
Signature
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
> > [about Mark Twain and "mugwump"]
> > <snip>
> > > On January 16, I posted the following to sci.lang and alt.english.usage
> > And you posted it under the very unhelpful subject line
> > "Re: British dictionaries of English." Thanks a heap.
> Bob, the word "mugwump" had been discussed in that thread since the very
> beginning, when Larry Trask, in a post on January 10, criticized the
> treatment of "mugwump" in British dictionaries. See
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1628510170d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF
-8&selm=48c7f19.0401101129.1d9c49bd%40posting.google.com
> or
> http://tinyurl.com/2ft82
> Under the circumstances.there seems little justification to criticize me for
> failing to change the subject line.
I see that you replied to a question from Peter T Daniels:
He wanted to know if there was a concordance of works by
Mark Twain or other authors of that period. Your posting
was not responsive to that question.
My posting was responsive to that question, but I saw no
need to say who had asked it. I had noticed the subject
line of the PTD posting and had read the posting because the
subject of British dictionaries is one that I find
interesting. As is almost always sadly the case, I found
that the subject line was not related to the content, but
the question of whether or not there's a concordance of Mark
Twain's works did make me curious about that.
Anyway, once the topic of discussion had drifted away from
British dictionaries and had focused on the meaning of
"mugwump", the subject line should have been changed.
But hardly anyone else thinks it's important to have a
connection between subject line and content, so why should
you be different? (Rhetorical question.)
Raymond S. Wise - 19 Jan 2004 19:50 GMT
> > > [about Mark Twain and "mugwump"]
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> > beginning, when Larry Trask, in a post on January 10, criticized the
> > treatment of "mugwump" in British dictionaries. See
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1628510170d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF
-8&selm=48c7f19.0401101129.1d9c49bd%40posting.google.com
> > or
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Mark Twain or other authors of that period. Your posting
> was not responsive to that question.
My posting was not responsive the the specific question made by Peter T.
Daniels. It was, however, responsive to the implied question, namely, did
Mark Twain or William Dean Howells use the word "Mugwump"? Mark Twain did,
as I demonstrated. I did not attempt to show that William Dean Howells used
it, but did show that he was *opposed* to the Mugwumps.
You were aware of the implied question yourself, since you wrote the
following in your original post to this thread (emphasis added with
double-asterisk brackets): "Someone in a crossposting between AEU and
sci.lang wondered in recent days whether there was a concordance of Mark
Twain's works available somewhere. **The immediate concern was to know
whether Mark Twain had ever used the word 'mugwump.'**"
Here is some of the context of the discussion in sci.lang and
alt.english.usage , reformatted from a post by Daniels which can be seen at
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3628432412d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF
-8&selm=400860F1.6BC0%40worldnet.att.net
or
http://tinyurl.com/2sbye
Philip Anderson wrote:
"As an American word it may _no longer_ mean 'boss', but in British English
it still does. This is the only sense in which I have met it being used,
although dictionaries do give the alternative meaning of an (American)
independent.
"Has it ever been used to describe an independent politician in Britain? If
not, then this must clearly be the secondary meaning."
Dylan Sung wrote:
"I've never met this word used in the last twenty years except when
Burrough's Naked Lunch was made into a movie. Would one consider it
obselete?"
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
"I've never met this word outside that 11th-grade American History
textbook.
"Is there a concordance of Mark Twain, or William Dean Howells, or other
popular novelists of the era?"
> My posting was responsive to that question, but I saw no
> need to say who had asked it. I had noticed the subject
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> connection between subject line and content, so why should
> you be different? (Rhetorical question.)

Signature
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com