{"id":41088,"date":"2018-01-12T13:00:34","date_gmt":"2018-01-12T12:00:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/?p=41088"},"modified":"2018-01-16T14:59:49","modified_gmt":"2018-01-16T13:59:49","slug":"jeffrey-aronson-when-i-use-a-word-nonexistent-words-nonexistent-meanings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmj\/2018\/01\/12\/jeffrey-aronson-when-i-use-a-word-nonexistent-words-nonexistent-meanings\/","title":{"rendered":"Jeffrey Aronson: When I Use a Word . . . Nonexistent words, nonexistent meanings"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"jeffrey_aronson\"<\/a>As I noted <\/span>last week<\/span><\/a>, \u201cspuria\u201d, defined in the <\/span>Oxford English Dictionary<\/span><\/i> (<\/span>OED<\/span><\/i>)<\/span> as “spurious works, words, etc.”, was first recorded in 1918. The word appeared in <\/span>Rupert Brooke: a Memoir<\/span><\/i> by Sir Edward Marsh, who also edited Brooke\u2019s <\/span>Collected Poems<\/span><\/i> in the same year (pictures). Commenting in a footnote on Brooke\u2019s use of \u201cyour\u201d instead of \u201cyou\u2019re\u201d in a letter in which he appointed Marsh his \u201cliterary agent or grass executor\u201d, as Brooke put it, Marsh wrote “I hope this note will not start a vain hunt for spuria among [Brooke’s] published poems.” Certainly, no spurious words are attributed to Brooke in the <\/span>OED<\/span><\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"\"\"<\/p>\n

Sir Edward Marsh and a later edition of Rupert Brooke\u2019s\u00a0<\/span>Collected Poems<\/span><\/i> (originally published in 1918)<\/span><\/p>\n

However, several spurious words and spurious meanings of proper words have appeared in dictionaries from time to time. For example, a spurious meaning of the word \u201cimperiality\u201d\u2014\u201can imperial right or privilege\u201d\u2014was first mistakenly recorded in Webster\u2019s Dictionary of 1828 and copied verbatim into later dictionaries.<\/span><\/p>\n

James Boswell tells how a woman challenged Johnson to explain why, in his dictionary of 1755, he had defined \u201cpastern\u201d as \u201cthe knee of a horse\u201d. Johnson\u2019s reply was typically robust: \u201cIgnorance, madam, pure ignorance.\u201d In the abridged version of 1756 Johnson defined pastern correctly as \u201cthat part of the leg of a horse between the joint next the foot and the hoof.\u201d <\/span><\/p>\n

Truly spurious, i.e. non-existent, words are also recorded in dictionaries. Here are some examples from the current online <\/span>OED<\/span><\/i>:<\/span><\/p>\n