Subject
Re: CORRECTION about Webster's Second, more on "stang"
From
Date
Body
Duly noted Jim but, alas, after my postings using the 1913 version. Can I
mention another problem with this (and most other) online version. It allows
searches by headword, but my project (seeking embedded synonyms) needs a
total-content search. Switch to UNIX tools beckons.
What I recall from Webster history: Webster III was a great shock to many
dumping many VN-treasured archaic words from the 1934 Webster II, and adding
hundreds of upstart vulg. derog. words that offended the bourgeoisie. BB
might confirm that VN shunned Webster III, and may have written a strong
opinion against it.
I¹m still pondering your dislike of stang in the PF context. My judgment is
coloured by the view (unpopular with many Nabokovians) that Shade is a lousy
poet, presented as such via brilliantly-balanced but mean-low-down parody by
VN.
Speaking of non-standard (but never egregiously bad) grammar: the impeccable
JANSY used the construction should of¹ or would of¹ when the rules prefer
should have¹ and would have.¹ I only mention it because it aroused some
debate on another list I infest. The of¹ has been defended because it¹s so
common, and derives from the fact that in speech it is not easy to hear the
difference between should of¹ and should have¹ (indeed there may not be a
real phonetic difference). Even on the BBC one hears the next stage in the
DEATH of GOODER English: I shudder [shudda] been more careful.¹
SKB
On 16/01/2010 17:56, "James Twiggs" <jtwigzz@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> Dear List,
>
> In referring you to the online Webster's Unabridged Dictionary in my last
> posting, I gave out some misleading information. The online version is from
> 1913. As Stephen Blackwell has pointed out to me, there was a 1934 version,
> commonly known as Webster's Second. Stephen and I believe that this is the
> version that VN would have been using. If we're wrong about this, I hope
> somebody will provide further information.
>
> I apologize for this mistake. As for the egregious grammatical error in that
> same posting, I am properly embarrassed.
>
> The more I think about the word "stang" in Shade's poem, the odder it seems as
> the word of choice, in that context, for either Shade or VN.
>
> Jim Twiggs
Search archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
Visit "Nabokov Online Journal:" http://www.nabokovonline.com
Manage subscription options: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/
mention another problem with this (and most other) online version. It allows
searches by headword, but my project (seeking embedded synonyms) needs a
total-content search. Switch to UNIX tools beckons.
What I recall from Webster history: Webster III was a great shock to many
dumping many VN-treasured archaic words from the 1934 Webster II, and adding
hundreds of upstart vulg. derog. words that offended the bourgeoisie. BB
might confirm that VN shunned Webster III, and may have written a strong
opinion against it.
I¹m still pondering your dislike of stang in the PF context. My judgment is
coloured by the view (unpopular with many Nabokovians) that Shade is a lousy
poet, presented as such via brilliantly-balanced but mean-low-down parody by
VN.
Speaking of non-standard (but never egregiously bad) grammar: the impeccable
JANSY used the construction should of¹ or would of¹ when the rules prefer
should have¹ and would have.¹ I only mention it because it aroused some
debate on another list I infest. The of¹ has been defended because it¹s so
common, and derives from the fact that in speech it is not easy to hear the
difference between should of¹ and should have¹ (indeed there may not be a
real phonetic difference). Even on the BBC one hears the next stage in the
DEATH of GOODER English: I shudder [shudda] been more careful.¹
SKB
On 16/01/2010 17:56, "James Twiggs" <jtwigzz@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> Dear List,
>
> In referring you to the online Webster's Unabridged Dictionary in my last
> posting, I gave out some misleading information. The online version is from
> 1913. As Stephen Blackwell has pointed out to me, there was a 1934 version,
> commonly known as Webster's Second. Stephen and I believe that this is the
> version that VN would have been using. If we're wrong about this, I hope
> somebody will provide further information.
>
> I apologize for this mistake. As for the egregious grammatical error in that
> same posting, I am properly embarrassed.
>
> The more I think about the word "stang" in Shade's poem, the odder it seems as
> the word of choice, in that context, for either Shade or VN.
>
> Jim Twiggs
Search archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
Visit "Nabokov Online Journal:" http://www.nabokovonline.com
Manage subscription options: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/