Recency illusion: today's example

[Laurence Horn]

On Aug 27, 2011, at 7:35 PM, victor steinbok wrote:

> "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-)

Don't know, but I like the idea of one passing into the status of "paleologism".

LH
>
> 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

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