Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: July ::
Re: "What's in a name?"
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1763  Tuesday, 17 July 2001

[1]     From:   Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 13 Jul 2001 08:33:38 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1751 Re: "What's in a name?"

[2]     From:   Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 13 Jul 2001 17:37:38 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1751 Re: "What's in a name?"

[3]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 13 Jul 2001 10:34:54 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1751 Re: "What's in a name?"

[4]     From:   Mari Bonomi <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 13 Jul 2001 17:19:55 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1751 Re: "What's in a name?"

[5]     From:   Karen Peterson-Kranz <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Sunday, 15 Jul 2001 05:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1751 Re: "What's in a name?"


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 13 Jul 2001 08:33:38 -0700
Subject: 12.1751 Re: "What's in a name?"
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1751 Re: "What's in a name?"

Taylor writes:

>Mike Jensen said,  "Yes, the OED is flawed.  There are also words where
>earlier precedents have been found than the OED records.  That does not
>make it useless."
>
>Robin Hamilton responded,  "I'd agree with Mike here, and it's never
>going to be perfect, but it does get better."
>
>Remarks that are far less "singularly trite" and "unexceptional" than
>this have been regularly so labelled (sic) and dismissed on this >thread.
>What's gives here?

Ah, so correcting Taylor with the facts is trite and unexceptional, huh?

His insults are subtler this time, but they are still insults.  Things
have gotten to a point where the only proper response begins, Dear
Moron.  I will not subject the list to such comments, so I bow out.
This does not indicate that Taylor has scored any points with Friday's
comments.

Mike Jensen

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 13 Jul 2001 17:37:38 +0100
Subject: 12.1751 Re: "What's in a name?"
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1751 Re: "What's in a name?"

> Mike Jensen said,  "Yes, the OED is flawed.  There are also words where
> earlier precedents have been found than the OED records.  That does not
> make it useless."
>
> Robin Hamilton responded,  "I'd agree with Mike here, and it's never
> going to be perfect, but it does get better."
>
> Remarks that are far less "singularly trite" and "unexceptional" than
> this have been regularly so labelled and dismissed on this thread.
> What's gives here?

What gives here is selective quotation.  I'm perfectly willing to stand
at the bar and face an accusation of triteness, but I'd prefer to be
judged on what I said (SHK 12.1740  Thursday, 12 July 200) rather than
on Mr. Taylor's tendentious snippet.

> Someone (I apologise, I can't find the exact remark) previously referred
> to 'the difference between wit and smut.'  It seems to me that to expect
> Shakespeare to point out his meanings is to expect smut rather than wit.

I acknowledge these words mine, but again would draw attention to the
elimination of context-in this case, one where the words were used
specifically as a counter to the kind of position which Mr. Taylor takes
up.

Robin Hamilton

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 13 Jul 2001 10:34:54 -0700
Subject: 12.1751 Re: "What's in a name?"
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1751 Re: "What's in a name?"

Stuart Taylor argues that

>The question was rather, given the imperfection of such texts in
>capturing living language use, is it accurate to say that the
>non-appearance of a word or phrase in such texts establishes or suggests
>that the word/phrase in question was not in use during the period in
>question?

No, and no-one (that I recall) is suggesting that.  The problem is that
no other means of proving the use of a word or phrase is so
incontrovertible.  Playing on usages in other languages is (at best) to
reason by analogy, while the context can be made to mean a lot of
things.  In principle, one can find whatever one seeks, and it seems
considerably more advisable to stick to things that are not only
possible but plausible and (better) provable.

Cheers,
Se

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.