Misc... Weisenburger

[Mark Kohut]

I have the first edition of Weisenburger. Why does he
cite the Random House dictionary in it as a sourcing dictionary?
Did this change by the second edition?

The RH dictionary was a huge selling, marketing, 'success' even as
it was scorned all over. Front page NYTBR 'proving' its weakness
in the etymology of words. Didn't matter, RH know how to get it
into stores and into customers' hands. (Dictionaries sell in a different
way ion bookstores than most books, which I won't get into here)

Merriam-Webster and New World and, of course, always the OED
are the best dictionaries for sourcing etymologies. There is original,
verified research into language, into roots, involved.

I would have thought the academic community, which, as far as I know
concerning the present, has not allowed the RH dictionary to get foothold,
would have been very slow to use a 'new' dictionary, knowing the others,
even if following the reception of the RH was not what time was spent on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20160618/03d10dad/attachment.html>