| Author |
Message |
Bob Cunningham
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 2:24 am
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 18:40:54 +0000 (UTC), Bloke
<mc_wanker@excite.com> said:
[...]
| Quote: | I once heard a man compare taking a crap to having an
orgasm: Just a big relief, and if you want to find out
which is most important, go without sex for a month then go
without taking a crap for a month and see which bothers you
the most.
Surely one should say "which bothers you more" when presenting only
two options?
|
Thistlebottomishly "more". Joe Sixpackishly "most". |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sara Lorimer
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 4:05 am
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
I wrote:
| Quote: | Charles Riggs wrote:
I am a firm supporter in the practice of breast feeding. Why, you
know, I was breast fed myself, or so I've been told. I do hope my
mother, and I am sure she did, had the good sense not to practice this
openly in public, just as most of us don't practice those things
normally done in a bathroom in our living rooms.
I am puzzled by how you're supporting breastfeeding by comparing it to
taking a crap.
|
Argh. Make that "likening," not "comparing."
--
SML |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Cunningham
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 6:51 am
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
I posted the following to alt.english.usage inadvertently,
so I'm now posting it to alt.usage.english as I originally
intended to do, but with minor editing.
====== Begin inadvertently posted posting =====
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 18:40:54 +0000 (UTC), Bloke
<mc_wanker@excite.com> said:
[...]
| Quote: | I once heard a man compare taking a crap to having an
orgasm: [He said either one] is just a big relief, and if
you want to find out which is most important, go without
sex for a month then go without taking a crap for a month
and see which bothers you the most.
Surely one should say "which bothers you more" when presenting only
two options?
|
Thistlebottomishly "more". Joe Sixpackishly "most".
====== End inadvertently posted posting ===== |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 8:34 am
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 12:07:54 -0400, que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com (Sara
Lorimer) wrote:
| Quote: | Charles Riggs wrote:
I am a firm supporter in the practice of breast feeding. Why, you
know, I was breast fed myself, or so I've been told. I do hope my
mother, and I am sure she did, had the good sense not to practice this
openly in public, just as most of us don't practice those things
normally done in a bathroom in our living rooms.
I am puzzled by how you're supporting breastfeeding by comparing it to
taking a crap.
|
I fully support both practices, but don't support talk of either at
the dinner table. That shouldn't be too complicated to understand.
--
Charles Riggs
Actually, there isn't an accented
letter in my email address |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael DeBusk
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 12:03 pm
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 09:58:46 +0200, Mark Barratt
<mark.barratt@enternet.hu> wrote:
| Quote: | What if they're calling it "toilet paper"?
|
Then please be careful to use washable ink to write on it.
--
Michael DeBusk, Co-Conspirator to Make the World a Better Place
Did he update http://home.earthlink.net/~debu4335/ yet? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tedfriet
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 3:04 pm
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
Mark Barratt wrote:
| Quote: | Tedfriet wrote:
Donna Richoux wrote:
Tedfriet <friet@quicknet.nl> wrote:
Ted, did you get any of this from an actual Dutch etymological
dictionary (I hope you own one, I've never sprung for the cost), or
did you just make it up? I see that "IMHO" stuck in there.
snip
Main Entry: 2 pap
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English
Date: 15th century
1 : a soft food for infants or invalids
2 : political patronage
3 : something lacking solid value or substance
No help on etymology there, but there is here (and I had remembered
enough about this to lead me to doubt you):
Main Entry: pop·py·cock
Function: noun
Etymology: Dutch dialect pappekak, literally, soft
dung, from Dutch pap pap + kak dung
Date: 1865
: empty talk or writing : NONSENSE
So, please note: "pappekak" was a Dutch word, although in dialect.
Literally, soft dung.
(Dung and food connections: Cow pies. Cow patties. Buffalo chips.)
Donna, as you live Holland I take it you can read Dutch, if not i'll
translate it.
Ooh. I'll give it a go.
Het Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal (WNT) is een wetenschappelijk,
historisch-taalkundig woordenboek over het Nederlands van vroeger.
Het behandelt de Nederlandse woordenschat van 1500 tot 1921. Zeker
voor wie interesse heeft voor de voorlopers en de varianten van onze
huidige woordenschat is het WNT een referentiewoordenboek. Het omvat
ruim 300 000 trefwoorden en meer dan 40 miljoen woordvormen. Met
zijn bijna veertig boekdelen is het WNT het grootste verklarende
woordenboek ter wereld. U kunt er de betekenis en geschiedenis
vinden van bekende en onbekende woorden, van recentere woorden en
zeer oude woorden, die soms al uit onze woordenschat verdwenen zijn.
