Timeline for Is Shakespeare really the source of our modern meaning for odd?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 17, 2015 at 14:46 | vote | accept | orome | ||
| Apr 6, 2014 at 13:17 | answer | added | Kris | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 6, 2014 at 13:16 | comment | added | StoneyB on hiatus | @Kris Argh - bad editing ... ignore the 'so'. "Not when it was first used in that sense in Modern English." | |
| Apr 6, 2014 at 13:02 | comment | added | Kris | @StoneyB "when odd was first used in the modern sense of "peculiar", not when it was first used in that sense" -- ?? | |
| Apr 6, 2014 at 11:57 | comment | added | StoneyB on hiatus | @Kris The point at issue is when odd was first used in the modern sense of "peculiar", not when it was first used in that sense so in Modern English. Mr. Belios claims (probably relying on OED 1) that the first use in that sense was in LLL. Peter Shor and FumbleFingers have given earlier uses in EModE and I have given earlier uses in ME. | |
| Apr 6, 2014 at 6:54 | comment | added | Kris | @StoneyB If the sense (meant by the Guardian) is as old as the sun, would that count as "modern"? The Guardian was not referring to the older stuff. | |
| Apr 5, 2014 at 19:19 | answer | added | Peter Shor | timeline score: 3 | |
| Apr 5, 2014 at 18:10 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | @StoneyB, raxacoricofallapatorius: It just seems to me the shift/extension(s) in meaning are both small and gradual - and one can easily imagine even smaller "incremental changes" than the already fine distinctions implied by some of OED's separate "same but different" definitions. It also seems clear to me that although Shakespeare didn't exactly "coin" anything here, it's understandable if that Guardian columnist thinks he was "pivotal" in introducing the usage to a wider audience. But all I can see here is discussion, not "answers". | |
| Apr 5, 2014 at 17:43 | comment | added | orome | I'm so glad I'm not in the Humanities. | |
| Apr 5, 2014 at 17:34 | comment | added | StoneyB on hiatus | @FumbleFingers No, etymonline says only '1580s', which does not exclude Shakespeare. The date of TS is very controversial, many scholars holding that it derives from an Ur-Shrew of the 1580s. OED 1, under 6.b. gives a citation to LLL which it dates to 1588. The question cannot be answered without access to a source providing a citation demonstrably earlier than any of Shakespeare's uses of the word in this sense. | |
| Apr 5, 2014 at 16:55 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | @StoneyB: I think Peter's comment and yours and mine all point in the same general direction - the question is predicated on an unfounded assertion. But if OP had simply asked How and when did "odd" acquire the sense of "peculiar"? it would presumably have been closed as General Reference anyway. Apart from the spurious suggestion that Shakespeare "coined" the usage, it's all perfectly well covered by etymonline. | |
| Apr 5, 2014 at 16:48 | comment | added | StoneyB on hiatus | @FumbleFingers Yes; and that is, in fact, the answer OP is looking for. It's a legitimate question—post your answer! | |
| Apr 5, 2014 at 16:39 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | @StoneyB: Peter's citation is for OED's definition II 6a a. Not even, aligned, or accordant; uneven, unequal, discrepant, diverse, different. But OP's sense is more properly covered by their definition II 9a Of persons, their actions, etc.: strange in behaviour or appearance; peculiar; eccentric; unexpected. For which the first citation is 1577 - closely followed by Shakespeare using it in 1598 (and OP's link shows a usage in The Taming of the Shrew, c1590-1592). However you look at it, the Guardian's claim doesn't stand scrutiny. | |
| Apr 5, 2014 at 16:26 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 6, 2014 at 14:33 | |||||
| Apr 5, 2014 at 16:10 | comment | added | StoneyB on hiatus | @FumbleFingers But as Peter Shor points out,Shakespeare's use of the word is neither of these. The sense was already established and documented. | |
| Apr 5, 2014 at 16:08 | comment | added | StoneyB on hiatus | @PeterShor The Middle English Dictionary has even earlier citations, one from 1450, and one from Gower 1393 which makes the transition from the numeric to the figurative significance clear. | |
| Apr 5, 2014 at 16:06 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | This question appears to be off-topic because it turns on blurring the distinction between first recorded use (of a word or sense which may well have been around for some time) and innovative coinage (of a usage which we assume never previously existed at all). | |
| Apr 5, 2014 at 14:22 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A | @PeterShor that should be an answer! :) | |
| Apr 5, 2014 at 13:15 | comment | added | Peter Shor | The OED has citations for this meaning from ca 1500, almost a century before Shakespeare wrote his plays. "How ferre odde those persones are from the nature of this prince." (1542) | |
| Apr 5, 2014 at 12:52 | history | asked | orome | CC BY-SA 3.0 |