10

But even they will admit of a number of amusing eccentricities about the book, both in its selections and in the editors’ choice of spellings; a small but veritable academic industry has recently developed in which modern scholars grumble about what they see as the sexism and racism of the work, its fussily and outdated imperial attitude. (And to Oxford’s undying shame there is even one word – though only one – that all admit was actually lost during the seven decades of the OED’s preparation – though the word was added in a supplement, five years after the first edition appeared.)


Note:

Although the original source doesn’t mention which word was lost, a quick Google search tells me they were likely referring to the word African.

But the real reason “African” was left out was rather different, and much less nefarious: James Murray, the dictionary’s first editor, made an early editorial decision that the O.E.D. would not include any proper nouns—this was regarded as the province of the encyclopedia, not the dictionary—and that words formed from proper nouns would likewise be excluded. This was a poor policy, which was quickly rescinded: “American” was duly entered when editorial work progressed deeper into the letter A, but by then it was too late to make changes in the “af-” section. It wasn’t until 1933, when Oxford University Press published “The Oxford English Dictionary: Being a Corrected Re-issue with an Introduction, Supplement, and Bibliography of a New English Dictionary on Historical Principles” (now referred to as the “1933 Supplement”), that this omission was rectified.

Source.


Winchester, Simon. “The Man Who Taught Latin to Cattle.” The Professor and the Madman: A Tale of Murder, Insanity, and the Making of the Oxford English Dictionary. HarperPerennial, 1999. 27. Print.


If you enjoy this type of content, please consider donating to my Patreon!

>But even they will admit of a number of amusing eccentricities about the book, both in its selections and in the editors’ choice of spellings; a small but veritable academic industry has recently developed in which modern scholars grumble about what they see as the sexism and racism of the work, its fussily and outdated imperial attitude. (And to Oxford’s undying shame there is even one word – though only one – that all admit was actually *lost* during the seven decades of the *OED*’s preparation – though the word was added in a supplement, five years after the first edition appeared.) _____________________________ **Note:** Although the original source doesn’t mention which word was lost, a quick Google search tells me they were likely referring to the word *African*. >But the real reason “African” was left out was rather different, and much less nefarious: James Murray, the dictionary’s first editor, made an early editorial decision that the O.E.D. would not include any proper nouns—this was regarded as the province of the encyclopedia, not the dictionary—and that words formed from proper nouns would likewise be excluded. This was a poor policy, which was quickly rescinded: “American” was duly entered when editorial work progressed deeper into the letter A, but by then it was too late to make changes in the “af-” section. It wasn’t until 1933, when Oxford University Press published “The Oxford English Dictionary: Being a Corrected Re-issue with an Introduction, Supplement, and Bibliography of a New English Dictionary on Historical Principles” (now referred to as the “1933 Supplement”), that this omission was rectified. [Source](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-case-of-the-missing-o-e-d-words). ______________________________ Winchester, Simon. “The Man Who Taught Latin to Cattle.” *The Professor and the Madman: A Tale of Murder, Insanity, and the Making of the Oxford English Dictionary*. HarperPerennial, 1999. 27. Print. ______________________________ **If you enjoy this type of content, please consider donating to my [Patreon](https://www.patreon.com/HistoryLockeBox)!**

No comments, yet...