Lynda Mugglestone

Any fan of lexicographical histories (Chasing the Sun, Caught in the Web of Words, &c.) should be sure to read Lynda Mugglestone's Lost for Words: The Hidden History of the Oxford English Dictionary (Yale, 2005). Drawing extensively on the OED Archives at Oxford University Press and on James Murray's papers at the Bodleian, Mugglestone digs deep into the inner workings of the Dictionary's editorial team. This effort, she writes, "provide[s] a collective history for the making of the OED show more which ... can serve to change a number of conventional images" (p. xix).

Mugglestone's use of archival materials, particularly the printed proof sheets of the first edition of the OED, is absolutely fascinating. She uses these preliminary drafts to examine editorial decisions and squabbles as Murray and his team sought to fulfill their task as completely as possible while meeting the practical demands of print publication.

A major point, if an implicit one, of this book is that lexicographers are people too. Johnson's humanity may have been more overtly evident (see "oats," "lexicographer," &c.), but the OED's editors suffered the same dilemmas. Aplaintife had been overlooked in the publication of the first installment of the dictionary, so naturally a quote including that word couldn't be used to illustrate the use of garnishee, could it? (Another quote from the same year was found) (p. 53-4).

The editorial changes made during the proof-reading process were extensive: as Murray scanned the pages he frequently suggested changes to the text, as evidenced by greased pole. Henry Bradley's original draft definition was "a pole rubbed with grease to make it harder to cling to." Murray scrawled in the margin of the proof that something to the effect of "used as a frequent object of diversion at sport etc." would have to be added, otherwise "it looks as if people were so keen on climbing poles that they had to be kept at a distance by the use of grease" (p. 60). The edit was made.

Some of the other topics covered by Mugglestone are the applications of qualifying terms like "rare," "obsolete," "vulgar," &c., which were inherently subjective. I laughed out loud at Murray's refusal to admit that "fray" as a verb ("to frighten or scare away") was obsolete. In fact he used the word in his definition of the verb "huff" ("to fray by calling 'huff'"). He wrote to Bradley "My impression (subject to correction) is that [fray] is the ordinary word for 'to frighten away birds by shouting or with a rattle' .... It is my natural word for this" (p. 160-61). Murray lost that battle, though, and had to accept fray's obsolete status and change his definition of huff (which ended up reading "to scare away by calling 'huff'").

Finally, Mugglestone examines the work to supplement the dictionary (which basically began as soon as the first fascicle was published and continued throughout the publication process and beyond) and the brave new world of digital lexicography (without the limitations of the printed page, but with so many other challenges).

A great read, often amusing and always illuminating.

http://philobiblos.blogspot.com/2009/03/book-review-lost-for-words.html show less

Meticulously researched from archives that include some of the first proof sheets. I thought that I was a word nerd, but tbh it took a long time to get through the book. And it can be summed up as 'The OED was never meant to be anything like prescriptive, and despite the expense & decades of construction, turned out to be not nearly as authoritative or complete as any of its editors, publishers, or readers want it to be. For so many reasons.'

Bonus star because it's important that people show more realize that truth. No one dictionary can give a complete answer to any question of definition, history, etymology, usage, or pronunciation. And a living language changes as people use it. There is no "correct" but rather there is only "most accepted right now." And Murray & the others knew that, and aimed to make that clear... even as sometimes they succumbed to the urge to add notes such as 'vulgar' to entries, or to avoid using exemplary quotations from newspapers instead preferring Literary sources.

So that's one reason right there. These ivory tower men who were the editors had insufficient contact with words that women, or tradesmen, or 'lower classes' would use, and therefore many words that those ppl used never made it into the dict., and therefore new potential users have no source to confirm existences of those words, and therefore don't use them, and they're gone. They did have volunteer readers and staff who were female and/or ambitious youth from the middle class, but not enough.

Americanisms and other 'foreign' words were adjudged on a case-by-case basis and most were not included, in favor of making this an English dict.

Also the dictionary was begun in the nineteenth century and finished after The Great War. Now of course the War prompted the creation of many new words and new meanings, many of which began with "aero-." Well, A was already published. So those words didn't make it in.

Similarly science words were being created every day. Which to include? As it turns out, a lot... but of course by no means all. Despite [a:Thomas Henry Huxley|17171|Thomas Henry Huxley|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1390055976p2/17171.jpg]'s assertion that "Science and literature are not two things, but two sides of one thing" the editors preferred to use words that had shown up in Wordsworth, Dickens, etc.

Words seen as obscene were often defined elliptically... unhelpfully. And before you & I assume it simply had to do with Victorian prudery, we ought consult [b:The Making of Victorian Sexuality|867590|The Making of Victorian Sexuality|Michael Mason|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1347878723l/867590._SY75_.jpg|852986] for a more nuanced understanding.

And yet the creation took far far longer than budgeted for. And became a bookshelf worth of print rather than just the two or three volumes expected. And still space was at a premium, and some words were cut just because they didn't fit into the space allotted. Or because an odd rule from the Delegates that the scale to Webster's Unabridged of 1864 be nor more extreme than 7-1, preferably less.

And words might not be lost forever, but their history might have been. 'Lunching' and its citation from 1880 were excised for space in the release of L in 1920. It was included in the Supplement in 1933, but the entry there omits that citation, leading a reader to think the word originated in 1920. (Eek.)

At least they didn't omit based on prejudice against individuals, as Johnson refused to use anything by Hobbes, because he didn't like the latter's "principles."

So, indeed, the OED is neither the 'inventory' nor the 'history' envisioned when begun.

I hope that if you're interested you read the book despite my lukewarm review. There are lots of interesting bits that really are not 'trivial' and I feel glad that I know more of the truth about this very famous work.

on openlibrary show less

Mugglestone’s approach to a lexicographical study starts with the words themselves. There is a quick history of the Committee and Murray’s involvement, but the words and their ever-changing definitions take center stage. A fascinating read for any lover of dictionaries.