The British Library has the 1802 edition. Sadly the 1798 edition, assuming there is one, is not on ECCO, otherwise I could have sent it to you.
Posted by Conrad at February 18, 2009 11:42 AMAh wait, it has "1802?" so perhaps it is 1798 after all.
Posted by Conrad at February 18, 2009 11:43 AMDoes anyone know how Samuel Johnson, Jr. spelled "honor?"
Posted by Bill Walderman at February 18, 2009 11:49 AMIt's in Evans.
Posted by MMcM at February 18, 2009 11:54 AMHon or a ry, a. done in honour
Posted by MMcM at February 18, 2009 12:07 PMHe also forgot Aardvark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmwIvVUc62Y
ttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0526724/quotes
The first proper dictionary written by a British author but published in an American edition, on the other hand, seems to have been William Perry's 1788 Royal Standard English Dictionary. The title page is truly a fine specimen of the eighteenth-century idea of "value-add":
Posted by slawkenbergius at February 18, 2009 01:03 PMThe Royal Standard
ENGLISH DICTIONARY.
In which the
WORDS are not only rationally DIVIDED into Syllables, accurately ACCENTED, their Part of Speech properly distinguished, and, their various Significations arranged in one Line; but,
likewise, by
A KEY to this WORK,
Comprising the various SOUNDS of the Vowels and Consonants, denoted by TYPOGRAPHICAL CHARACTERS, and illustrated by EXAMPLES, which render it intelligible to the weakest Capacity, it EXHIBITS their
P R O N U N C I A T I O N,
According to the present Practice of Men of Letters, eminent Orators, and polite Speakers in London,
Upon a PLAN perfectly PLAIN, and entirely NEW.
To which is PREFIXED, a COMPREHENSIVE,
GRAMMAR of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
TO THE WHOLE IS ADDED,
The SCRIPTURE proper NAMES in the Old and New Testaments,
Names of the principal Cities, Rivers, Mountains, &c in the known World:
Also, the ancient and modern Poets, Philosophers, and Statesmen, &c.
With their proper PRONUNCIATION pointed out.
the ancient and modern Poets, Philosophers, and Statesmen, &c. With their proper PRONUNCIATION pointed out.Does anyone know of a reference for the PRONUNCIATION of the names of academics, scientists and writers of the last, say, 100 years? I know that the names of antient dead WASPS can be found in works like the Unabridged Webster's, but one doesn't always have that to hand.
Here are my desiderata:
1. To be (able to be kept) up-to-date, the reference would have to be on the net.
2. It should have audio samples, not IPA renderings.
3. To prevent many unnecessary discussions, the reference should give the pronunciation of the names used by the bearers, when they are still alive. Failing that, the pronunciation used in the country of origin or existence (of person and name) should be given prominence.
4. Pronunciations used in countries other than those of origin or existence can be provided, but this is not a must (initially).
5. I wouldn't mind, initially, if there were a Euro-American-Slavic bias to the choice of people. Wolf Lepenies, deBroglie, Houellebecq (in fact every third French person), Mandelshtam, Coetzee, Charles Pierce ...
6. The language background of the sample speakers should be specified, natch, to avoid tiresome challenges on the grounds of prescriptivist tendencies.If there isn't such a thing, or no comprehensive one, how about us (we) LH folks knocking one together? I can probably rustle up a server, and in any case customize the site software. Some things like audio modules I know nothing about, but then there are people like Adrian who probably do.
OOH. A project. MMcM knows a lot about computers (like you, Grumbly Stu).
Posted by A.J.P. Crown at February 18, 2009 02:40 PMI want this thing to be pragmatic. I can deal with all the backend (database) stuff. Maybe someone like MMcM might want to help with the frontend (although I appreciate a good layout, I hate having to cope with that font, codepage and byte-hole (input) stuff).
First we have to see who's interested.
Posted by Grumbly Stu at February 18, 2009 02:49 PMI want this thing to be pragmatic.
