
Forty four years in the making, this new thesaurus will contain 800,000 meanings and provide a chronological history of words.
I've seen it reported, though not able to confirm, that the suggested retail price will be 150 nicker, quid, pounds, libras, beer tokens, spondulicks, units of a failed experiment.
The announcement prompted a flurry of stuff - check out this and this at the BBC website and/or this post over on HarperStudio's blog.
As you'll see, if you follow the links above, the BBC Magazine feature gives a sample entry from this new tome, followed with a selection of comments.
It's perhaps unfair, and maybe churlish, to form judgement on the basis of a single sample entry - but, if the 150 quid retail price is correct, then punters' expectations are going to be very high. However, I read the entry on trousers and very quickly, without thinking too hard at all, came up with 9 words describing trousers that are not mentioned in the entry.
Having read the comments I can see that I'm not the only person who straightaway thought of 'kecks'. And then there's 'duds'; a very common expression when and where I grew up. And then there's 'duns', less common, and I suspect a twist on 'dunnies', a shortened form of dungareees.
I was very surprised that the entry did not mention 'trewsers' (which I first came across when working in Lancaster City Museum in a hand-written note between the pages of a ship's log dated 1809) and 'troosers' which I'm fairly sure I came across in Sterne's Tristram Shandy. (But then I did a word search here and couldn't find it.)
And then there are 'strides' and 'slacks'. How can anyone assemble a thesaurus entry for trousers and not include 'strides'?
So, roll over Roget? No, don't think so, not for 150 smackers. I'll be sticking with a combination of a battered Penguin edition of Roget's and Merriam-Webster's New Book of Word Histories for a while yet.
What do you think? Will you be ordering OUP's Thesaurus?
Hm, I have never heard most of those words for trousers. For me, "duds" is slang for clothing in general, though I haven't heard it in a long while. Are they perhaps filtering out regionalisms, at least those with a limited reach? That would seem reasonable to me, if its intended reach is international.
ReplyDeleteNo, too expensive. And I love my Roget's.
ReplyDelete