|
The sociology and psychology of the Internet are probably going to be among the major study topics of the 21st century. This web page presents an illuminating example of group interaction through the system known as Usenet- specifically the newsgroup called soc.history.medieval. Ostensibly, the newsgroup exists for the exchange of news and ideas about medieval history; in practice, because neither its membership nor its content is filtered, almost anything can happen (though I've xxxx'd the occasional obscenities). These are not by any means all the messages in this particular discussion, just a few most relevant to the topic (i.e. the strange question of prime versus primary, not necessarily the topic in the message titles). Different responses to the same question (and follow-ups to those responses) are given different colours. Finally, if it helps- I'm David B., the pedantic one. |
| [And I'll be adding vaguely helpful comments in square brackets] From: Alan Crozier [English-speaking, resident in Sweden] Subject: Re: Analyse methods Posting-Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 09:25:30 CEST [A Swedish contributor called Inger E Johansson, then apparently a school teacher, had posted an essay on "Analyse methods", containing the following claim: "a Prime source is always an eyewitness account. Nothing more nothing less."] Inger, I hesitate to correct your English (without getting paid for it) but Swedish "analys" is called "analysis" in English, with the plural form "analyses". It can be useful to know when it's a word you use so often. We do have a word "analyse" (US analyze) but that's the verb "analysera". I would also say "primary source" rather than "prime source". |
| From: Inger E Johansson Subject: Re: Analyse methods Posting-Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 11:19:19 CEST Alan thanks. As I said when I am writing I can't see if I spell a word correctly, unfortunatly the same goes for many Swedish words as well.... I have dyslextic problems. The fact that my Word program have three different English spelling checkers doesn't help in either. Problem here in group is that some words usually are spelt the normal American way and some the British way. As for Prime source that's what it say in the Methodology papers we had while I studied the Cambridge course for English Proficiency. I made all but the last test well, during the last test I came close to dying in an illness and stayed at hospital. |
|
From: Renia [English-speaking; then, I think, resident in Greece] Subject: Re: Analyse methods Posting-Date: 4 Jul 2003 07:40:31 GMT British and American spellings aren't so very different as you seem to think. It's not the spelling which is your problem, but the rather peculiar way in which you construct your sentences, which, unfortunately, makes much of what you write incomprehensible. A shame, because you have a lot to offer. _As for Prime source that's what it say in the Methodology papers we had _while I studied the Cambridge course for English Proficiency. Well, it was wrong. The term is Primary Source. |
| [Inger did not reply to Renia's correction. We now enter a different discussion, 3 days later] From: Inger E Johansson Subject: Re: The KRS Hoax - Part 1 Posting-Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:13:31 CEST Kåre och du vet vad jag tycker om Isländska sagor, samma gäller för de norska kungasagorna.... icke samtida, inte Primär källor! |
| From: Tomi A [Finnish] Subject: Re: The KRS Hoax - Part 1 Posting-Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:21:03 EEST Every source is a primary source. |
| From: Inger E Johansson Subject: Re: The KRS Hoax - Part 1 Posting-Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:04:34 CEST NO TOMI !!! A Prime source is always a contemporary source and in History if we are to speak of strict terms a Prime source is a first hand source - a witness 'report' of an event. |
| From: erilar [American] Subject: Re: The KRS Hoax - Part 1 Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:26:14 CDT ...such as a poem composed by a skald who was at the scene... | From: Tomi A Subject: Re: The KRS Hoax - Part 1 Posting-Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 22:32:37 EEST But an non-contemporary source is an impossibility. Me writing: "viking" is a contemporary source telling that I know the word here and now ... (speculations on philosophy of history pre-snipped). |
| From: Eric Stevens [New Zealander] Subject: Re: The KRS Hoax - Part 1 Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:07:44 +1200 Providing the description of events has not been ornamented and you know you have the original version. But it all depends upon whether you are talking about a 'prime' source of the poem or a 'prime' source of the events the poem claims to describe. | From: Inger E Johansson Subject: Re: The KRS Hoax - Part 1 Posting-Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 21:48:11 CEST Tomi now you are kidding, aren't you???? A primary source of an event in the past is always an eyewitness account of the event. We can use other contemporary sources(contemporary of the event) as our 'prime source' that's not the same thing. Secondary sources are sources where someone else wrote down what an eyewitness saw. Most contemporary sources of an event are secondary sources, no matter if they are used as if they were Prime sources. Modern works are Modern works and nothing else. |