The Dictionary of the Dutch Language (WNT) is a scientific,
historical-grammatical(?) dictionary of early Dutch. It covers
Dutch vocabulary from 1500 until 1921. For those who have an
interest in the precursors and the variations of our modern
vocabulary, the WNT is an essential reference book. It includes
about 300,000 headwords and more than 40 million word forms. With
its almost(?) 40 volumes, the WNT is the biggest reference book in
the world. In it, you can find the meaning and history of known and
unknown words, of recent words and very old words, some of which
have since vanished from our vocabulary.
I had 'pappekak' looked up in this 40 parts Dutch historical
dictionary which all the words that ever appeared in our
language,even in dialects, since 1500 and it has no such word as
'pappekak' or any variety in spelling of it. It does have
'poppestront' as I mentioned before. So, I think that your American
dictionaries are wrong on the etymology unless these settlers spoke
a kind of garbled Dutch.
I doubt that "all the words that ever appeared in our language" is
a claim that even the compilers would make. Nevertheless, you make
a strong point.
It's also notable that all of the online English dictionaries give
the same etymology, almost to the word, which suggests that they
are feeding off one another.
Methinks some citations are called for.
|
Thank you for the perfect translation.
--
Cheers
Only after the last tree has been cut down,
Only after the last river has been poisoned,
Only after the last fish has been caught,
Only then will you find out that money cannot be eaten.
Cree Indian prophecy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tedfriet
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 3:07 pm
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
| Quote: | Mark Barratt <mark.barratt@enternet.hu> writes:
Tedfriet wrote:
Donna, as you live Holland I take it you can read Dutch, if not
i'll translate it.
Ooh. I'll give it a go.
Het Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal (WNT) is een
wetenschappelijk, historisch-taalkundig woordenboek over het
Nederlands van vroeger. Het behandelt de Nederlandse woordenschat
van 1500 tot 1921. Zeker voor wie interesse heeft voor de
voorlopers en de varianten van onze huidige woordenschat is het WNT
een referentiewoordenboek. Het omvat ruim 300 000 trefwoorden en
meer dan 40 miljoen woordvormen. Met zijn bijna veertig boekdelen
is het WNT het grootste verklarende woordenboek ter wereld. U kunt
er de betekenis en geschiedenis vinden van bekende en onbekende
woorden, van recentere woorden en zeer oude woorden, die soms al
uit onze woordenschat verdwenen zijn.
The Dictionary of the Dutch Language (WNT) is a scientific,
historical-grammatical(?) dictionary of early Dutch. It covers Dutch
vocabulary from 1500 until 1921. For those who have an interest in
the precursors and the variations of our modern vocabulary, the WNT
is an essential reference book. It includes about 300,000 headwords
and more than 40 million word forms. With its almost(?) 40 volumes,
the WNT is the biggest reference book in the world. In it, you can
find the meaning and history of known and unknown words, of recent
words and very old words, some of which have since vanished from our
vocabulary.
Why bother when you can have it done automatically?
The dictionary of the Nederlandsche language (WNT) is scientific,
historisch-taalkundig dictionary concerning Dutch of former. the
Dutch word treasure from 1500 up to 1921 treats. Certainly for he
who interest has for the preambles and the alternatives of ours
current word treasure is WNT a reference dictionary. It includes
wide 300,000 trefwoorden and more than 40 millions word
forms. With its almost forty volumes are WNT the largest
explanatory dictionary in the world. You can there find the
meaning and history of well-known and unknown words, of more
recent words and very old words, that sometimes already from our
word treasure have disappeared.
http://www.worldlingo.com/products_services/worldlingo_translator.html
The dictionary of the Nederlandsche language (WNT) is a
scientific, historisch-taalkundig dictionary concerning Dutch of
former. It treats the Dutch word treasure from 1500 to
1921. certain for who has interest for the preambles and the
alternatives of our current word treasure is WNT a reference
dictionary. It includes wide 300, 000 trefwoorden and more than 40
millions word forms. With its almost forty volumes WNT is the
largest explanatory dictionary in the world. You can there the
meaning and find history of well-known and unknown words, of more
recent words and very old words, which have sometimes already
disappeared from our word treasure.
http://babelfish.altavista.com/tr
The Dictionary of the Dutch Language (WNT) is a scientific,
historical-linguistic dictionary over the Dutch from previously.
