backformations (again)

[Robert S. Wachal]

ISTM?

At 12:08 PM 2/7/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Fred Shapiro <fred.shapiro at YALE.EDU> writes:
>
>>>>>>
>On Sat, 3 Feb 2001, Beverly Flanigan wrote:
>
>> Two last backformations (maybe):  Read in _The Nation_ just this
>> morning:  someone was "coronated" (figuratively) for something or
>> other.   And in another written text, "invocating" was used for
>> "invoking."  Interestingly, these were both written; I would guess more
>> such usages would occur in speech than in writing, unless they've already
>> become established and accepted?
>
>Neither of these is new (one dates from 1623, the other from 1526) and
>neither is a back-formation.
><<<<<
>
>I wouldn't be so quick to say that, despite the early cites. If they have
>not been used for centuries, ISTM that Beverly's sightings are quite
>possibly reinventions via back formation, rather than either SURvivals
>through more-or-less ongoing usage or REvivals from reading old texts.
>
>(I grant that the distinction between sur- and re- may be vague, and
>impossible to make in practice, and that we may also be unable to determine
>for certain whether my guess about these two cases is accurate.)
>
>   Mark A. Mandel : Dragon Systems, a Lernout & Hauspie company
>          Mark_Mandel at dragonsys.com : Senior Linguist
> 320 Nevada St., Newton, MA 02460, USA : http://www.dragonsys.com
>
>