part 3, "Murphy's Law" antedating 1943

[Jonathan Lighter]

I guess I'll have to get a copy of the book also.

I'd argue that if Sabel took care to explain "GI," which everybody was
familiar with in 1999, he might just as easily have footnoted "Murphy's
Law," saying something like, "We used this phrase a lot, but it didn't
became famous for forty years."

Am still suspicious - about Bond's "dune buggy" too.

JL






On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net> wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       "Joel S. Berson" <Berson at ATT.NET>
> Subject:      Re: part 3, "Murphy's Law" antedating 1943
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> At 10/9/2009 08:37 AM, Stephen Goranson wrote:
> >Thanks to all who commented on or offlist.
> >I have the book with the 1943 letter. I find nothing anachronistic.
> >Sabel added some footnotes;
>
> 'Tis true -- having gone to "my" university library yesterday for
> completely different reasons, but being curious about Sabel's book.
>
> There is an interesting footnote on page 20.  Sabel's letter of June
> 21, 1941, has "It ["supper at a fancy restaurant" -- oh for the good
> old days of WW II] cost seventy-five cents apiece but was worth it to
> get a good meal for once that wasn't GI.*"
>
> The footnote is "* Government Issue." [P.S.:  OED has G.I. from
> American Speech in 1936 and 1940; next cite is 1942.]
>
> On the one hand, if Sabel (I don't see any editor credited) took care
> to explain "GI" in a footnote, one might think that "Murphy's law"
> was actually in his letter.
>
> On the other hand, would a G.I.write in a letter "seventy-five cents"
> rather than "75 cents" or perhaps "$.75"?
>
> For whatever it's worth, I note while flipping pages that I estimate
> 99.9% of the letters as printed have no salutation.  (Occasionally
> there is one to, or to be forwarded to, a brother; perhaps there some
> other salutations.)  Were the letters all to his mother?  Possibly;
> his dedication to his mother says "Without her farsightedness in
> saving these letters ...".
>
> Joel
>
> >as far as I can tell, the rest is plain transcribed
> >letter text, straightforward midwest farmer draftee meat and potatoes
> >descriptive prose. I consider the 1943 use of "Murphy's Law" reliable. OK,
> >98.99% so. I can see how the added, mistaken 1944-1945 diary uses could
> have
> >led JL to doubt the dispersion pattern. But someone knew the term before
> 1949;
> >Sabel apparently was such a one.
> >
> >Out of abundance of caution and skepticism-honoring, I emailed the
> >author; that bounced. I sent snail mail. If Ben or Fred or Jesse or anyone
> >wishes to call him or his family, fine with me.
> >
> >I make no strong claim here about the origin of "Murphy's Law," other than
> its
> >existence in 1943.
> >
> >As to Jon's example of a suspect early "dune-buggy." I don't deny that
> late
> >unannounced editing of diaries does sometimes happen. I don't have that
> book.
> >If that term were the only seeming anomaly, then I would think twice
> before
> >dismissing the possibility that that term was invented more than once.
> >
> >Anyway, good luck for all y'all's research.
> >
> >Stephen Goranson
> >http://www.duke.edu/~goranson
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------
> >The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>



--
"There You Go Again...Using Reason on the Planet of the Duck-Billed
Platypus"

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