You've been reading too many of those American philosophers, Grumbly Stu.
Posted by A.J.P. Crown at February 18, 2009 03:04 PMWhat do you think of "whatakant" as site name?
Posted by Grumbly Stu at February 18, 2009 03:09 PMWhat about Forvo?
http://forvo.com/
Thanks, Nijma, but I find Forvo to be scatty. Anything can be put there by anyone. One, it's only proper names that I'm interested in. Two, I want a smallish set of speakers who can refer others if the need or wish arises.
The starting group would be people from LH, I hope. I don't conceive of this as a Democratic Thing - but nor as an Elitist Thing. Rather, it should work pragmatically, which means that a very small number of like-minded editors make decisions, und basta.
Posted by Grumbly Stu at February 18, 2009 03:29 PMA wonderful idea, Grumblich. I would amend one of your prescriptions to this:
It should have audio samples and IPA renderings.And with others too I'd switch to include options rather than exclude them.
What are the dates for this Johnson, active at the close the 18th century? There were so many by that name, but none of these listed at Wikipedia seems to be our man.
One "other" Samuel Johnson bestowed upon the American people a certain word. (Note the printer. That's misleading; it's probably Benjamin Trevor Franklin III, not the famous kite-flying womaniser.)
Yeah, whatakant, kantfindit, something kant-like. Oops, gotta go.
Posted by A.J.P. Crown at February 18, 2009 03:37 PMI just discovered that for my entire life I have mistaken the meaning of "scatty". I meant disorganized / disheveled.
Posted by Grumbly Stu at February 18, 2009 03:38 PMDoes anyone know of a reference for the PRONUNCIATION of the names of academics, scientists and writers of the last, say, 100 years?
The closest thing I know of is this; it's not altogether reliable, as I noted when I wrote about it, but it's better than nothing. It would be nice to have a better one, more skewed in the direction we foppish cultural elitists are interested in, but of course we'd have to be severe about making sure entries are accurate and not just good guesses.
I just discovered that for my entire life I have mistaken the meaning
Heh. I'm just about to do a post on that phenomenon!
Posted by language hat at February 18, 2009 03:43 PMAnd with others too I'd switch to include options rather than exclude themPoint taken, Mister N. The "exclusions" were meant merely to forestall discussions about how much is needed to get the thing off the ground. Comprehensiveness is best introduced peu à peu, à mon avis.
[LH: from your post] Library of Congress Talking Books for the BlindNow there's an excellent contact I'm going to make. I conclude from the discussion subsequent to your post that there were no audio bites on the site (there still aren't). I'd have thought that was the first thing the Talking Books people would have wanted to provide.
more skewed in the direction we foppish cultural elitists are interested in, but of course we'd have to be severe about making sure entries are accurate and not just good guesses.I would propose exactly that as the mission statement. No guessing!
The site will definitely have an entry point adapted for use by the blind - voice mails for questions, downloading in different audio formats, voice-controlled navigation etc. are things that spring to mind.
By "will definitely have" I mean that I personally will ensure that this happens. I will need to liase with the specialist organizations, because I know nothing about the tools and practices that for a certainty are already available.
Posted by Grumbly Stu at February 18, 2009 04:10 PMGrumbly Stu:
I just discovered that for my entire life I have mistaken the meaning of "scatty". I meant disorganized / disheveled.
OED:
Of a person: scatter-brained; driven distracted, mad; of a story, etc.: illogical and absurd.
My mother uses "scatty" to describe herself when she forgets where she's left her glasses.
Posted by mollymooly at February 18, 2009 05:26 PMTo me the word is unfamiliar, but I'd assume it meant "scat-like" or "pertaining to scats". Or maybe a kind of singing that's sort of scat singing, or similar to scat singing, but not quite. Or in a pinch, scattered in a sort of derogatory, casual way.
