[Lexicog] Re: Shakespeare's contributions

[bolstar1]

Rudy: Rudy: Good points. I like the way you phrased the references to 
the "snowball effect" of attributing more and more with each 
telling.  
    In reference to the OED, there's a related effect in play, and 
that has to do with focus of one's field. OED'ers (lexicographers in 
general) are concerned with particulars – as related to pronunciation 
(phonetics); definitions (semantics); related words -- often used to 
define (synonomy); and roots, changes, and lineages of singular 
tokens (etymology). And  because they focus on particular and pure 
forms -- not  lists, general parameters/concepts, or subjective 
overviews, the sword of "counting coinages" becomes a tricky 
business. Numbering (a general and approximate science) could cut 
both ways in overrating or underrating – like a meteorologist seeing 
a storm when a dust eddy develops -- or seeing a breath of fresh air 
in the eye of a hurricane. Any unique, linguistic off-shoot of 
a "word" could be counted, or any morphemic connectedness to a 
previously used word somewhere, sometime, by someone, could be 
discounted. Thus, we must rely on the consensus of linguists in 
general --  which, again, settles at around 1,500 for Shakespeare. 
(Any linguist out there who has a more exact approximation, please 
respond.)
    One other point -- about "the great author" concept. The danger 
of overstating a single person's contribution to an era or a field 
can hardly be overstated, but it can also hardly be helped. Any 
famous writer, by virtue of his/her fame, becomes more listened to, 
more echoed, more recorded, and therefore more documented than – say, 
a comedian who malaprops and gets credit for coining a term. It is 
perhaps an unjust perk for the successful (success breeds success). 
It simply goes with the territory. 
    But for historians who "overly count on" these "great authors," 
it is an easy out for doing necessary historical trench-work that's 
implied in both of your statements. That's where you and Fred are 
point on. 
    But only if the rocks could speak (or record sounds within its 
environment -- which is only a technical theory at this point) could 
this high hurdle be vaulted. Or obviously if further documents in the 
vernacular of the common people, or of commentators, or of scholars 
are uncovered, we could be helped in this area. 
    The problem here is the very medium of historical "written 
documentation." Traditionally it is formal, structured, and 
conservative (linguistically), expunged of jargon, clichés, 
localisms/regionalisms, and as high-brow as the author's erudition 
and eloquence can concoct -- not conducive to excavating the "norms" 
of the language of that era. (Points of example – Lincoln's use of 
the phrase "Four score and seven years ago
" – hardly used in the 
vernacular of the time, but traditional enough to sound 
statesmanlike, and appropriate. Or Shakespeare's use of the 
word `eyne' for `eyes.' Even in his time the term was archaic, yet he 
used it thirteen times (four times in A Midsummer Night's Dream), and 
the normal `eyes' some 830 times, a nice touch for the audience – but 
hardly indicative of the speech of his day (a point of lexical irony 
in using "accurate documents of the era" mentioned earlier. 
    As to the current digital advantage of the times, it aids in 
efficiency, but not necessarily in consensus. Consensus seems to be a 
higher hurdle in numbering a particular contribution to a particular 
field. Lexicographers are a voice amongst voices, and, as mentioned 
by Fred and Rudy, even they don't always get it right. Numbering will 
remain a work in progress.   

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/