[Ads-l] Major Antedating of "Smog"

[Ben Zimmer]

Helpful to know! Here's Fred's post with the 1880 Santa Cruz Weekly
Sentinel cite (posted here in Nov. 2019, coming too late for my 2018
column).

https://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/ads-l/2019-November/156015.html

On Sat, Oct 22, 2022 at 5:12 PM Shapiro, Fred <fred.shapiro at yale.edu> wrote:

> Yes, it's a modest antedating of the 1884, 1881, and 1880 citations I have
> posted previously.  But it is a major antedating relative to the OED's 1905
> first use, often erroneously described as the coinage of the term.  It is
> the original source for the previous 1880 citation, from the Santa Cruz
> Weekly Sentinel.
>
> ________________________________
> From: American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU> on behalf of Ben
> Zimmer <bgzimmer at GMAIL.COM>
> Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2022 2:08 PM
> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Major Antedating of "Smog"
>
> Nice find, Fred! Though it's a not-so-major antedating from the one you
> found from 1881.
>
> https://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/ads-l/2011-December/115046.html
>
> I cited that antedating in a 2018 WSJ column on "vog" (volcanic smog):
>
>
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-kilauea-rages-a-look-at-the-diverse-volcanic-vocabulary-1527258578?st=09sikp4o1bo5utk&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
>
> --bgz
>
> On Sat, Oct 22, 2022 at 1:35 PM Shapiro, Fred <fred.shapiro at yale.edu>
> wrote:
>
> > smog (OED 1905)
> >
> > 1880 Henry Meyrick _Santa Cruz and Monterey Illustrated Hand-Book_  The
> > morning fog ... is really not fog at all, but cloud of pure white mist,
> > warmer and much less wetting than a "Scotch Mist," not differing entirely
> > from the true British fog, facetiously spelled "smog" because always
> > colored and strongly impregnated with smoke, a mixture as unwholesome as
> it
> > is unpleasant.
>

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