[Lexicog] Re: archaic entries

Tue Feb 14 20:14:00 UTC 2006

How about 1933 cut-of-date for obsolete English words.
1933 is the date of the last large supplement to OED.
In my opinion, the date can be even closer to the present time,
but OED is one significant dictionary that any (English) lexicographer 
should recon with. 

Best wishes,
Hayim

============
Dr. Hayim Y. Sheynin
Adjunct Professor of Jewish Literature
Gratz College
7605 Old York Rd.
Melrose Park, PA 19027

Tel.: 215 635-7300 x 161
Fax: 215 635-7320
email: hsheynin at gratz.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
rtroike at email.arizona.edu
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 12:47 AM
To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Lexicog] Re: archaic entries

Using 1755 as a cut-off date for "obsolete" seems pretty extreme. There
are
huge numbers of words that have died out (or rather whose users have
died off)
since then, which could hardly even be called "old fashioned" anymore.
They
would seem to fall into a sort of terminological limbo.

      Rudy Troike

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lexicographylist-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/