Re: OED
- From: Harry Binswanger <hb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: xywrite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:35:39 -0800
Here's what I don't
quite "get" about the *Historical* Thesaurus
(based on the OED): Why would anyone want to discover an
obsolete 16th century synonym for an obsolete 16th century
noun?
Here's one idiosyncratic use. I have developed a theory about how
concepts of attributes are first formed. I hypothesized that they are
formed by metaphorical extension from nouns (nouns being the first
concepts formed, historically and by a child). I predicted (retrodicted?)
that the word "red" began as "blood," since blood is
the most easily available and dramatic instance of the red color. Using
my hardcover "OED" (and restricting myself to English, of
course) I found that "red" came from "rud" which
meant "blood." Score one for my theory.
But that's an extremely specialized use of the OED.
Trying to recreate
Shakespeare's lost/suppressed plays, or
something like that? As an idle exploration, it's doubtless
amusing. As a practical matter, it seems pointless.
Bill?
-----------------------------
Robert Holmgren
holmgren@xxxxxxxxxx
-----------------------------
Other related posts:
