Ross Clark
2024-09-18 10:42:33 UTC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Johnson
"...made lasting contributions as a poet, playwright, essayist,
moralist, literary critic, sermonist, biographer, editor, and
lexicographer. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography calls him
'arguably the most distinguished man of letters in English history'."
But it's the lexicography that we're here to celebrate. The first really
comprehensive dictionary of English (in two volumes, 1755), product of
about ten years' work, with a small team of assistants.
It's the definitions that Crystal most admires. He put together an
anthology of them for Penguin Classics for the 250th anniversary. I
haven't seen this; I have an earlier "selection" by McAdam & Milne
(1982). By now there's quite a bit of it accessible online:
https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/#
and links at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Dictionary_of_the_English_Language
He gives few etymologies and very little information on pronunciation --
perhaps for the same reason Henry Sweet a century later thought it was
hopeless to try to give pronunciations in the OED.
It is often said that English spelling has changed very little since
Johnson's time. But he was not an innovator in this area:
"Johnson was not at all interested in reform but rather chose what he
regarded as the most common spellings.
He was also concerned that homographs — different words that are spelled
the same, eg bow (the weapon, etc) and bow (to bend the upper body) —
could lead to misunderstandings. He therefore chose alternative
spellings to reflect differences in meaning, such as stile (steps over a
barrier) and style (of art, writing, etc). Before compiling the
Dictionary, he himself had written '…the rules of stile, like those of
law, arise from precedents…' (Plan of a Dictionary, 1747). However, one
effect of all this was to make learning to spell English words even more
difficult."
https://www.spellingsociety.org/history#/page/9
One example of a bad choice by Johnson which has been discussed here (or
on a.u.e.) is the very peculiar spelling of "ache". It seems to have
been influenced by his belief that the word was of Greek origin.
Recently I have come across a couple of other examples of how Johnson's
etymological misapprehensions influenced his spellings for the worse.
Can't find them right now.
Crystal's pick for a Johnsonian definition to exemplify "brevity,
fulness and perspicuity":
Sorry
Grieved for something past. It is generally used of slight or casual
miscarriages or vexations, but sometimes of greater things. It does not
imply any long continuance of grief.
"...made lasting contributions as a poet, playwright, essayist,
moralist, literary critic, sermonist, biographer, editor, and
lexicographer. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography calls him
'arguably the most distinguished man of letters in English history'."
But it's the lexicography that we're here to celebrate. The first really
comprehensive dictionary of English (in two volumes, 1755), product of
about ten years' work, with a small team of assistants.
It's the definitions that Crystal most admires. He put together an
anthology of them for Penguin Classics for the 250th anniversary. I
haven't seen this; I have an earlier "selection" by McAdam & Milne
(1982). By now there's quite a bit of it accessible online:
https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/#
and links at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Dictionary_of_the_English_Language
He gives few etymologies and very little information on pronunciation --
perhaps for the same reason Henry Sweet a century later thought it was
hopeless to try to give pronunciations in the OED.
It is often said that English spelling has changed very little since
Johnson's time. But he was not an innovator in this area:
"Johnson was not at all interested in reform but rather chose what he
regarded as the most common spellings.
He was also concerned that homographs — different words that are spelled
the same, eg bow (the weapon, etc) and bow (to bend the upper body) —
could lead to misunderstandings. He therefore chose alternative
spellings to reflect differences in meaning, such as stile (steps over a
barrier) and style (of art, writing, etc). Before compiling the
Dictionary, he himself had written '…the rules of stile, like those of
law, arise from precedents…' (Plan of a Dictionary, 1747). However, one
effect of all this was to make learning to spell English words even more
difficult."
https://www.spellingsociety.org/history#/page/9
One example of a bad choice by Johnson which has been discussed here (or
on a.u.e.) is the very peculiar spelling of "ache". It seems to have
been influenced by his belief that the word was of Greek origin.
Recently I have come across a couple of other examples of how Johnson's
etymological misapprehensions influenced his spellings for the worse.
Can't find them right now.
Crystal's pick for a Johnsonian definition to exemplify "brevity,
fulness and perspicuity":
Sorry
Grieved for something past. It is generally used of slight or casual
miscarriages or vexations, but sometimes of greater things. It does not
imply any long continuance of grief.