<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Monthly Gleanings</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.oup.com/2008/03/absinthe/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.oup.com/2008/03/absinthe/</link>
	<description>Academic insights for the thinking world.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 11:19:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: AGW</title>
		<link>http://blog.oup.com/2008/03/absinthe/#comment-142935</link>
		<dc:creator>AGW</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:59:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.oup.com/2008/03/absinthe/#comment-142935</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m probably one of the ignorant youth you describe here: certainly there have been times when my professors have used words that were unfamiliar to me.

But I&#039;m saddened to see you give in so easily! I don&#039;t presume that we can hold back the evolution of language, but isn&#039;t school the last bastion of these words? If our teachers just quit using these words out of deference to their students, how will the students learn that there is something to be gained by knowing them? How will our children even manage Dickens--much less Chaucer and Shakespeare--if our professors today don&#039;t teach us to love and honor our ologies and isms?

I think etymology is the best way of imparting this wisdom; knowing a word&#039;s history always made it easier for me to learn vocabulary words and really become acquainted with them. It&#039;s your blog and other works like it that help, therefore. Please don&#039;t give up on us!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m probably one of the ignorant youth you describe here: certainly there have been times when my professors have used words that were unfamiliar to me.</p>
<p>But I&#8217;m saddened to see you give in so easily! I don&#8217;t presume that we can hold back the evolution of language, but isn&#8217;t school the last bastion of these words? If our teachers just quit using these words out of deference to their students, how will the students learn that there is something to be gained by knowing them? How will our children even manage Dickens&#8211;much less Chaucer and Shakespeare&#8211;if our professors today don&#8217;t teach us to love and honor our ologies and isms?</p>
<p>I think etymology is the best way of imparting this wisdom; knowing a word&#8217;s history always made it easier for me to learn vocabulary words and really become acquainted with them. It&#8217;s your blog and other works like it that help, therefore. Please don&#8217;t give up on us!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Justin T. Holl, Jr.</title>
		<link>http://blog.oup.com/2008/03/absinthe/#comment-142800</link>
		<dc:creator>Justin T. Holl, Jr.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:53:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.oup.com/2008/03/absinthe/#comment-142800</guid>
		<description>I was a little taken by the use of &quot;shrank&quot; as the past tense of &quot;shrink&quot;, because I would have used &quot;shrunk&quot;.  Happily I found this in the OED.

The pa. tense originally had vowel change I shrank, we shrunke(n, but, as early as the 14th c., the properly plural form is found with a singular subject, and shronk, shrunk becomes frequent in the 15th c.; shrunk is the normal pa. tense in the 18th c., and still survives.

My native sensibilities have been vindicated.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was a little taken by the use of &#8220;shrank&#8221; as the past tense of &#8220;shrink&#8221;, because I would have used &#8220;shrunk&#8221;.  Happily I found this in the OED.</p>
<p>The pa. tense originally had vowel change I shrank, we shrunke(n, but, as early as the 14th c., the properly plural form is found with a singular subject, and shronk, shrunk becomes frequent in the 15th c.; shrunk is the normal pa. tense in the 18th c., and still survives.</p>
<p>My native sensibilities have been vindicated.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen Goranson</title>
		<link>http://blog.oup.com/2008/03/absinthe/#comment-142604</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen Goranson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:16:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.oup.com/2008/03/absinthe/#comment-142604</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m reading your new book, An Analytic Dictionary of English Etymology: An Introduction (U. of Minnesota Press, 2008). Very interesting! 
You note that &quot;enna&quot; (meaning one) is traced back to 1855. In case it&#039;s of interest, Notes and Queries 10 no. 262, Nov. 4, 1854, pp. 369-70 gives several &quot;counting-out rhymes&quot; that include enna, ena, one-ery, and eenery.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m reading your new book, An Analytic Dictionary of English Etymology: An Introduction (U. of Minnesota Press, 2008). Very interesting!<br />
You note that &#8220;enna&#8221; (meaning one) is traced back to 1855. In case it&#8217;s of interest, Notes and Queries 10 no. 262, Nov. 4, 1854, pp. 369-70 gives several &#8220;counting-out rhymes&#8221; that include enna, ena, one-ery, and eenery.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- WP Super Cache is installed but broken. The path to wp-cache-phase1.php in wp-content/advanced-cache.php must be fixed! -->