New Oxford Dictionary

Menagerie, Not Museum, for Words That Live

In his 1755 dictionary Samuel Johnson defined the lexicographer as “a writer of dictionaries; a harmless drudge, that busies himself in tracing the original, and detailing the signification of words.” Unfortunately Johnson was uncharacteristically wrong. A lexicographer, if any good, is hardly a drudge, and if bad, is hardly harmless. ...
...For included here are 2,500 new entries that treat language more as living menagerie than as natural history museum. Along with restless leg syndrome and flatline come more questionable entries, where use becomes the main criterion for inclusion.

“Generic,” for example, has given birth to a verb that makes even appendicitis seem attractive: “genericize.” Bureaucratic identifications make the cut, however local and obscure: “P45” is defined as a certificate given to an employee in Britain and Ireland “at the end of a period of employment, providing details of his or her tax code.”

But once description trumps prescription and currency eclipses timelessness, it becomes difficult to capture the slippery shifts in tone and fashion that accompany new words. “Ghetto fabulous” is defined here as “pertaining to or favoring an ostentatious style of dress associated with the hip-hop subculture,” though its use now is broader and sometimes more ambiguous. And “ghetto blaster” should probably be marked obs. (for obsolete).

But the biggest difficulties are in the “ historical principles,” which seem to have become historical themselves — held over from the past, only to be jettisoned when inconvenient. This is clearest in the use of quotations. Of course the first O.E.D. was skewed in its choices, reflecting few writers of the 18th century, and offering a selection not fully representative of the language’s powers. But now the O.E.D. does not even pretend to offer “all the great English writers of all ages.”

[Urbane Guerrilla]

I'm often surprised at some lexicographers' and language historians' willingness to declare some usage or word "obsolete." I can recall from The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language a declaration that "merry" was pretty much gone except in a set phrase like "Merry Christmas." What the hell? I use some archaisms, but "merry" isn't remotely archaic, nor at all obsolete to anyone who read Tolkien, who wasn't necessarily archaic in his usages either.

[Cloud]

I like that the article refers to a menagerie; language (and the English language in particular) is a living thing

[Perry Winkle]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I'm often surprised at some lexicographers' and language historians' willingness to declare some usage or word "obsolete."

I'm sure they define some threshold. Perhaps a certain distribution of occurances.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I can recall from The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language a declaration that "merry" was pretty much gone except in a set phrase like "Merry Christmas." What the hell? I use some archaisms, but "merry" isn't remotely archaic, nor at all obsolete to anyone who read Tolkien, who wasn't necessarily archaic in his usages either.

'Merry' is definitely archaic. I never hear anyone use this unless they intend to sound archaic. The fact that Tolkien's use of 'merry' happened relatively recently doesn't make it any less so.

When I read Tolkien, I definitley got the impression he was writing to make his stories sound like they came from a past era. I've never read any of his scholarly work though. . .

[Sundae]

We use "merry" as a euphemism for drunk. Like "emotional".
Can't remember using it any other way, although I can imagine my Grandad's generation still using i

[tw]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

We use "merry" as a euphemism for drunk. Like "emotional".

Instead, we could all be gay.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by tw

Instead, we could all be gay.

Is this TW's shortest post ever? Just wondering...

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Merry has been in current and steady use with me since, oh, age seven. Don't forget compounds like merrymaking, or half witty sallies like "Let's all make merry and feel rosy," with lecherous winks at anyone present named Mary and Rose. I don't see a lot of conscious archaism here.

[Ibby]

Yes, that's cause you're living about... five decades ago.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Probably more like your dad than you'd care to mention.

[Ibby]

Nah, definitely not in this.
You use words that went out of fashion around a certain time - many decades ago.
He uses words that went out of fashion around a certain age - around eight.

[Cloud]

yep, I agree with the Cambridge source quoted. Except for set phrases, "merry" meaning happy, is archaic. Or maybe not even as old as archaic, but certainly passe.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Ibram

He uses words that went out of fashion around a certain age - around eight.

What, like your dad calls people a "doodie head?"



My father called me out of the blue awhile back to let me know that he had just seen an episode of Law & Order where a character used the word "knapsack," and thus the years my brother and I had spent mocking my dad's out-of-date-ness were clearly unjustified.

I asked him how old the character in the show was who used the word. He was about my dad's age. The mocking lives on.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Am I to understand somebody, somewhere, believed "knapsack" to be an obsolete term? That would seem a symptom of not being widely read, or something.

A knapsack itself is no longer the cutting-edge state of the backpack art, true, but all it is is an unstructured sackish thing on shoulder straps. We still have unstructured sackish things.

Looks like I have deeper linguistic roots than some I could name.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Am I to understand somebody, somewhere, believed "knapsack" to be an obsolete term? That would seem a symptom of not being widely read, or something.

Either that, or being surprised at that makes one an obsolete linguist.
It isn't really much, but UG, your language is a few decades too late. This may be a good thing, to you, or may not be - it's up to you, but it's inarguable that, compared to the rest of the english-speaking world, your language is a little bit on the antiquated side.

It's the least of your shortcomings, though, all-in-all.