| From: Drew Nicholson Subject: Re: The KRS Hoax - Part 1 Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 03:15:50 GMT Well, if it's the only source, how do you tell? Why would a skald automatically be assumed to be ornamenting, or a non-poet NOT automatically assumed? | From: Tomi A Subject: Re: The KRS Hoax - Part 1 Posting-Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 23:13:45 EEST My point was to point out - in an unnecessery complicated manner - that the Icelandic sagas are contemporay in the sense that they are at least telling about the author and what he knew and thought - about Vikings - in the 13th century. Thus: whether a source is primary or not depends on the questions asked not the source itself. But I will not object if you tell me that I changed the subject. I suppose I did; I was thinking about the idea of "Vikingness" during the Middle Age while others were apprently talking about the Vikings themselves and their disappearance. |
| [You'll note that Erilar's brief reply to Inger's message of 7 July was a week late, by which time the dialogue with Tomi had wound down. Here's where things start to get really strange; and I guess I only have myself to blame...] From: David B Subject: Re: The KRS Hoax - Part 1 Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:00:00 BST They wouldn't (or at least shouldn't). The term "Prime source" is a crude statement about the amount of relevant information the source appears to convey, relative to other sources, while the term "Primary Source" is not a measure of accuracy, merely an even cruder statement about the direct relationship of the source (or its creator) to the reality it purports to represent. If the Prime source for, say, the description of a person's life, happens to be a Secondary source (e.g. a biography written by somebeody who never met the subject) it can still be more accurate on a given detail than a Primary source written by somebody who was there, got the T-shirt, but also got a bit confused. Which is where Eric's statement comes in- everything is a Primary source for something, but it's up to the researcher to decide whether it conveys useable information about anything but itself. |
| From: Inger E Johansson Subject: Re: The KRS Hoax - Part 1 Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 11:55:06 CEST By writing those few line you lack all courses of textinterpretation resp all courses of text valuation and deeper studies in the subject History. A Prime source is a definitive word which can't be misinterpreted at all: A Prime source is a source written by an attendent or an observer of an event. Nothing more and nothing less. What the definition doesn't tell you is if it's an independant report of an eyewitness or if it's a part report colored by prejudges and/or wish to write 'correct' History. The fact that you can use a non-Prime source as your prime-source for a specific study of yours doesn't change the definition at all. The minimum criteria for a Prime source is that the source in question have to be written by someone who lived close in place and close in time and at least plausibly by a direct eyewitness. If not the source isn't more than a secondary source, at best.... |
| From: David B Subject: Re: The KRS Hoax - Part 1 Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 15:06:40 BST _A Prime source is a definitive word which can't be misinterpreted at all: No. The word "Prime" in English implies "best" or "most important", not "definitive" _A Prime source is a source written by an attendant or an observer of an event. No. In English, that is a "Primary" source, not a "Prime" source (both phrases are in current use in Britain- please do not confuse them). And "akrebi" is a Turkish scorpion. [That handy tip from the Turkish dictionary may be explained later] |
| From: Inger E Johansson Subject: Re: The KRS Hoax - Part 1 Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:35:36 CEST David B, for your information the definition of a Prime Source doesn't fall on the English modern translation of the word Prime!!!! you are a troll!!! Anyone who have passed the first course studying Medieval Papers or any other Historic documents should know that a Prime source always is an eyewitness account, nothing more nothing else. That's in the first course of methodology to analyse texts! [For anybody unfamiliar with internet slang- a troll is somebody who posts a controversial statement as bait to lure people into an argument] |
