[Ads-l] Major Antedating of "Smog"

[Stephen Goranson]

Thanks; quite interesting. Fred's finds not only located the 1880 book excerpted in the 1880 newspaper but also showed that a later coining claim was bogus.

I suggest these finds may show something additional: that the California writer (of Santa Cruz, according to annotation on the LC/hathitrust copy) used a term that already existed, facetiously spelled (passive voice) smog—presumably by some earlier writer (speller not speaker)—to refer to a true British fog, which by implication Meyrick visited.

If so, an earlier use existed, by a British writer or visitor.

scg
________________________________
From: American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU> on behalf of Ben Zimmer <bgzimmer at GMAIL.COM>
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2022 5:33 PM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Major Antedating of "Smog"

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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/ads-l/2019-November/156015.html__;!!OToaGQ!q3eBPkCvrIL5NRbLQWm8VT8WkYBcopyks8Q9k0RNuTMAK8wjtVs8ODhx_xbEl3RXYI-SKAvKZdmuN0l7$

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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/ads-l/2011-December/115046.html__;!!OToaGQ!q3eBPkCvrIL5NRbLQWm8VT8WkYBcopyks8Q9k0RNuTMAK8wjtVs8ODhx_xbEl3RXYI-SKAvKZUGWVj-4$
>
> I cited that antedating in a 2018 WSJ column on "vog" (volcanic smog):
>
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-kilauea-rages-a-look-at-the-diverse-volcanic-vocabulary-1527258578?st=09sikp4o1bo5utk&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink__;!!OToaGQ!q3eBPkCvrIL5NRbLQWm8VT8WkYBcopyks8Q9k0RNuTMAK8wjtVs8ODhx_xbEl3RXYI-SKAvKZa-kgdsb$
>
> --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 - https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.americandialect.org__;!!OToaGQ!q3eBPkCvrIL5NRbLQWm8VT8WkYBcopyks8Q9k0RNuTMAK8wjtVs8ODhx_xbEl3RXYI-SKAvKZePm8Yl_$

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