Lost for Words: The Hidden History of the Oxford English Dictionary

by Lynda Mugglestone

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) holds a cherished position in English literary culture. The story behind the creation of what is indisputably the greatest dictionary in the language has become a popular fascination. This book looks at the history of the great first edition of 1928, and at the men (and occasionally women) who distilled words and usages from centuries of English writing and “through an act of intellectual alchemy captured the spirit of a civilization.”
The task of the dictionary was to bear full and impartial witness to the language it recorded. But behind the immaculate typography of the finished text, the proofs tell a very different story. This vast archive, unexamined until now, reveals the arguments and controversies over meanings, definitions, and pronunciation, and which words and senses were acceptable—and which were not.
Lost for Words examines the hidden history by which the great dictionary came into being, tracing—through letters and archives—the personal battles involved in charting a constantly changing language. Then as now, lexicographers reveal themselves vulnerable to the prejudices of their own linguistic preferences and to the influence of contemporary social history.

Genres: Nonfiction, Language, History, Dictionaries, Linguistics

273 pages, Hardcover

First published May 10, 2005

Reviews

[Cheryl · Rating 4 out of 5]

Meticulously researched from archives that include some of the first proof sheets. I thought that I was a word nerd, but tbh it took a long time to get through the book. And it can be summed up as 'The OED was never meant to be anything like prescriptive, and despite the expense & decades of construction, turned out to be not nearly as authoritative or complete as any of its editors, publishers, or readers want it to be. For so many reasons.'

Bonus star because it's important that people realize that truth. No one dictionary can give a complete answer to any question of definition, history, etymology, usage, or pronunciation. And a living language changes as people use it. There is no "correct" but rather there is only "most accepted right now." And Murray & the others knew that, and aimed to make that clear... even as sometimes they succumbed to the urge to add notes such as 'vulgar' to entries, or to avoid using exemplary quotations from newspapers instead preferring Literary sources.

So that's one reason right there. These ivory tower men who were the editors had insufficient contact with words that women, or tradesmen, or 'lower classes' would use, and therefore many words that those ppl used never made it into the dict., and therefore new potential users have no source to confirm existences of those words, and therefore don't use them, and they're gone. They did have volunteer readers and staff who were female and/or ambitious youth from the middle class, but not enough.

Americanisms and other 'foreign' words were adjudged on a case-by-case basis and most were not included, in favor of making this an English dict.

Also the dictionary was begun in the nineteenth century and finished after The Great War. Now of course the War prompted the creation of many new words and new meanings, many of which began with "aero-." Well, A was already published. So those words didn't make it in.

Similarly science words were being created every day. Which to include? As it turns out, a lot... but of course by no means all. Despite Thomas Henry Huxley's assertion that "Science and literature are not two things, but two sides of one thing" the editors preferred to use words that had shown up in Wordsworth, Dickens, etc.

Words seen as obscene were often defined elliptically... unhelpfully. And before you & I assume it simply had to do with Victorian prudery, we ought consult The Making of Victorian Sexuality for a more nuanced understanding.

And yet the creation took far far longer than budgeted for. And became a bookshelf worth of print rather than just the two or three volumes expected. And still space was at a premium, and some words were cut just because they didn't fit into the space allotted. Or because an odd rule from the Delegates that the scale to Webster's Unabridged of 1864 be nor more extreme than 7-1, preferably less.

And words might not be lost forever, but their history might have been. 'Lunching' and its citation from 1880 were excised for space in the release of L in 1920. It was included in the Supplement in 1933, but the entry there omits that citation, leading a reader to think the word originated in 1920. (Eek.)

At least they didn't omit based on prejudice against individuals, as Johnson refused to use anything by Hobbes, because he didn't like the latter's "principles."

So, indeed, the OED is neither the 'inventory' nor the 'history' envisioned when begun.

I hope that if you're interested you read the book despite my lukewarm review. There are lots of interesting bits that really are not 'trivial' and I feel glad that I know more of the truth about this very famous work.

on openlibrary

[Kristina Silverbears · Rating 3 out of 5]

A pleasant, thoroughly researched and very dense book on the O.E.D., which I would solely recommend to specialists, wordsmiths and people with a fervent, not passing, interest in the development of the dictionary as we know it today.

[Enid Williams]

This book led to my seriously taking up again a keen interest in the English language which I had foolishly allowed to be neglected in recent years

[Boweavil · Rating 4 out of 5]

Intense and written with authority and passion by a woman who knows her subject. The research is mind boggling. I absolutely recommend this for anyone who truly loves books and language studies. It's not an easy read, for sure, but well worth the effort if you are a lover of libraries as I am.

[Cyndy]

OED

[Caitlin]

Did not finish.