| From: Doug Weller Subject: Re: The KRS Hoax - Part 1 Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 11:59:48 -0500 Inger, you have beome like Athy and Yuri, unable to deal with disagreement except through insults and assertion. Of course the definition of a word in English is important. And English speaking historians are generally clear as to what they mean by 'primary source', as I can show. We've had this argument before here in soc.history.medieval, why can't you just acknowledge that in English 'primary source' means what English speaking historians think it means? The words prime and primary when referring to sources in history can be confused at times, but generally we know what they mean. http://ipr.ues.gseis.ucla.edu/info/definition.html The UCLA Institute on Primary Resources: "Primary resources provide firsthand evidence of historical events. They are generally unpublished materials such as manuscripts, photographs, maps, artifacts, audio and video recordings, oral histories, postcards, and posters. In some instances, published materials can also be viewed as primary materials for the period in which they were written. In contrast, secondary materials, such as textbooks, synthesize and interpret primary materials. Following are excerpts and examples from a variety of explanations provided by institutions that utilize primary resources." or much better yet :-) http://www.library.yale.edu/ref/err/primdefs.htm PRIMARY SOURCES: DEFINITIONS "By a 'source' the historian means material that is contemporary to the events being examined. Such sources include, among other things, diaries, letters, newspapers, magazine articles, tape recordings, pictures, and maps. Such material may have appeared in print before, edited or unedited, and still be a source. The term is meant to be restrictive rather than inclusive, in that it attempts to indicate that works of secondary scholarship, or synthesis, are not sources, since the data have been distilled by another person. ... One good way for the novice historian to lose Brownie points among his serious-minded fellows is to call a biography of George Washington or an analysis of the Magna Charta a 'source'." (Robin Winks, The historian as detective; essays on evidence (New York: Harper & Row, 1969), p.xx) "A primary source gives the words of the witnesses or the first recorders of an event. Primary sources include manuscripts, archives, letters, diaries, and speeches. ... Secondary sources are 'descriptions of the event derived from and based on primary sources'. The line between primary and secondary sources is often indistinct, for example, a single document may be a primary source on some matter and a secondary source on others." (Helen J. Poulton, The historian's handbook (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1972), p.175-76). "A primary source is distinguished from a secondary by the fact that the former gives the words of the witnesses or first recorders of an event -- for example, the diaries of Count Ciano written under Mussolini's regime. The researcher, using a number of such primary sources, produces a secondary source ." (Jacques Barzun, The modern researcher . Fifth edition (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1992), p.114 note ) from the Yale University Library Primary Sources Research Colloquium in History A 'prime source' would be a very important source, the main source, etc. It might or might not be a primary source. |
| From: Seppo Renfors [Australian of Scandinavian origin] Subject: Re: The KRS Hoax - Part 1 Posting-Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 00:58:00 EST Inger, if you want to use a term "prime" that is NOT English, you really do have to define the term so all can understand it. As far as it being English, David B did explain it well - in the context you use it in it has the meaning "of first importance" as David B suggested or "main". Personally I'm flexible enough to read "prime" and "primary" to be interchangeable in the circumstances you use the term "prime" in. "Primary" has the meaning, "of chief importance" or "principal" in that context or even "earliest in time or order of development". _Anyone who have passed the first course studying Medieval Papers or any _other Historic documents should know that a Prime source always is an _eyewitness account, nothing more nothing else. That's in the first course of _methodology to analyse texts! Inger in English the word "Prime source" does not have the meaning "eyewitness account" at all. Nor do I understand that to be the case in any other language either. In fact such is far from needing to be "eyewitness account" in any case. A site report from a dig isn't "eyewitness account" of ancient people at all - it is merely "eyewitness account" of the DIG - yet it can prove what is not available as an "eyewitness report". A document, or a letter can be proof of something it does say, or does NOT say. It may be related to the author, receiver or anyone else - and need NOT be "eyewitness accounts". Yet they are the "prime" or "primary" material available. NONE of the Vatican documents recording this that and the other from far away places are "eyewitness account" at all - and therefor could not be "prime sources" if you insist on that interpretation. |
| From: Inger E Johansson Subject: Re: The KRS Hoax - Part 1 Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 22:16:22 CEST In message: news:s39ghvkjsh5dfijk1ojcqc7vfu6giajfrf@4ax.com... Doug Weller incorrectly wrote: "A 'prime source' would be a very important source, the main source, etc.It might or might not be a primary source." In same message he before gave correct information regarding Primary source. What Doug hasn't understood is that in almost all Methodical texts from 1990's on forward the old fashion word Primary has been reduced to Prime. A shortening which btw is accepted as early as 1981's edition of OED which I have by my side all the time: Prime ~adj. 1.Chief, most important; ~minister, principal minister of any sovereign or State(now official title of first minister of State in Gt Britain). 2. First-rate(esp. of cattle and provisions), excellent. 3. Primary, fundamental..... End of quotation. Even if the shortning originated from the fact that we in Mathematic were talking about Prime-numbers, the shortning of Primary -> Prime has been an undergoing process which in 1990 also included the old 'Primary' word used as an adjective for the noun 'source/-s' That's elementary knowledge for scholars who have had a proper education for studying old texts. |
