Q: Using the OED's "not yet been fully updated/has been updated" dates?

[Victor Steinbok]

My response was largely to Joel. You can't draw anything conclusive from
the line "not fully updated" or presume that the listed date is the
/latest/ update. The line simply implies that portions of OED1 had
passed unupdated into OED2 and now into OED3. It does not imply there
have been no updates or revisions of any kind, so no conclusive claim
can be made as to when the entry was last retouched.

Here's the respective bit from Joel's post:

> But for an entry that "has not yet been fully updated" -- such as
> "grisly, adj.", "first published 1900) -- should one refer to "OED 1900"?
>
> Previously I would refer to "OED2", but that notion now only appears
> in the "Previous version" information, as "From the second edition
> (1989)". Should one refer to "OED 1989", which is less informative
> than the "first published" year?


     VS-)

On 9/16/2012 9:37 AM, Arnold Zwicky wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2012, at 4:12 AM, Dave Wilton (responding to Victor Steinbok about the OED's "collocation" entry) wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't use the word "untrue." The statements are correct. The entry was
>> first published in 1981
> that is, 1891
>
>> and it hasn't been *fully* updated. They're just not
>> complete or detailed.
> yes, "hasn't been fully updated" implicates that it has been updated (in OED2) to some extent.  in some cases, it looks like this implicature is *not* an implication; some entries in OED2 seem to have been carried over unrevised from OED1.
>
> arnold

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