franchise

Jonathan Lighter wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM
Wed Jan 30 01:35:27 UTC 2013


Not a "unifying concept" here, apparently,  but a "popular entertainment
enterprise":

PBS:  "And by the end of 1979, the _Wonder Woman_ franchise had left the
air."

In my day, they'd have said "..._Wonder Woman_ had left the air."

Or, perhaps even earlier, "...the _Wonder Woman_ series/show/program  had
left the air."

JL

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 4:04 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: franchise
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Point taken, Victor. But remember that "leatherneck" originated in a far
> more isolated subculture (British naval circles) at a time when the
> mainstream media (books and periodicals) had little interest in its
> linguistic minutiae. Hollywood since the '20s, however, has never been shy
> about communicating with the outside world, and its business jargon and
> attitudes have been reported and caricatured in billlions of words since
> then.
>
> So I think if the contemporary sense of  "franchise" had had any
> subcultura=
> l
> currency 75 years ago (except by accident in one or two brains)  the
> findable exx. would be many and unmistakable.  We'd then be hypothesizing
> whether the usage in question had not originated in the days of Griffith.
>
> Actually, I'm glad I finally looked the word up. This discussion raises
> som=
> e
> basic theoretical issues about the limits of lexicography, diachronic and
> otherwise.  (Lurking whippersnappers: how many can YOU find?)
>
> JL
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Jonathan Lighter <wuxxmupp2000 at gmail.com
> >wr=
> ote:
>
> > Dan's '79 is a good one. It does seem to mean something like "unique
> > gimmick." It could be an indication that the older meanings were
> starting=
>  to
> > get shaky for some speakers.
> >
> > I suggest that most (if not all) of the pre-'80s "frachises" that seem to
> > exemplify the newer meaning in question are misleading because they seem
> =
> (to
> > me) to rely on ideas of "holding" or "having" or "maintaining" a
> figurati=
> ve
> > "franchise" in the older sense and acting upon that.  The clear-cut newer
> > use seems to carry none of that semantic baggage. It essentially means
> > "concept, esp. if owned by somebody."
> >
> > It may be much ado about very little. I'm always troubled, though, by
> > historical treatments that imply a much older known currency for what has
> > only recently become a widely used term.
> >
> > I'd go with "the ex. is uniquely early" on that basis.  Even if five more
> > were to turn up between 1930 and 1986, it wouldn't change the fact that,
> =
> as
> > far as anyone can tell, "franchise" =3D 'concept' has been familiar -
> app=
> .
> > even in Hollywood - only from the mid '80s.
> >
> > Like that knowledge matters to any completely sane person, of course.
> >
> > JL
> >   On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Dan Goncharoff <thegonch at gmail.com
> >wrot=
> e:
> >
> >> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> >> -----------------------
> >> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> >> Poster:       Dan Goncharoff <thegonch at GMAIL.COM>
> >> Subject:      Re: franchise
> >>
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------=
> -------
> >>
> >> I am a little confused.
> >>
> >> Franchise is a word that refers to a legal concept, but also refers to
> >> a broader "underlying concept'.
> >>
> >> I see the word being used for both over the years, and I would call
> >> the "underlying concept" a 'de facto' franchise.
> >>
> >> That is what the 1936 cite is all about -- WB made a lot of G-Men
> >> movies. Other studios could have made them; other studios in fact did.
> >> But WB made a lot of them.
> >>
> >> Here is a 1951 cite:
> >>
> >>
> http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=3DF20715F83E5A137A93C3AB=
> 178AD85F458585F9&scp=3D15&sq=3Dmovie+franchise&st=3Dp
> >> "MAURICE EVANS, who will renew his local franchise on Shakespeare's
> >> "King Richard II" when he brings the tragedy to the City Center
> >> Wednesday night..."
> >>
> >> This is the same meaning as the 1936 WB cite. Other actors can perform
> >> Richard II, but Maurice Evans did it a lot.
> >>
> >> I can't find the '88 cite -- is it a de facto franchise, or another
> >> concept?
> >>
> >> Now here is a 1979 cite:
> >>
> >>
> http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=3DF10915F8345C12728DDDA0089=
> 4D1405B898BF1D3
> >> "It is a law of television that a dramatic-series hero must have a
> >> franchise. That is, he or she must be a problem-solver of some sort --
> >> police officer, private investigator, physician, lawyer, teacher,
> >> coach."
> >>
> >> Looks different to me. Means something akin to "gimmick".
> >>
> >> DanG
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Jesse Sheidlower <jester at panix.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> >> -----------------------
> >> > Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> >> > Poster:       Jesse Sheidlower <jester at PANIX.COM>
> >> > Subject:      Re: franchise
> >> >
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------=
> -------
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 08:52:07AM -0500, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
> >> >> OED offers a good def. of the now-ubiquitous "franchise":  "orig.
> >> *U.S.* A
> >> >> general title, format, or unifying concept used for creating or
> >> marketing a
> >> >> series of products (esp. films, television shows, etc.)."
> >> >>
> >> >> Its primary ex. is from the _N.Y. Times_ in 1936.  However, there
> >> follows a
> >> >> half-century gap and in 1988 the same NYT had to define the word for
> >> its
> >> >> readers.
> >> >>
> >> >> 1936 says, "Warner Brothers hold their G-Man franchise with =91Public
> >> Enemy's
> >> >> Wife=92 at the Strand."
> >> >>
> >> >> The uniquely early date, plus the tenor of "hold" (presumably
> >> "maintain")
> >> >> suggests to finicky me that the writer was simply playing facetiously
> >> off
> >> >> the established sense of an official authorization to trade in
> >> something,
> >> >>
> >> >> So I'd put the ex. in brackets - unless OED has a bunch of suppressed
> >> cites
> >> >> showing continuity of usage between 1936 and 1986.
> >> >
> >> > We did puzzle over this, and no, we don't have any intervening cites
> (=
> we
> >> > would have included them, had any been available). Still, I don't
> thin=
> k
> >> > bracketing is the right solution here--the 1936 quote does represent
> t=
> he
> >> > sense in question, and the fact that this sense didn't really catch on
> >> > for fifty years doesn't really matter. The quotation paragraph shows
> >> > that there's a gap, and that seems good enough to me; other
> >> > possibilities might be to have an explicit note saying "Quot. 1936 is
> >> > uniquely early" or "Not in general use until the 1980s" or the like. I
> >> > also think there's a reasonable chance that there are other quotes out
> >> > there, it's just a sense that's hard to find.
> >> >
> >> > Jesse Sheidlower
> >> > OED
> >> >
> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >> >
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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."
> >
>
>
>
> --=20
> "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
>



--
"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



More information about the Ads-l mailing list