| From: Doug Weller Subject: Re: The KRS Hoax - Part 1 Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 22:11:45 +0100 Inger, you cannot use a dictionary to tell us how historians use the phrase 'primary source', particularly not a definition of 'prime'. Which English language methodical texts do you have in mind? Why is the Library of Congress wrong? The Yale University Library is one of the most prestigious academic libraries in the world. Perhaps you can explain why they are wrong and you are right? http://www.library.yale.edu/instruction/primsource.html What is a Primary Source? "A primary source is firsthand testimony or direct evidence concerning a topic under investigation. The nature and value of a source cannot be determined without reference to the topic and questions it is meant to answer. The same document, or other piece of evidence, may be a primary source in one investigation and secondary in another. The search for primary sources does not, therefore, automatically include or exclude any category of records or documents." Yale does not use the term 'Prime' in the way you would like them to use it. Harvard prefers 'primary': http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~history/resources/primary_source_material/microform_collections/ Oxford University is digitising 'primary source' materials, not 'prime source' http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/projects/jtap/reports/digit/ and http://www.northampton.ac.uk/lrs/Subjects/History/primary.html etc. _Prime ~adj. _1.Chief, most important; ~minister, principal minister of any sovereign or _State(now official title of first minister of State in Gt Britain). _2. First-rate(esp. of cattle and provisions), excellent. _3. Primary, fundamental..... _End of quotation. Which has nothing to do with the subject under discussion, which is whether English academic sources refer to primary or prime sources. _Even if the shortning originated from the fact that we in Mathematic were _talking about Prime-numbers, the shortning of Primary -> Prime has been an _undergoing process which in 1990 also included the old 'Primary' word used _as an adjective for the noun 'source/-s' Prime numbers are a red herring. :-) _That's elementary knowledge for scholars who have had a proper education for _studying old texts. Oh dear, Yale, Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, etc. don't provide a proper education then. They still use the term 'primary sources'. Inger, why don't you just admit that English speaking historians normally use the phrase 'primary source'? |
| From: Inger E Johansson Subject: Re: The KRS Hoax - Part 1 Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 23:17:12 CEST I am talking of almost all books of methodology for analysing of old written History. Believe me I have read more than most of you other together, methodology is one of the courses I have chosen to take even on subjects where it hasn't been obligatorium to do so. The Library of Congress isn't an Institution of History Science nor an Institution of Political Science History. A Library - Library of Congress or a Royal Library can never be in the position to set own definitions for other to follow. It's as simple as that! |
| From: Doug Weller Subject: Re: The KRS Hoax - Part 1 Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:30:50 -0500 It is the academics at Yale, Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge etc. who are setting the standards followed by their libraries. You can't even quote one English historical methodology textbook to back you. The problem is a translation one. English historians use the term 'primary source' and you have no evidence to the contrary, whereas I have evidence showing that they do. By the way, it is obligatory, not obligatorium, which I know is a real word but not an English one. |
| From: Inger E Johansson Subject: Re: The KRS Hoax - Part 1 Posting-Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 00:32:46 CEST Doug, since you obviously don't know that the standard definitions for Prime/Primary source respectively, Secondary source respectively work were set long ago and not at an English speaking country's University btw., I see no point in discussing this further with you, you have decided not to accept anything but an American standard and American-English usage of word, so be it. I know what I have learned and what I am teaching my own students directly out of the books. That's it. |
