Coinage of "Movie" (1915); Re: "jass" < c. 1900 in today's NYT

[Laurence Horn]

At 8:50 PM -0500 1/23/05, Bapopik at AOL.COM wrote:
>JASS
>
>Yes, it's another anachronism by another author who doesn't know better.
>
>I spent many hours looking for "jass" or "jazz" in the New Orleans
>newspapers. When "jazz" was finally discussed in 1917, it was a new
>word to New Orleans. My post (to the old ADS-L archives in 1996) has
>long since been destroyed.
>

Yes, I figured it was likely an anachronism.  Thanks VERY much to
Barry for the article below,  which is just the sort of critical
commentary on "illogical" coinage and lexical change I collect.  This
sort of truncation is precisely as "illogical" as the use of
liberated "qualifying words" like "private" or "general" as
truncations of "private soldier" or "general officer".  But equally
interesting to me is the parallel between McQuade's opposition to
singling out just one thing that moves as a "movie" and Quintilian's
objection to the claim that Lat. "homo" derived from "humus" (which
of course it did) because after all, every creature came from the
earth.

larry

>
>27 March 1915, THE MOVING PICTURE WORLD, pg. 1912, col. 1:
>CHICAGO LETTER
>BY JAS. S. McQUADE
>
>_Regarding the Childish Word, "Movie"_
>
>IN a brevity in my Chicago letter last week, it was stated that out
>of 733 editors throughout the country who cast a vote for or against
>the use of the coined word "movie," 511 voted "yes," and 222 "no."
>It is to be regretted that the reasons for their voting for or
>against were not given and printed.
>
>Within the past week I have read an article in one CHicago newspaper
>in which the hope was expressed that the word "movie" would be
>retained, because it comes in so handily in the writing of newspaper
>headings! In another instance a writer was gleeful over the fact
>that even the infant, among the first words mastered by him, used
>the word "movie," and that "movie" was also the children's word and
>so had come to stay. But somehow, much as I still like the old
>nursery rhymes and love to hear children repeat them, I am of the
>opinion that it is best to put away tenderly childish things when
>one has reached manhood or womanhood.
>
>The coinage of "movie" was most assuredly childish. It stands for
>"moving picture." The coined word, please note, is not taken from
>the name of the thing itself, but from the qualifying word "moving."
>It is not at all unreasonable, therefore, to call everything which
>is not at rest a "movie," including the sun, moon and stars, the
>earth, an automobile, an airplane and the city garbage cart. Even
>man himself when in motion is a "movie," and so is a fly, and so is
>that other pestiferous insect with a name nearly alike.
>
>Is this childish word "movie," on the ground of etymology, a correct
>word to represent "moving picture" in our dictionaries? Is it a
>correct word from the common sense point of view? Is it a correct
>word for grown-ups to use, unless they are still fit for the nursery
>in mind and accomplishments?
>
>By all means let the children use "movie" to their little hearts'
>content; but in the name of all that is logical and customary in the
>making and adoption of the words of a language, let us, grown-ups,
>put it tenderly away.