Recency illusion: today's example

[victor steinbok]

"Three yeas ago" is clear--and is wrong. But what's the shelf life of a
"neologism" before it is no longer a neologism? That is, how long can we
refer to something as "neologism"?

VS-)

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Jesse Sheidlower <jester at panix.com> 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/
>
> Jesse Sheidlower
> OED
>

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