It treats the Dutch lexicon of 1500 until 1921. Certainly for who
interest has for the precursors and the variants of our present
lexicon is the WNT a reference dictionary. It encompass large 300
, 000 key words and more than 40 million word form. With almost
forty volumes are is the WNT the largest explanatory dictionary in
the world. You can there the meaning and histories find of known
and unknown words, of more recent words and sore old words that
are disappeared sometimes already from our lexicon.
http://www.freetranslation.com/
The dictionary of the Nederlandsche language (WNT) is scientific,
historisch-taalkundig dictionary concerning Dutch of former. the
Dutch word treasure from 1500 up to 1921 treats. Certainly for
which interest has for the preambles and the alternatives of ours
current word treasure is WNT a reference dictionary. It includes
wide 300, 000 trefwoorden and more than 40 millions word
forms. With its almost forty volumes are WNT the largest
explanatory dictionary in the world. YOU can there find the
meaning and history of well-known and unknown words, of more
recent words and very old words, which sometimes already from our
word treasure have disappeared.
http://www.systransoft.com/
|
Well, I think the word order in this 'translation' is odd to say the least.
So I'd rather have a correct translation as Mark did.
Or one canuse this one:
The WNT is a monolingual, alphabetical, diachronic dictionary. Its aim is
the inventory and description of the vocabulary of the Dutch language from
1500. It is based on quotations taken from nearly 10.000 sources (literary
as well as non-literary texts). The dictionary itself comprises about
1.600.000 quotations. The WNT is published in fascicles. Each fascicle
consists of 64 pages. The dictionary is completed in 1998 and comprises 686
fascicles
--
Cheers
Only after the last tree has been cut down,
Only after the last river has been poisoned,
Only after the last fish has been caught,
Only then will you find out that money cannot be eaten.
Cree Indian prophecy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tedfriet
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 3:19 pm
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
Mark Barratt wrote:
| Quote: | Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
Mark Barratt <mark.barratt@enternet.hu> writes:
Tedfriet wrote:
Donna, as you live Holland I take it you can read Dutch, if not
i'll translate it.
Ooh. I'll give it a go.
Het Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal (WNT) is een
wetenschappelijk, historisch-taalkundig woordenboek over het
Nederlands van vroeger. Het behandelt de Nederlandse woordenschat
van 1500 tot 1921. Zeker voor wie interesse heeft voor de
voorlopers en de varianten van onze huidige woordenschat is het WNT
een referentiewoordenboek. Het omvat ruim 300 000 trefwoorden en
meer dan 40 miljoen woordvormen. Met zijn bijna veertig boekdelen
is het WNT het grootste verklarende woordenboek ter wereld. U kunt
er de betekenis en geschiedenis vinden van bekende en onbekende
woorden, van recentere woorden en zeer oude woorden, die soms al
uit onze woordenschat verdwenen zijn.
The Dictionary of the Dutch Language (WNT) is a scientific,
historical-grammatical(?) dictionary of early Dutch. It covers Dutch
vocabulary from 1500 until 1921. For those who have an interest in
the precursors and the variations of our modern vocabulary, the WNT
is an essential reference book. It includes about 300,000 headwords
and more than 40 million word forms. With its almost(?) 40 volumes,
the WNT is the biggest reference book in the world. In it, you can
find the meaning and history of known and unknown words, of recent
words and very old words, some of which have since vanished from our
vocabulary.
Why bother when you can have it done automatically?
computer translations snipped
Simply for my own amusement. I don't claim to be much good at
Dutch. I'm quite impressed by those machine translations, though -
they seem to have improved over the last couple of years. Of
course, this may not be a very challenging piece. Odd that only one
of them knew that 'woordenschat' means means vocabulary or lexicon,
though.
One of the most puzzling things in the piece, for me, was 'bijna
veertig boekdelen'. I flagged my translation of it, "almost 40
volumes" with a question mark because it struck me as an unlikely
thing to write, but I see that all of the machine versions agree.
Perhaps Tedfriet or JJ will be along soon to set me straight.
|
You translation of 'bijna 40 delen' in 'almost 40 volumes' is correct. It
may sound odd, but that's what the Dutch description of the dictionary says.
As the work on the WNT is stille going on I think there were published 39
complete volumes and one unfinished volume. That's my guess I don't know for
sure.
--
Cheers
Only after the last tree has been cut down,
Only after the last river has been poisoned,
Only after the last fish has been caught,
Only then will you find out that money cannot be eaten.
Cree Indian prophecy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Barratt
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 4:23 pm
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
Tedfriet wrote:
| Quote: |
Well, I think the word order in this 'translation' is odd to say the least.
