"Muckamuck" and English-language dictionaries

[David D. Robertson]

[Note:  Further discussion of whether to include occurrences outside of
English-language text as "first occurrence" in etymological dictionaries
follows this post at the American Dialect Soc'y list,
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/ads-l.html.  --Dave]


Date:         Mon, 11 Nov 2002 03:25:37 EST
Reply-To:     American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Sender:       American Dialect Society Mailing List <ADS-L at uga.cc.uga.edu>
Comments:     cc: ASmith1946 at aol.com
From:         Bapopik at AOL.COM
Subject:      Mahimahi vs. Muckamuck; "Limited Resources"
Comments: To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

MAHIMAHI VS. MUCKAMUCK

   "Mahimahi" is not English in 1836?
   OED's first citation is 1905.  DARE's first citation is 1926.
   The book I cited from is in English.  It lists "mahimahi" as a
species--what else would you call it?  As I've said before, it could be the
first citation, or put in parenthesis, or put in "etymology" (which just
lists "Hawaiian" and nothing else).  But if I'm looking up "mahimahi," it's
a
citation I'd like to know about.  Why not make things easy for dictionary
users?
   Look at OED's revised "Mazurka," for example.  That gives you the dates
in
other languages.
   But look at both DARE and OED for "muckamuck"--a term I've come across as
well.  Both give an 1847 citation.  The "muckamuck" citation is in a list of
"Chinook jargon."  Is that English?
   DARE puts it in parenthesis.
   OED uses it as the first citation.  No parenthesis.  The "Chinook" side
of
a jargon list is considered English!
   Why is what's good enough for "muckamuck" not good enough for "mahimahi"?