O, I thought the reference to the 'Shorter' was to the Shorter Oxford
English Dictionary, which I think I would blithely assume to inherit
whatever the OED had to offer, but in less detail.
We had this argument over Wikipedia, didn't we? I would deny that
*anything*, by itself, is a good resource; one always needs to triangulate.
OTOH, the resources Robin pointed to a while back -- the various European
and other etymologies -- require a higher degree of expertise to use.
P
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Poetryetc: poetry and poetics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of MC Ward
> Sent: 07 September 2007 05:53
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Dust Bunnits / Etymology
>
> The point is that the OED isn't a particularly good
> resource when it comes to etymological issues.
>
> Candice
>
>
>
> --- Peter Cudmore <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > > And btw, I haven't seen any references to or
> > > recommendations of Shorter, where a lot of your
> > > etymological questions may be answered. I find it
> > very
> > > useful, especially when I consult it together with
> > a
> > > modern dictionary , such as Webster's 10th (the
> > newer
> > > edition of which should be even better.)
> > >
> > > Candice
> >
> > Ah that's easy: I have online access to the OED, and
> > I think Robin does too
> > (either that or a CD-Rom version).
> >
> > P
> >
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> ______
> Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who
> knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
> http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433
|