Posted by John Emerson at February 18, 2009 05:50 PMGoogle Book Search "has" this work only in the sense that they have a more or less complete bibliographical reference to it; there's no reason to believe that they've scanned it but are refusing to make the scan available. There are gobs of out-of-print books that exist in GBS only as references.
Consider Deadly Silents (1981) by Lee Killough, one of my favorite detective sf novels. GBS knows it exists because there is an Elsie record, but the book predates the widespread use of PDFs by publishers, and probably isn't in the libraries that Google deals with. So all you get for it is a bare reference. It's not at all a matter of "Google won't let you see it"; Google has nothing to show or not show you.
(Disclaimer: I work for Google, but know little about GBS, and I'm not telling you anything confidential.)
Posted by John Cowan at February 18, 2009 05:54 PMGoogle Book Search "has" this work only in the sense that they have a more or less complete bibliographical reference to it; there's no reason to believe that they've scanned it but are refusing to make the scan available.
Ah, that makes sense, but they're sure shooting themselves in the foot by not making that clearer.
Posted by language hat at February 18, 2009 06:33 PMMy mother uses "scatty" to describe herself when she forgets where she's left her glasses.That's the kind of association I always had. Now I remember my mother's using it that way. She's from Mississippi. It was the OED entry you put up here, and the one in Webster's Collegiate, that made me think I had misunderstood the word. How do they get from "scatter-brained" to "driven distracted, mad; of a story, etc.: illogical and absurd"?
Isn't scat a fancy word for animal poo? Not the kind your neighbor's dog leaves in the yard, but the fancy archaeological kind that proves what kind of animals some culture kept and whether they had parasites.
Posted by Nijma at February 18, 2009 07:20 PMI don't know about "fancy", "technical" would seem more appropriate, used by wildlife biologists or others with a professional interest in the substance, more than by the general public. It seems to be used only about wild animals, for instance "we found a lot of bear scat near the blueberry bushes along the river".
Posted by marie-lucie at February 18, 2009 08:46 PMAh, bear scat. I must have heard it on the Appalachian trail. If you're going to sleep in bear country, it might be worth while knowing about the critters' comings and goings.
"Fancy" is an informal way of saying "big word". Especially since "scat" only has four letters.
Posted by Nijma at February 18, 2009 09:57 PM"yer be scatter brained " oh! scatty one
Posted by scarabaeus at February 19, 2009 04:02 PMIsn't scat a fancy word for animal poo?
You're thinking of what's known as a scratty box.
There's something called 'scat singing', which is a way for white people who can't play an instrument to pretend they're jazz musicians.
Posted by A.J.P. Crown at February 20, 2009 09:04 AMOh, like that most famous of scat singers, Ella Fitzgerald?
What about "scat!" as an imperative?
Posted by bklynharuspex at February 21, 2009 11:28 AMOh, like that most famous of scat singers, Ella Fitzgerald?
Much as I love her Songbook recordings, I can't stand her scat singing (or anybody's but Pop's, really). I hate that live recording where she makes a mockery of the lovely tune "How High the Moon" by scatting the bejesus out of it.
What about "scat!" as an imperative?
Excellent question! The OED says "? identical with ‘ss cat!’ (i.e. a hiss followed by the word cat) used in driving away cats"; we'll see if they stick to that when they get around to revising S. Surprisingly, the oldest citation is from 1838 (‘T. TITTERWELL’ Yankee Notions 52 Drive her away! 'scat her away! Ibid. 56 Stop, there! whisht! scat!), and all the 19th-century cites are American (the first U.K. one is 1931, from Margery Allingham's Look to the Lady: "Shoo! Shoo! Scat! We've got a policeman coming").
Posted by language hat at February 21, 2009 02:43 PMWhat, they're saying it's got nothing to do with 'scatter'? It must at least be a combined source, or whatever the OED calls such things.
Posted by A.J.P. Crown at February 23, 2009 03:44 PMAmmon Shea wrote a book about the OED after reading it only ONCE??!
Posted by Christophe Strobbe at February 24, 2009 11:58 AM