Early "mis[s]"(1652) as title?

[Mark Mandel]

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net> wrote:
>
> At 8/29/2009 10:16 PM, Mark Mandel wrote:
> > ...


> Looking back at my first post, it now seems a bit confusing; and I
> did not look deeply enough.  Perhaps this will help.  The three below
> are the senses of "miss, n.2.", draft revision June 2009, which I
> wondered about.  Is my 1652 quotation an instance of: ...

Thanks, that clears it up for me.

> (There is, of course, still the issue of confirming that the
> manuscript instance is not "mis.", that is, is not an
> abbreviation.  I have no opinion as to where that would place it.)

Were abbreviations consistently marked with periods? If not, even the
confirmed absence of a period wouldn't settle that part of the question.

m a m

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org