Fw: "ho ho ho" should be in the dictionary [was Re: Ho ho ho!]

[Thomas Paikeday]

SORRY, PLEASE DELETE LAST FIVE WORDS! CORRECTED VERSION BELOW.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Paikeday" <thomaspaikeday at sprint.ca>
To: "American Dialect Society" <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 11:08 AM
Subject: "ho ho ho" should be in the dictionary [was Re: Ho ho ho!]


> As a lexicographer, I'd say "ho ho ho" should be a dictionary
> entry/definition because of its distinctive meaning. If it's relevant,
> here is something that I wrote some time back in a trademark affidavit:
>
> ". . . iteratives like "Bang-Bang" and "Hear, Hear" may be repeated
> indefinitely, but the lexeme, or meaningful linguistic unit that qualifies
> as a dictionary entry, is composed of the same word repeated once. . . .
> The odd triple formation, as in "Oyez, oyez, oyez!" is usually a
> rhetorical, poetical, or similar use, as in "the tintinnabulation of the
> bells, bells, bells" (Edith Sitwell?), "the hoop-hoop-hoop of the
> large-bodied, grey-bearded monkey" (R. H. Elliot)."
>
> Thomas Paikeday
> www.paikeday.net
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jonathan Lighter" <wuxxmupp2000 at YAHOO.COM>
> To: <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 12:50 AM
> Subject: Ho ho ho!
>
>
>> ---------------------- Information from the mail
>> header -----------------------
>> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>> Poster:       Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at YAHOO.COM>
>> Subject:      Ho ho ho!
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> OED has "ho ho (ho) ! " as far back as the Middle Ages, but for some
>> reason restricts it to a representation of "derisive laughter."
>>
>> Damn, Santa !  I thought you were laughing *with* us !  Sheesh !
>>
>> JL
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------
>> Do you Yahoo!?
>> Meet the all-new My Yahoo! – Try it today!
>>
>