| From: Doug Weller Subject: Re: The KRS Hoax - Part 1 Posting-Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 00:18:06 -0500 Inger, for years I have been patient with you. But over and over again you refuse to give evidence for your statements, you make wild claims that you are right and everyone else is wrong, you insult people who disagree with you, call people liars, etc. You haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about in this instance. You are trying to tell us, once again, that you know better than we do what an English phrase means. And for some bizarre reason when I make it clear how Oxford, Cambridge, and Northampton Universities use the phrase you babble on about 'American standard and American-English usage'. They are British Universities, Inger. Give us some references to English language historical methods books that use the phrase in the way you claim they do, Inger. We keep asking, and you can't provide any evidence. I agree with Tom when he wrote " You are being dishonest, disingenuous, and insulting. You are also being stupid, and probably don't know why. By all means quit the discussion. You have lost, you have lied, and you have made an ass of yourself." and when he wrote "Your "scholarship" in this matter, on this ng. is pathetic." I suspect he was writing from sci.arch, but this goes for s.h.m. as well, where you had this argument before. Why can't you admit once in a while that you are wrong? I actually find this very sad. You are making yourself a laughingstock and devaluing any positive contribution you might be able to make. Wild claims like this make it very difficult to trust anything you write. |
| From: Thomas McDonald Subject: Re: The KRS Hoax - Part 1 Posting-Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 01:08:03 CDT Doug, That's the thing that I find hardest to understand about Inger. If she were less prickly about having to defend every smallest aspect of her "scholarship", and were willing to admit it plainly when she is wrong or mistaken, I at least would respect her much more. I would be more likely to trust what she writes, and would think much more highly of her as a person. If she also presented citations like a mench, she would be a truly productive and valuable member of this (these, really) ngs. This brittle arrogance is unbecoming. |
| From: David B Subject: Re: Primary/Prime and Inger Posting-Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 10:07:19 BST Yes indeed. To dredge up my favourite simple example: "akribi" and "akrebi" both derive from the Greek for "tip" (as in "point" or "end") but they come from different modern languages and have very different meanings. Inger could have checked and corrected her spelling when people first queried the word, but in the end she continued (with an arrogance not so much brittle as sublime) to use the wrong word on usenet for nearly four years, before somebody with more academic skill found the right (very obscure) one. |
| From: Inger E Johansson Subject: Re: Primary/Prime and Inger Posting-Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 11:19:54 CEST David B and Tom, I am not the prickly person here in group. You people who always believe that US-English wasy of writing, spelling and using words are the correct standard are the prickly ones. As we in the Old World knows and have known for centuries British-English standard documented in for example OED are the standard English here as well as in most of the world. There are differences between British English and Australian English as well, but compared to the hugh difference in more than one area between British English and US-English they are minor. |
| From: Brian M. Scott [American- specialist in the history of languages] Subject: Re: Primary/Prime and Inger Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 04:04:55 GMT David B is British. Several others here are posting from the U.K., and most of us have a great deal of exposure to both U.S. and British English. _As we in the Old World knows and have known _for centuries British-English standard documented in for example OED are the _standard English here as well as in most of the world. There are differences _between British English and Australian English as well, but compared to the _hugh difference in more than one area between British English and US-English _they are minor. The most obvious differences are in pronunciation, and those are irrelevant here. At the written level the differences between British and U.S. English are fairly trivial, especially in academic writing, where they are mostly limited to minor spelling differences and a few turns of phrase. (An American, for instance, is unlikely to write 'different to'.) The differences become greater when one moves away from academics and into more everyday topics, but they're still not much more pronounced than differences between some U.S. varieties. |
