Well, we're all conscious of the imperfections
of CDEPN, but I don't think the choice of corpus is the most serious of them.
And since Victor, alas, is no longer here to justify himself, perhaps it
isn't something which needs to be gone over again. It was pretty thoroughly
aired at an SNSBI conference soon after the book was published.
To go back to a previous point:
"This raises awkward questions about the the
methodology for the "popular" series volumes - I have consistently argued that
they should be based on the 1:50,000 gazetteer"
From the prefaces to the three volumes so far
published:
Lincolnshire: " With only one or two
exceptions, all the place-names in this Dictionary are recorded on the 1:50.000
O.S. Map"
Durham: " With a few exceptions the
names in this Dictionary are recorded on the 1:50,000 O.S. Map"
Leicestershire and Rutland: " With a
few exceptions, all the place-names in this dictionary appear on the
1:50.000 Ordnance Survey maps..."
So they are certainly based on the
1:50,000 maps, and have been all along. If you don't know the county, it's a bit
difficult to tell how many minor names have been omitted. Do you think
many have been?
J.
----- Original Message -----
From:
"John Briggs" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 5:50 PM
Subject:
Re: [EPNL] Sicklesmere (Suffolk)
> John Freeman
wrote:
>>
>> But John, it took Victor nearly twenty years as
it was, and he died
>> before
>> it was published! Collecting
and editing material, even from printed
>> sources, is extremely
time-consuming, and would have meant employing an
>> army
>>
of county experts. Now if we lived in Scandinavia.....
>
> But that
just shows (with the benefit of hindsight) that the original
> premise -
that the Cambridge Dictionary should be based on the 1983 OS
> Road Atlas
of Great Britain - was wrong. But Victor must have had some
> inkling of
that himself not long after starting work.
>
> John Briggs