So I'd rather have a correct translation as Mark did.
|
Thank you, though I think you flatter me overmuch.
| Quote: | Or one canuse this one:
The WNT is a monolingual, alphabetical, diachronic dictionary. Its aim is
the inventory and description of the vocabulary of the Dutch language from
1500. It is based on quotations taken from nearly 10.000 sources (literary
as well as non-literary texts). The dictionary itself comprises about
1.600.000 quotations. The WNT is published in fascicles. Each fascicle
consists of 64 pages. The dictionary is completed in 1998 and comprises 686
fascicles
|
OK, but this isn't a translation of the Dutch text that you quoted,
which says nothing about sources, quotations or 'fascicles'.
That last even appears to contradict it. 'Fascicle' is a very
obscure word which means a slim volume, according to MW-Online. The
Dutch text said that the dictionary consisted of "nearly 40
volumes". I suppose that the volumes may be sub-divided into
'fascicles', but that wouldn't appear to be a very appropriate use
of the word.
--
Regards,
Mark Barratt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frances Kemmish
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 4:42 pm
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
Mark Barratt wrote:
| Quote: | OK, but this isn't a translation of the Dutch text that you quoted,
which says nothing about sources, quotations or 'fascicles'.
That last even appears to contradict it. 'Fascicle' is a very
obscure word which means a slim volume, according to MW-Online. The
Dutch text said that the dictionary consisted of "nearly 40
volumes". I suppose that the volumes may be sub-divided into
'fascicles', but that wouldn't appear to be a very appropriate use
of the word.
|
If those sections were first published separately, they would be called
"fascicles". My Chambers dictionary defines "fascicle" as "a part of a
book issued in parts".
I have a couple of fascicles of a larger work (I think the Cambridge
Ancient History) which were published in the late 1960s. I don't know
when (or whether) the full work was ever published, but I wouldn't have
wanted to wait until the whole thing was available to get the two
chapters that I have.
Fran |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tedfriet
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 5:04 pm
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
Mark Barratt wrote:
| Quote: | Tedfriet wrote:
Well, I think the word order in this 'translation' is odd to say the
least. So I'd rather have a correct translation as Mark did.
Thank you, though I think you flatter me overmuch.
Or one canuse this one:
The WNT is a monolingual, alphabetical, diachronic dictionary. Its
aim is the inventory and description of the vocabulary of the Dutch
language from 1500. It is based on quotations taken from nearly
10.000 sources (literary as well as non-literary texts). The
dictionary itself comprises about
1.600.000 quotations. The WNT is published in fascicles. Each
fascicle consists of 64 pages. The dictionary is completed in 1998
and comprises 686 fascicles
OK, but this isn't a translation of the Dutch text that you quoted,
which says nothing about sources, quotations or 'fascicles'.
That last even appears to contradict it. 'Fascicle' is a very
obscure word which means a slim volume, according to MW-Online. The
Dutch text said that the dictionary consisted of "nearly 40
volumes". I suppose that the volumes may be sub-divided into
'fascicles', but that wouldn't appear to be a very appropriate use
of the word.
|
You're right in stating that it's not a translation of the text I quoted,
but is a good description of the dictionary.
The dictionary was published in instalment or 'fascicles' and later on they
were bound and published in 39 volumes + 1 supplement. I hope this will
clear things up.
--
Cheers
Only after the last tree has been cut down,
Only after the last river has been poisoned,
Only after the last fish has been caught,
Only then will you find out that money cannot be eaten.
Cree Indian prophecy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sara Lorimer
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 6:43 pm
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
Charles Riggs wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 12:07:54 -0400, que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com (Sara
Lorimer) wrote:
Charles Riggs wrote:
I am a firm supporter in the practice of breast feeding. Why, you
know, I was breast fed myself, or so I've been told. I do hope my
mother, and I am sure she did, had the good sense not to practice this
openly in public, just as most of us don't practice those things
normally done in a bathroom in our living rooms.
I am puzzled by how you're supporting breastfeeding by comparing it to
taking a crap.
I fully support both practices, but don't support talk of either at
the dinner table. That shouldn't be too complicated to understand.
|
I guess it is too complicated; what you're saying makes no sense to me.
Do you think mothers who are out-and-about should let their babies go
hungry instead of nursing them? You'd rather sit on a train with a
crying baby than with a nursing one, I take it. Or do you think mothers
of young children should just stay home so they don't offend your
sensibilities?
