Anyway, for fun dictionary entries, Chambers’ is the one to go to:’a cake long in shape but short in duration’ for “eclair”, for example.

In fairness, as long as the OED covers each of the four jargon words in simpler terms (or in terms of words that are ultimately defined more simply in the OED), I don’t have a particular problem with this.

Proper use of “jargon tree” (a term I just made up) could save considerable space. It might be better to use this approach, rather than explaining everything so that a layperson can understand without chasing up other references: in the case of trondhjemite, this would lead to rather a long definition.

Alternatively, a mixed approach could be used so that a precise definition would be available for someone who cared for it, and a less-precise but easily understood definition was also available. e.g. “A particular category of rock: specifically, any leucocratic…” etc

Obviously, circularity is to be avoided. The jargon tree should eventually lead one to simple English terms.

2. America has no Middle Ages, and therefore no particular commitment to medieval history, except whatever is necessary to contextualize our literary canon. How much do they teach in European schools about the facts surrounding the Reconstruction, or the Spanish-American War? I haven’t inquired, but I’m guessing not much.

3. Hardbound copies of the OED are everywhere now that libraries have gone to digital. If you are willing to cripple yourself in the service of odd language, you can find it almost anywhere.

One time, I started with a Larousse trying to figure out what ague miliare meant. The Larousse took me to English with miliary fever, but what was miliary? The OED got me to a fever with barley like pustules. A medical encyclopedia suggested that this was tuberculosis, but then, I read an article in a medical journal saying that this was wrong, but it didn’t say what miliary fever was. I gather that no one really knows since the last case reported under that name was in the 19th century.

I even like the way the OED handles the really obscure words, like smollet. They just say “meaning uncertain”. So much for being able to look them up in a dictionary. I even compiled a short list of words with uncertain meanings.

http://www.kaleberg.com/pages/kaleberg-07-12.php#entry%2007%2012%2010%2006

“Touch wood!” is widely used in the UK and therefore the definition appears to be the clearest, most succinct explanation.

Similarly, “Hoity-toity” is still in fairly common use (unlike “Rufty-tufty”), albeit more so with older generations or as regional colloquialism – it appears to be dying out along with the class system. In this case, both the original term and the definition are often used in a humorous way; strongly anchored in the world of Oscar Wilde, P.G. Wodehouse, Evelyn Waugh and Ealing comedies.

With the huge change in British culture over the last 50 years, I’m sure it’ll only take another generation before these words disappear from common parlance.

Really, they’re not as obscure as you think.

I agree that it’s probably the exception now rather than the rule, but I learned quite a lot of medieval history in high school; the Guelphs were ringing a bell.

I’d rather assume that I live in a magical land of education and occasionally be disappointed than live in a magical land of oversimplfication and blanket generalizations.

Not only does it make perfect sense as a definition, it also neatly alludes to the word’s etymology within the definition.