"chad" 1944

[Douglas G. Wilson]

>>... Similar material was published in 1943 (IIRC) but it
>>didn't include that part.
>
>     I am particularly interested in the last sentence just above.
>Would D. Wilson be able to provide the exact bibliographical
>reference(s).

I can, the next time I get to the appropriate library. I don't think
there's anything useful, though. I was noting that the 1944 article was
similar to earlier material (although not NECESSARILY regarding the word in
question).

>If the 1943 discussions about perforation contained no
>mention of "chad," this might indicate that the authors of the 1944
>article were the ones who officially introduced "chad" into
>telegraphy parlance. ...

The 1943 (?) material IIRC was by the same author(s), addressing only some
of the same material ... it's not that the part with "chad" was discussed
without the word in question -- I would have copied it in such a case --
but that the part about the printing and perforation of the tape wasn't in
the earlier article (IIRC). AIEE Trans. has/had an annual author index.

>     My interpretation of the quotation marks is that the term "chad"
>was not yet a part of standard telegraphy parlance.

But the lack of an explanatory passage tends to indicate that the word was
already considered understandable ... even though perhaps "figurative" or
"colloquial". For example, imagine the same passage but with 'chad'
replaced by 'chaff' or 'gravel' ... the quotation marks might be the
equivalent of adding "so-called". If an engineering paper included a
completely new coinage, I would expect a footnote or a parenthesized
explanation.

Two possibilities:

(1) "Chad" = "paper residue" was already well known but considered a casual
usage ... hence the quotes. I tend to prefer this one; "chad" could have
been telegraphers' jargon for a year or for fifty years before 1944.

(2) "Chad" = "paper residue" was not yet usual but "chad" was immediately
recognizable as meaning "gravel". This possibility seems odd, I guess, but
I have found three independent instances where "chad" (without quotes, and
without explanation AFAIK) is used = "gravel", in technical contexts, all
since 1977! I'll post the references later. Perhaps this word for "gravel"
was much more usual in 1944 ... although this is hard to believe given the
absence of the word in this sense from the OED, Webster's Third, etc. Some
words might be common among engineers (or other specialized groups) but
very rare in general use. (I also find an instance of the word used
technically with respect to paper [but not punched, and not in a telegraphy
or computer connection] and another technical use which MAY refer to seeds
[remember the "chats" from the EDD?]).

-- Doug Wilson