--
SML |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 9:05 pm
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 08:43:21 -0400, que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com (Sara
Lorimer) wrote:
| Quote: | Charles Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 12:07:54 -0400, que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com (Sara
Lorimer) wrote:
Charles Riggs wrote:
I am a firm supporter in the practice of breast feeding. Why, you
know, I was breast fed myself, or so I've been told. I do hope my
mother, and I am sure she did, had the good sense not to practice this
openly in public, just as most of us don't practice those things
normally done in a bathroom in our living rooms.
I am puzzled by how you're supporting breastfeeding by comparing it to
taking a crap.
I fully support both practices, but don't support talk of either at
the dinner table. That shouldn't be too complicated to understand.
I guess it is too complicated; what you're saying makes no sense to me.
Do you think mothers who are out-and-about should let their babies go
hungry instead of nursing them? You'd rather sit on a train with a
crying baby than with a nursing one, I take it. Or do you think mothers
of young children should just stay home so they don't offend your
sensibilities?
|
Not at all. I'd support a government proposal that would demand the
construction of private box cars for their travel when in any sort of
unfortunate condition. You know: pregnancy, menstruating, or caring
for a baby. Once they are free from these predicaments, I am most
happy to welcome them back into our polite company.
--
Charles Riggs
Actually, there isn't an accented
letter in my email address |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pat Durkin
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 9:42 pm
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
"Charles Riggs" <chriggs@éircom.net> wrote in message
news:lrgtl01khf2qh5ctarlv211j9sfn2totl8@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 08:43:21 -0400, que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com (Sara
Lorimer) wrote:
Charles Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 12:07:54 -0400, que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com (Sara
Lorimer) wrote:
Charles Riggs wrote:
I am a firm supporter in the practice of breast feeding. Why, you
know, I was breast fed myself, or so I've been told. I do hope my
mother, and I am sure she did, had the good sense not to practice
this
openly in public, just as most of us don't practice those things
normally done in a bathroom in our living rooms.
I am puzzled by how you're supporting breastfeeding by comparing it to
taking a crap.
I fully support both practices, but don't support talk of either at
the dinner table. That shouldn't be too complicated to understand.
I guess it is too complicated; what you're saying makes no sense to me.
Do you think mothers who are out-and-about should let their babies go
hungry instead of nursing them? You'd rather sit on a train with a
crying baby than with a nursing one, I take it. Or do you think mothers
of young children should just stay home so they don't offend your
sensibilities?
Not at all. I'd support a government proposal that would demand the
construction of private box cars for their travel when in any sort of
unfortunate condition. You know: pregnancy, menstruating, or caring
for a baby. Once they are free from these predicaments, I am most
happy to welcome them back into our polite company.
|
How about you join a lamasery, Charles? Wouldn't cost the taxpayers
anything, and would place you safely away from disturbing and arousing
sights and sounds. (Lacking a lamasery to cater to your Buddhist
inclinations, perhaps you could become a Trappist, or arrange for permanent
male-oriented retreat--if you can find one that will enable longterm
residence.) You were talking about moving to France, I believe. I would
advise against that. Those people are a bit too earthy for the likes of
your aesthetic predilections. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Cunningham
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 9:53 pm
Post subject: fascicles [was: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals] |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 06:42:56 -0400, Frances Kemmish
<fkemmish@optonline.net> said:
| Quote: | Mark Barratt wrote:
|
[...]
| Quote: | 'Fascicle' is a very
obscure word which means a slim volume, according to MW-Online. The
Dutch text said that the dictionary consisted of "nearly 40
volumes". I suppose that the volumes may be sub-divided into
'fascicles', but that wouldn't appear to be a very appropriate use
of the word.
If those sections were first published separately, they would be called
"fascicles". My Chambers dictionary defines "fascicle" as "a part of a
book issued in parts".
I have a couple of fascicles of a larger work (I think the Cambridge
Ancient History) which were published in the late 1960s. I don't know
when (or whether) the full work was ever published, but I wouldn't have
wanted to wait until the whole thing was available to get the two
chapters that I have.
|
A prominent use of the word "fascicle" pertains to the
successive releases of pieces of the _Oxford English
Dictionary_ (_OED_). The first fascicle, "A-Ant", was
released in January 1884; the last, "X Y Z", October 1921.
I haven't counted the fascicles, but it looks like about
200. They're listed with release dates on page x of the
introductory material.
I'm surprised to see the _OED_ doesn't use the word
"fascicle" in discussing the releases. It refers to them as
"parts or sections". But the _Oxford Companion to the
English Language_ in its article headed "Oxford English
Dictionary" has the statement (page 737)
It was agreed that the work would take ten years to
complete, be published at intervals in fascicles [...]
and later
The first fascicle of 352 pages (_a-ant_) was
published in 1884. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in