[Ads-l] RES: retcon

[David Daniel]

Ah, well then, not so odd indeed.
DAD

Poster:       Ben Zimmer <bgzimmer at GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: retcon
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---

Not so odd: This is part of M-W's "Words We're Watching" series,
specifically for words not (yet) entered in their dictionaries.

On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 2:42 PM David Daniel <dad at coarsecourses.com> wrote:

> Merriam-Webster online has a whole article about retcon, though, oddly 
> enough given the article, the word is not in their dictionary.
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/retcon-history-and-meani
> ng
> DAD
>
> Poster:       Ben Zimmer <bgzimmer at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: retcon
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> ---
>
> The problem is that rec.arts.comics, like many other newsgroups, is 
> not comprehensively covered by the Google Groups archive before 1990. 
> That spottiness is borne out by the fact that the earliest cite for 
> "retcon" in OED3/HDSF (Aug. 15, 1989) is from rec.arts.sf-lovers and 
> not rec.arts.comics, where everyone says it originated. If we were 
> able to access another archive of rec.arts.comics posts from the late 
> '80s, I'm betting that Cugley's claim would be confirmed.
>
> More from Cugley here: https://alleged.org.uk/pdc/2012/12/03.html
> He writes: "I would like to cite my original USENET postings, but 
> alas! I have not been able to roll back Google=E2=80=99s USENET 
> archives (now part = of Google groups) further back than 1990."
>
> While I'm griping about Google Groups... I can't even find that 
> 8/15/89 rec.arts.sf-lovers post in the current archive. Can anyone else
get to it?
>
> 1989   Re: New Star Wars Film? in rec.arts.sf-lovers (Usenet newsgroup) 15
> Aug.   Lucas retconned the opening credits after the release of TESB, once
> it was clear that the films were doing well enough that the first set 
> would be completed.
>
> --bgz
>
> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 9:21 AM Jesse Sheidlower <jester at panix.com> wrote:
>
> > Cugley's 1988 use is a claim, not a citation; as Wikipedia points 
> > out, there's no solid evidence for it. In a (real) 1990 Usenet post 
> > Cugley claimed to be the originator. If anyone has the 1988 cite I'd 
> > love to see it!
> >
> > Jesse Sheidlower
> >
> > On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 05:09:02AM -0700, Nancy Friedman wrote:
> > > I wrote about an earlier citation (1988) in a 2013 blog post:
> > >
> > https://nancyfriedman.typepad.com/away_with_words/2013/12/word-of-th
> > e-
> > wee=
> k-retcon.html
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 13, 2021, 3:46 AM Jonathan Lighter 
> > > <wuxxmupp2000 at gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Charlie Sykes, MSNBC:
> > > >
> > > > "They're trying to find a way to rationalize [Jan. 6]: 'Well, it
> > wasn't so
> > > > bad.' This is called 'retconning' - you simply rewrite the 
> > > > history. Y=
> ou
> > > > pretend that what happened didn't happen, and you put your own 
> > > > spin o=
> n
> > it."
> > > >
> > > > OED: (1989):
> > > >
> > > > "To revise retrospectively (an aspect of a fictional work or 
> > > > series), typically by means of a revelation which imposes a 
> > > > different
> > interpretation
> > > > on previously described events."
> > > >
> > > > It ain't just for fiction any more. And you don't need a 
> > > > "revelation.=
> "
> > > >
> > > > Just lie.
> > > >
>

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

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