| From: Michael Kuettner Subject: Re: Primary/Prime and Inger Posting-Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:44:05 MET DST High, Bryan ! And zere's also us Tscherman shpeakers who have no difficulty in grasping the Anglo-Sexish language. ;-) Only Ingwer has difficulties with it; but then I'd have to see one area of knowledge where she doesn't make a complete ass of herself. __As we in the Old World knows and have known xxxx off, Ingwer. Your special view of the world is seen only in loony bins (outside of Sweden, of course). IOW, there's no 'we'. And for you, Brian : Ingwers claim of "akrebi" being an academical term in Europe is - of course - utter bullxxxx once again. "Akribie" in German means to take utmost care to examine every detail in detail ;-). Eg : "Das Dokument wurde akribisch untersucht" simply means "The document was examined with the utmost care for every little detail". The term is in use; but not necessarily in academic circles only. Another example : "Die Vorgaben wurden akribisch befolgt". "The guidelines were followed to the letter". On the other hand, it can also have negative connotations : "Die akribische Befolgung der Vorschriften führte zur Katastrophe" translates as "The mindless following of guidelines led to the inferno" - IOW, we're at Ingwer again. If you know what I mean, and I'm sure that you do ;-) |
| From: Brian M. Scott Subject: Re: Primary/Prime and Inger Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 23:09:22 GMT _"Akribie" in German means to take utmost care to examine every _detail in detail ;-). 'Meticulousness', in fact. _Eg : "Das Dokument wurde akribisch untersucht" simply means _"The document was examined with the utmost care for every little _detail". The funny thing is that I'd actually run into that, but for some reason it never occurred to me in connection with Inger's akrebi. |
| You'll notice that we skipped a week or so just then. All sorts of things happened in the discussion that week, but the matter I want to concentrate on is the problem of the dictionary. Remember back on the 18th, Inger quoted "1981's edition of OED which I have by my side all the time ". Traditionally, the abbreviation OED refers to the Oxford English Dictionary, the massive work which charts the history of each word in the English language. However... |
| From: JMB [Irish] Subject: Re: Primary/Prime and Hastings Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:05:48 +0100 Inger says: "A shortening which btw is accepted as early as 1981's edition of OED which I have by my side all the time:" There is no 1981 Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, so one wonders what OED as used by Inger actually refers to, but she specifically uses the word "shortening" |
| From: Inger E Johansson Subject: Re: Primary/Prime and Hastings Posting-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 22:04:08 CEST OH queer! This edition published 1981 ..... that's what my book say. I bought it in Oxford in the wonderful bookshop in the Middle of the town. |
| David B. Re: Primary/Prime and OED Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 23:22:15 +0100 Ah, "my book". I think we may now be getting to the bottom of the mystery. Inger, I believe that if you can give us the ISBN of your OED, we can very swiftly stop arguing about it. |
From: tamefeline12@webtv.net Subject: Re: Primary/Prime and Hastings Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 23:55:40 -0500 (CDT) In all fairness to Inger, perhaps she is using the compact, one volume, OED that was published in 1991, and just got the date wrong. http://www.oup-usa.org/isbn/0198612583.html |
| From: "Inger E Johansson Subject: Re: Primary/Prime and Hastings Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 08:42:36 CEST No I didn't. I bought it in Oxford in December 1981. I was on my engagement-voyage. |
| From: tkavanagh Subject: Re: Primary/Prime and Hastings Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 21:55:05 +0000 (UTC) "Published" and "reprinted" can be confused (although most publishers indicate first second, ... n, "printing" in some way; e.g. spelling it out: "First edition, 1952; second printing, 1954; third printing 1956,...", or, "Most recent printing indicated by the last digit below: 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 " Put it this way, for it to be the 1981 edition, it has to be significantly revised from the previous edition. | From: Thomas McDonald Subject: Re: Primary/Prime and Hastings Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:26:43 CDT Inger, If it's a single volume and not the 1991 version, could it be something like "The Oxford Collegiate English Dictionary" or some such? The OED that I talk about is a huge, multi-volume thing. I have the two-volume version that needs a magnifying glass to read. If you give us the full title of the dictionary, perhaps we can figure this out. You certainly don't have the version that is most highly valued for English etemology and usage. |
| From: Inger E Johansson Subject: Re: Primary/Prime and Hastings Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 00:20:08 CEST tk, note what I wrote. the OED I have say edited 1981; not 1981 edition. | From: Inger E Johansson Subject: Re: Primary/Prime and Hastings Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 08:19:45 CEST Thomas, for your information OED in my hand looks identical to OED at the Library except that mine is edited in 1981. I have it close to my computer on a box because I don't fancy carrying it around..... obvious reasons.... :-) |
