Date:    Wed, 20 May 1998 17:29:43 -0400
<br>From:    Jesse T Sheidlower <jester[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]PANIX.COM>
<br>Subject: Re: Among the New Words
<br>
<br>I just want to respond briefly to some of Wayne's points, quoted
<br>in full below. Tom and/or Wayne are under the impression that I
<br>have somewhere promoted the idea or recording everything that one
<br>encounters. If I have said this, it must have been in a very
<br>different context, since this does not represent my feeling on
<br>the subject.
<br>
<br>As a heavy user of "Among the New Words," both in its current
<br>incarnation and in John's collection of the past columns, I will
<br>say that a heavy dose of citations from a wide variety of sources
<br>is extremely helpful. While I do encourage the inclusion of a
<br>promising term based on small amounts of evidence, I think it is
<br>more important to document the popularity of genuinely current
<br>words and expressions. Wayne says below that he has left out some
<br>citations for space reasons, but I think it would make for a
<br>stronger column if popular terms got a proportional share of
<br>citations.
<br>
<br>In the case of _soccer mom,_ for example, the amount of ink given
<br>it in ANW--almost a full page--seems justified; as one of the most
<br>prominent terms of that year, a large body of citations will make
<br>that clear to the reader. And forty years from now, that column
<br>may help to convince the reader at that time that its selection
<br>as one of our Words of the Year was appropriate. (As I have written
<br>elsewhere, though, I think that expressions like _bee's knees_ and
<br>perhaps _soccer mom_ will remain part of our cultural identity long
<br>after they've fallen out of active use.)
<br>
<br>I do think that each term should be accompanied by at least two or
<br>three citations, from different sources, if possible. With only a
<br>single citation, it is hard to judge whether the term is genuinely
<br>current or nonce, and whether the definition is based on that
<br>single citation or other, unseen ones. Certainly if a word is, in
<br>the editor's opinion, important enough to be included despite
<br>limited evidence, it should go on, but I do not think that "listing/
<br>recording everything that one comes across" is a good model for ANW.
<br>
<br>I hope this makes sense; I'm running out the door and just wanted
<br>to put in my $.02.
<br>
<br>Best,
<br>
<br>Jesse Sheidlower
<br><jester[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]panix.com>
<br>
<br>
<br>Wayne Glowka, as forwarded by Allan, wrote:
<br>
<br>> I have already had some correspondence with Paikeday about this subject.
<br>> He has been concerned with some comment made by Jesse Sheidlower that
<br>> Paikeday's method of coverage was less thorough than the method that Jesse
<br>> has promoted of listing/recording everything that one comes across.
<br>>
<br>> John Algeo counseled me to run with the latest words even if I had only one
<br>> citation so that the column could keep ahead of the desk dictionaries,
<br>> which now have active new word editors and come out in newer editions
<br>> faster than "Among the New Words" can get to press.  A case in point:
<br>> Jesse was able to get out new dictionary with "soccer mom" before we were
<br>> able to get out the article with the same word.
<br>>
<br>> After some discussion with Connie Eble and Ron Butters, I adopted Ron's
<br>> belief that "Among the New Words" is never out of date.  Jesse can't list
<br>> citations; we can.  Freed of that pressure, I have been dipping into the
<br>> files that I now have and citing words that may now even be obsolete after
<br>> five years--like the one you noted yesterday.  I am more interested now in
<br>> thematic installments rather than in "coverage"--which, as Samuel Johnson
<br>> learned, is impossible.
<br>>
<br>> One could run round and round in this argument for a long time.  Paikeday's
<br>> suggestion about three independent citations is arbitrary but useful in
<br>> saving the editor a lot of work and a lot of paper.  Electronic searching,
<br>> however, makes it very easy to find three independent citations.  When I
<br>> was following John's suggestion of keeping ahead of the dictionaries, I was
<br>> trying to cite as many words as possible and did not always print all of
<br>> the citations available because of space.
<br>>
<br>> It's all a question of what we want: a lot of words or a lot of quotes.
<br>> Whatever the case, outside of a hundred or so basic words in our language
<br>> the other millions seem to come and go with time and tide and place.
<br>>
<br>> I imagine that a widely used term like "soccer mom" will be as
<br>> indecipherable as "bees knees" forty years from now.  However, we will have
<br>> it and words like "cyberize" on record for some future harmless drudge's
<br>> convenience.
<br>>
<br>> If you feel that it is appropriate to share this note with the list, please
<br>> feel free to do so.
<br>>
<br>> Wayne Glowka
<br>>
<br>