OT: "copyright" (imprint) date vs. publication date

[Garson O'Toole]

When I look at some of the scans of some books in Google Books I
wonder if the listed dates for copyright and publication are connected
to reality. Self-publishing is easy and I know if no enforcement
mechanism at Google Books (or other repositories) that evaluates the
accuracy of the data at the beginning of a book. Perhaps some other
person on the list knows.  Libraries of paper books face the same
issue.

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Jonathan Lighter
<wuxxmupp2000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: OT: "copyright" (imprint) date vs. publication date
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> And don't forget, in the pre-computer days it could *easily* take three
> months for a book actually to appear after the publisher accepted the ms.
> and received the final draft.
>
> OTOH, tiny corrections can be snuck in almost up to the last moment.
>
> The difference between a copyright date of, say, "1900" and "1901" could be
> one or two days or 366. And, as you suggest, the time it takes for anyone to
> read it could be longer than that.
>
> So despite the demands of positivism, HDAS and OED dates all imply a little
> bit of wiggle room.  (Published diaries are an issue unto themselves. You
> may remember the case of "Murphy's Law" many months back.)
>
> But as an HDAS user, you can be confident that the dates therein are the
> most accurate I was able to assign.
>
> Jon
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 2:58 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: OT:  "copyright" (imprint) date vs. publication date
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> At 3/28/2011 12:09 PM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
>> >  (FWIW, I have seen books in bookstores in October that were
>> >"copyright" the following year.)
>>
>> Samuel Sewall saw a book arrive (I don't know whether in hand or at
>> his bookseller's) a year later than it was imprinted.  Not
>> impossible, but that has since confused many historians.  Increase
>> Mather's An Arrow against Profane and Promiscuous Dancing is
>> imprinted 1684, but Sewall wrote it "comes out" on February 16,
>> 1685.  That of course is 1686 New Style.  One can only imagine the
>> number of events in New England that have therefore been erroneously
>> dated as happening after it was published, as well as the significant
>> actually-preceding events that historians deny could have influenced
>> Mather to write it.
>>
>> Joel
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> "If the truth is half as bad as I think it is, you can't handle the truth."
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

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