoogroups.com 
    mailto:lexicographylist-fullfeatured at yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lexicographylist-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/