[Lexicog] Joe the Plumber

[Scott Nelson]

Hayim, hi. Yes, you are right about the root of the word "assassin," being from the Muslim word that meant one who was sent out during the Crusades to kill Christian leaders. The word "assassin" entered the English language in the 13th century, 300 years before Shakespeare's coinage. But it was Shakespeare who is credited with the grammatical shift to the noun "assassination." And oddly, it was twelve or thirteen years after the bard's use of "assassination" that the verb "assassinate" (1607) entered the English lexicon. 
     I think I mentioned in a post about a year ago that `coinages' can be construed to include functional (grammatical) shifts -- according to Merriam Webster linguists. And even the Merriam Webster scholars allowed linguistic parameters of Shakespearean coinage to be questioned. They cite some who say he coined only a few hundred, and others who say 10,000+. But they settle for a likely approximation of 1,500. 
     I asked before if anyone had a good set of parameters for what constitutes "coinage." There were no takers at the time. The subject is still open to debate. 
Scott Nelson

--- On Wed, 10/22/08, Hayim Sheynin <hayim.sheynin at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Hayim Sheynin <hayim.sheynin at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Lexicog] Joe the Plumber
To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, October 22, 2008, 3:32 PM






Dear Scott,

Please check your data about the
assassination (noun -- Shakespeare coinage) ?
I doubt this, since I know that the ethimology of
this word is from Arabic hassassiniya.
There was in Baghdad a sect or secret organization
under this name which practiced murder and political
killings. Later this organization developed branches
in other countries, like Malaysia.
I presume it came to Shakespeare either from French or
Dutch.

Hayim Sheynin

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 6:56 AM, bolstar1 <bolstar1 at yahoo. com> wrote:
> Ruddy Troike said on "Idioms and Phraseology" : "I'm reminded of Alton
> Becker's rejection of Chomsky's autonomous syntax by arguing that
> `all of language is recycled combinations, and that this is how we
> learn language...' "
> I think that's a great principle in understanding language
> acquisition and evolution. An interesting modern-day example might
> be "Joe the Plumber," the current mantra used on the American
> political beat to refer to the average citizen. Of course this is an
> offshoot of "Joe sixpack." But Joe the plumber will only enter the
> lexicon if it holds up over time. Till then it might be considered a
> current and localized allusion. (Wouldn't it be funny if this lead
> to "Joe the...(something) " -- to refer to any group, organization, or
> political persuasion?)
> Some phrases don't change over time, and simply are too pithy
> and catchy to give up. e.g. "the be-all and all of...(something) --
> from Shakespeare' s Macbeth:
>
> Macbeth 1.07.002(2)- 007(1)
> assassination (noun -- Shakespeare coinage)
> the be-all and end-all (nphr -- Shakespeare coinage)
>
> If th' assassination
> Could trammel up the consequence, and catch,
> With his surcease, success; that but this blow
> Might be the be-all and the end-all -- here,
> But here, upon this bank and shoal of time,
> We'd jump the life to come. (Signet)
>
> trammel up* catch in a net (Sig) || entangle as in a net (Riv)
> the consequence* the events arising from it (Riv)
> his surcease* Duncan's death (?) the consequence' s cessation (?)
> (Sig) ||
> its (the assassination' s) conclusion (?) or Duncan's death (?)
> (Riv)
> success* what follows (Sig)
> shoal*** shallow (Oni)
> jump* hazard; risk (Oni) || venture (Nels)
>
> Scott Nelson
>
> 
 














      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20081022/15329d16/attachment.htm>