Recency illusion: today's example

[Ben Zimmer]

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Jesse Sheidlower wrote:
>
> I don't know how old something can be before we start considering it an
> example of the Recency Illusion, but I noticed that in the Lingua Franca
> blog at the CHE (contributors to which include Geoff Pullum and Allan
> Metcalf), Lucy Ferriss writes about the "neologism" _relatable_ 'that
> can be related to'. She mentions its newness ("I first noticed it about
> three years ago"; "this neologism"; etc.), and in general doesn't like
> it.
>
> It is, however, in OED, first attested in 1965 (I haven't tried to
> antedate it further). Is 46 years still new enough that its recency is
> not illusory? I'm not sure. I do think, though, that she could have
> checked OED or asked a linguist before blogging about some new word she
> happens to dislike.
>
>
http://chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca/2011/08/26/im-relatable-youre-relatable/

Or she could have Googled up the On Language reader response I wrote last year
on the topic:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/magazine/15onlanguage.html

--bgz


--
Ben Zimmer
http://benzimmer.com/

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