[Ads-l] franchise
Jonathan Lighter
wuxxmupp2000 at GMAIL.COM
Wed Nov 12 11:15:47 UTC 2014
CNN:
"Many al-Qaeda franchises [like ABM in Egypt] are switching allegiance to
ISIS."
'A subordinate or related political faction.'
JL
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 8:35 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
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
--
"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