Re: paleonet Welcome to The Palaeo-oological Discussion Group

From

Date
Reply-To

Xavier received a reply from Jeremy Marshall, an editor at the OED (my contact there is Alan Hughes), and forwarded it to me for comment back to the group. I'll let Xavier explain the editor's comments on spelling and meaning of palaeo- compounds if he is so inclined. Regarding admission of words to the dictionary, Mr. Marshall says

"As with any new formation, we would not add the word to the Oxford English Dictionary until we had accumulated clear evidence that it had become firmly established in the language, outside the jargon of an immediate circle of specialists."

In reply to my previous post, Xavier noted that the Palaeo-oological Discussion Group was "founded in Oct 21, 2005, and the word "Palaeooological" has been used constantly in there!" The OED would regard these instances as specialist jargon. If the word starts being used more broadly, then it will eventually make it into the dictionary. Usage in a variety of scientific journals (as opposed to only a couple) would probably count. Better would be to get the word used in newspaper articles about paleoological discoveries, such as fossil dinosaur or bird embryos, or dating of archaeological sites from ostrich egg shells. Most helpful would be antedatings of 2004, which would establish that the word was in use well before the start of a campaign to get it into the dictionary.

The advent of the Internet has swamped the editors at the OED with new words to consider, so their criteria might become stricter. It's easy to find words that are not in the dictionary; for example "orangest" (superlative of orange). Show me a dictionary that lists it. Then try googling it.

Gary