| From: Doug Weller Subject: Re: Primary/Prime and Hastings Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 00:48:41 -0500 But on the 24th you wrote "This edition published 1981 that's what my book say. I bought it in Oxford in the wonderful bookshop in the Middle of the town." And on the 18th "A shortening which btw is accepted as early as 1981's edition of OED which I have by my side all the time: " You can see I'm sure how this is confusing to other people. | From: David B Subject: Re: Primary/Prime and Hastings/ OED Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 10:42:30 BST As I wrote a couple of days ago: "I believe that if you can give us the ISBN of your OED, we can very swiftly stop arguing about it." The Library of Congress catalog number would do just as well- either or both should appear on the back of the title page. |
| [A couple of days later...] From: Doug Weller Subject: Re: Primary/Prime and Hastings Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:30:22 -0500 I am willing to give Inger the benefit of the doubt which is why I have been asking her about the exact title, etc. I agree with whoever asked about the ISBN number, that would probably decide it. But I will chance my arm and say that an 'edition' is not the same as a print run. :-) | From: Inger E Johansson Subject: Re: Primary/Prime and Hastings/ OED Posting-Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 11:59:22 CEST David B, if you can't find a duplicate of mine OED edited 1981, your problem not mine - I don't intend to discuss this any further. I have much more essential things to do then to do your research. |
| From: Inger E Johansson Subject: Re: Primary/Prime and Hastings Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:19:40 CEST Doug, I have given the exact title more than once. I thought that serious scholars had more essential things to do than to continue argueing over that instead of discussing the lines for definition which was the subject. |
| From: Doug Weller Subject: Re: Primary/Prime and Hastings Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:34:13 -0500 Yes, I know you have. I didn't suggest you hadn't. I am saying that precision is important, and that you have confused us by using various different and contradictory words/phrases to describe your dictionary and that this could be settled by the ISBN number. You've lost some credibility over this and annoyed several posters who have joined the thread precisely because of your behaviour. I am still willing to believe that you may be right in some way, but haven't seen any evidence for it yet. The OED is still not a useful source to determine if the term 'primary source' has been replaced by 'prime source' when used by English speaking academics.You have to go to the primary sources to find the answer. :-) Where I've done that I have discovered that they still use 'primary source'. |
| From: Inger E Johansson Subject: Re: Primary/Prime and Hastings Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:42:24 CEST Doug, if you are confused, it's your business. If you can't find on net what took me less then 30 seconds to find, ok. But I will not continue this as a Swedish scholar who wrote to me today called 'fjollig' debate. The word 'fjollig' is hard to give a concrete English word for but it's a stronger expression than 'silly' combined with 'childish'. |
| From: Doug Weller Subject: Re: Primary/Prime and Hastings Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:58:33 -0500 Fine. But the reason I am confused is because you are inconsistent and inaccurate, as you have written: On the 18th "A shortening which btw is accepted as early as 1981's edition of OED which I have by my side all the time: " On the 24th "This edition published 1981 that's what my book say. I bought it in Oxford in the wonderful bookshop in the Middle of the town." On the 26th, "the OED I have say edited 1981; not 1981 edition" It is in one sense a very silly argument, caused by your insistence that the OED is relevant to the main discussion and by your inability to consistently describe what your version is and to give an ISBN number which I'm sure you know is the bet way to identify it. In another sense it is a good lesson in how not to conduct an academic debate. You should have been able to give us a good example of how to conduct one, simply by clarifying what dictionary you were using immediately it was questioned. And when you made your statement about 'primary sources', you should have been able to give us good examples of the term 'prime sources' now being used by people and institutions instead of 'primary sources'. |
| From: David [i.e. not David B.] Subject: Re: Primary/Prime and Hastings Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:20:34 -0400 I happened to be in Borders today and wandered into the Reference section and noticed quite a selection of "Oxford" dictionaries: "Oxford Dictionary of American English" "Concise Oxford English Dictionary" A number of paperback dictionaries with Oxford in the title and so forth! There was also a "Condensed Oxford English Dictionary" (this may not be exactly right) about 8 x 10 x 5 inches, in a box. (I did not open the box up to look for the publishing dates so don't ask) A blurb on the back indicated that this is a condensed version of the 28 (twenty-eight) volume Oxford English Dictionary, containing about a third of the multi volume set. Since Inger has indicated her dictionary is a single large volume it cannot be the OED. She has a dictionary of the English Language, she got it in Oxford, it might even have "Oxford" in the title, it is over twenty years old! She has an Old English Dictionary (OED). I doubt that Inger really knows what the rest of us mean by OED and the chances of her admitting it are slim to none! This reminds me of the old saw about trying to teach a pig to sing. It accomplishes nothing, frustrates the teacher and annoys the pig! Trying to hold a meaningful discussion with Inger accomplished nothing, frustrates the poster and annoys anyone who is serious about archeology, history or Nordic studies. |
