Thanks to lexicographers

[Jesse Sheidlower]

I'd like to thank Joanne for her helpful response about how Merriam
deals with issues of early foreign borrowings.

A point that I don't think has been addressed sufficiently here, and
one that I can't emphasize enough, is that it's very often not clear
whether what you're looking at is some sort of reportage of a foreign
term, or a naturalized English word, or something in between. Rudy's
initial posts, and Beverly's comments on early travel literature and
other language-contact reports, suggest that one can readily distinguish
between foreign uses in English and naturalized English examples. But
except at the extremes, this just isn't true.

I think most people would agree that the following example is not of an
English word: "1831 J. Smith _Foobaristan-Eng. Dict._ s.v., _kloop,_
some type of stew," but that this example is an English word: "1992
_Beverly Hills 90210_ (TV shooting script), Hey, Nate just whipped
up the best kloop at the Peach Pit; you've got to try some."

But what about these?

1. We sampled a dish that the Foobaristanis call _kloop._

2. We had a delicious meal of _kloop_ in Callback, the
capital of Foobaristan.

3. The repast included grilled lamb, kloop, and fermented
yak's milk.

4. New York's hottest restaurant brings such Foobaristani
specialties as _kloop,_ _ord,_ and _udp_ to a hip audience.

5. The best kloop in Pittsburgh is served at Netstat RN, the
new pan-Central Asian _boite._

6. I think we should have the kloop tonight, don't you, dear?

7. Billy Joe's diner has specials like meat loaf (Monday),
shepherd's pie (Wednesday), and kloop (Friday), all for
$4.95, with as much honky-tonk music as you can handle.

Now, even if these were in chronological order each separated
by twenty years, it wouldn't be entirely clear to me where
we can start saying "It's a naturalized English word," and
it would be even harder if the examples were randomly
strewn in time (it's not unusual to see a travel piece
mention as foreignisms some words which are already
established, for instance).

As much as dictionaries would like to give clear answers
to these things, I just don't think it's possible. We do
the best we can to present the information, and bigger
dictionaries can present more of it, but at some point
you can't go any further. One could write long essays or
even books about most words that are in dictionaries, and
it just might be necessary to do this if an entry like
"_rathskeller_ n. [1849]..." isn't sufficient.

As to Rudy's question about bilingual sources, I don't
think anyone would regard a bilingual dictionary or the
like as attesting an English use of a word. And yes, OED
does, within reason, try to date things in a foreign language
if it can be easily done (i.e. "kloop, n. [< Foobaristani
_kloopp_ (1483 in Klinkaz)...]"). For this purpose, yes,
we'd rather an original Spanish example of something than
an English use that explicitly mentions something as being
Spanish (although even here, such an example would show
that the Spanish word is known to at least some English
speakers). But even a marginal English example at an
early date would be useful.

Jesse Sheidlower