Shill Bidding

Thomas Paikeday t.paikeday at SYMPATICO.CA
Fri Jun 9 05:12:18 UTC 2000

I wish I could recall some of the Panini sutras (concerning sandhis and samasas)
I learned in high school. Recently, thanks to bibliographic help from Ron
Butters, I studied some of the more modern stuff about noun+noun compounds. This
was in connection with a trademark like Pizza Hut, I think. The point I am trying

to make is that, because we know what a "shill" is and what "bidding" is, it
doesn't necessarily follow that we know what "shill bidding" is; it is not that
transparent. However, from the structure of the compound, we do know that it is a

kind of bidding just as we know that "bidding war" is a kind of war.  As a
practicing lexicographer lying sleepless in Niagara Falls, I would say there
isn't enough room in earthly dictionaries for all nontransparent compounds to be
entered and defined. They have to make the grade based on frequency of occurrence

in the language.

"Dennis R. Preston" wrote:

> This seems to me to be an interesting case of "lexicon" (including
> "lexicalized compositions") versus "transparent composition," a difficulty
> which surely keeps real lexicographers awake at night. We know what a
> "shill" is, and we know what "bidding" is. Therefore, we know what "shill
> bidding" is (and it doesn't suprise me that it isn't in a dictionary). For
> example, we know what "big" is, and we know what "dog" is. Therefore , we
> know what a "big dog" is (and don't find it in the dictionary). I can
> already think of lots of objections to that characterization (caricature?),
> and I wonder what practicing lexicographers have to say about it these days....
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Bapopik at AOL.COM <Bapopik at AOL.COM>
> >Date: Thursday, June 08, 2000 12:24 AM
> >Subject: Shill Bidding; The Art of Eating Well
> >
> >
> >>
> >>   The FBI announced today that it's looking into "shill bidding," or "self
> >bidding," on eBay.  That's when friends bid on their own stuff to drive up
> >the price.  It's illegal.
> >>   The term is not in the online OED.
> >
> >
> >On Lovejoy, this was called 'a ring', as in a ring of friends, accomplices,
> >cohorts, what have you, who would bid up the price at auction. Of course, I
> >have no idea how closely the TV series hewed to the written source, and how
> >accurately the books described the dodgy side of the British antique
> >business...
> >
> >bkd
> Dennis R. Preston
> Department of Linguistics and Languages
> Michigan State University
> East Lansing MI 48824-1027 USA
> preston at
> Office: (517)353-0740
> Fax: (517)432-2736

[My own unconstructed "SIGNATURE" in just 6 lines] Thomas M. Paikeday,
lexicographer & language consultant since 1964, ed. The User's Webster
Dictionary, a unique dictionary for home, school, and office that defines words
in their typical contexts and provides examples of idiomatic usage, 2000, ISBN
0-920865-03-8, trade paperback, xviii + 1262 pp., US$7.99 / Cdn$11.95. Order from
University of Toronto Press Fulfillment Services, (800) 565-9523, fax (800)
221-9985, utpbooks at Published by Lexicography, Inc., Toronto
& New York, (905)371-2065, fax: (905)371-3120.

More information about the Ads-l mailing list