"Baby Gays" makes sense to me: they make it gay for your baby. Of course, the modern equivalent would be something like "Baby Funs."
Thanks for the bit on Q-tips.
Posted by Stephen C. Carlson at December 24, 2007 10:05 PMI had never heard of Q-tips. In Australia we call them cotton buds, as they do in Britain (according to Wikipedia).
Yes, definitely cotton buds in the UK. OED though is blind to the usage, which is odd as it's been around since at least the 1970s. I'm not sure whether it was proprietary in origin.
Posted by aldiboronti at December 25, 2007 03:34 AMDamn my parochial eyes—it didn't even occur to me that non-Americans wouldn't have heard of Q-tips. Sorry!
Posted by language hat at December 25, 2007 08:28 AMRe MWCD11's dating of eggnog as "ca. 1775": On the American Dialect Society mailing list, Joanne Despres of Merriam-Webster does suggest they're using the Boucher passage, based on the dating given by Mitford Mathews' Dictionary of Americanisms and William Craigie's Dictionary of American English.
Posted by Ben Zimmer at December 26, 2007 05:14 PMAha—thanks!
Posted by language hat at December 26, 2007 05:31 PMMore fun! One more advantage of Google Books is that they can help track down etymological citations. GB lists a 1735 citation as it turns out. I've posted it on one of my Virtual Grub Street blogs as the explanation is kind of long for a blog comment and I will want to update the information I've provided re eggnog.
Posted by Gilbert Wesley Purdy at December 26, 2007 08:01 PMVery good indeed! (But oh, how I hate "snippet view"...)
Posted by language hat at December 26, 2007 08:06 PMI'm sorry to have to report that the 1735 date is crappy GB meta-data. Search for 1958.
Posted by MMcM at December 26, 2007 08:45 PMBeen burned like that myself. Google Books IS a useful tool for tracing etymologies, but you can't trust their dates (typed into the datebase by some underling; you need to see it on the title page), or overly rely on the snippet views. (For serials, they only enter the date of the first volume, which is not much help.)
Posted by Martin at December 26, 2007 09:12 PMWell, the title page thumbnail shows 1958 on one page and no decipherable date on another. The book search entry for the "1735 editon" indicates one match (the one I cited) on one page dedicated to the book and no matches on another page again dedicated to it. It certainly leaves the matter very much in doubt. Given these facts, I must agree that the citation is not presently verifiable.
Posted by Gilbert Wesley Purdy at December 26, 2007 09:35 PMI believe that it was still "iced cream" then, too. As late as 1882, you can see some old crank railing against that change.
Posted by MMcM at December 26, 2007 10:13 PMWe certainly had "Q-tips" in Ireland in the 80s. They debranded into "cotton buds" for me around the time people were told not to put them in their ears. Always sounded like a Blue Peter phrase to me. I always thought they were made by Johnson & Johnson, but apparently they're Unilever.
Posted by mollymooly at January 3, 2008 09:00 PMRight on cue, the news wonders where caucus comes from. Jeremy over at PhiloBiblos pulls together the OED and his fellow colonial historians.
Posted by MMcM at January 4, 2008 11:26 AM