| From: Inger E Johansson Subject: Re: Primary/Prime and Hastings Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 06:36:24 CEST David, I have Oxford English Dictionary. Nothing more Nothing less; stop your idiotic attacks!!! Edited 1981 it's said inside, that's what I know and that it looks identical to the OED in Libraries. If you don't like it, well that's not my problem. |
| It didn't end there, but it didn't progress either. At the time of writing, "What's the ISBN of your dictionary Inger?" has become a sort of catchphrase, because there are so many situations which mirror what you have just read. So I'll leave the sociologists and psychologists to analyse the personalities and group interactions- but just to give you some sort of closure, here are four more messages from Inger, one from just after the last one above, the others written at various times before this little storm began: |
| [other contributors had been trying to guess the correct title, and one suggested the Oxford Elementary Learner's Dictionary of English, 297 pages] From: Inger E Johansson Subject: Re: Primary/Prime and Hastings NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 12:56:55 CEST No I don't have that one nor the one Alan suggested, the one I have is more than 1000 pages first part 980 page + appendix |
| From: Inger E Johansson Subject: Re: The Norse Greenlanders - article from march 2000 Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 04:37:53 CET Seppo, sorry to write above but you are 100%wrong below - my universe should never ever be translated into universal - that's not at all the same thing. universe was and still is the place outside the world from the "border" of the water and ice up in the outher northern water outwards to the stars and beyond - not at all universal. If you read medieval manuscripts you will know that it doesn't mean what you and other believe. In the Oxford Illustraded dictionary(happened to have it at my table) 1986 edition, page 927: universe n. All created or existing things, all creation; = COSMOS(not 1), the world or earth; all mankind. My usuage of universe is the Cosmos variant which can be found on page 191: "cosmos (-z-) n. Universe as an ordered whole; ordered system of ideas etc. sum total of experience; (astron) all starts in exisence, all the galaxies." That universe the monks and monestries over the world during medieval age refered to when they spoke of the outher places where a human could live. |
| From: Inger E Subject: Re: Question re. Norse finds in NA Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 06:31:52 CET Mark, page 761 Oxford Illustraded Dictionary, the one I had beside my computer, edition 1975: "scholar(sk) n. 1. (archaiec) Pupil. 2. Holder of scholarship. 3. Learned person, person versed in literature." Good Night Mark. you don't understand why I use the word, that's ok but stick to your own garden and don't enter mine. |
| From: INGER E. JOHANSSON Subject: SV: the Historic Arthur Posting-Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 13:15:52 MET DST Neville Lindsay _It really helps in communicating if we use words as they mean, because it _saves a lot of cross talk. _A myth is a fabrication made up to explain something for which there is no _obvious explanation. It is not a part of history other than cultural, _therefore not a part of _factual_ discussion. _A legend is a story held to be true in the culture in which it is _transmitted and received. No, that's not the accurate meaning of the word myth. You have omitted the most essential part:(Oxford illustrated dictionary,1981ed. page 559: "...embodying some popular idea concerning natural or historical phenomena.... compare this with the word legend: (page 483) "legend 1. Traditional story popularly regarded as historical, myth, such literature or tradition;(hist.) life of saint, collection of such lives or similar stories;...." In other word a legend usually, but not always, refer to a Historic person but are presented in a way that will show the good(mostly some exceptions exists) sides better than it actually was. Never the less even people outside the culture where the legend was transmitted and received must accept the fact that it's more likely that there is a Historic person behind names presented in the legend, if the did what the legend say or if they actually did something else that's up for valuation in each case and legend. |
| That's just one case among many. For a comprehensive summary of the frustrations felt by many newsgroup contributors, try this more recent message. If you believe that the situation must be improving over time, try this extra page from 2006. And bear in mind that Usenet is not the whole world of scholarship. In particular, think about the "information" sent directly to individuals, and not exposed to public discussion. |
| GLUTTONS FOR PUNISHMENT- THIS WAY |