Wednesday, August 8, 2007

Clearly, I'm a Dink (First in an occasional series on why, clearly, I'm a dink)

In my last post, I blathered on about how none of my three most-used dictionaries contained an entry for the word "Hallows" as a noun. As of today, however, close readers will notice that "three" has been changed to "two."

That's because yesterday, my fiance, Ted, opened up our 1933 Oxford Universal Dictionary (one of the three I had accused of neglecting the word), pointed to a page and said, "Didn't you see this?"

It was right under my nose.
Hallow: usu. in pl. hallows. 1. A holy personage, a saint. ... 2. In pl., the
shrines or relics of saints, the gods of the heathen or their shrines.

And lo and behold, with one reference to "relics" we get a really solid clue about how the word evolved from "saints" to "spooky stuff."

On a similar note, did you know that the word "gullible" is not in the dictionary? Better yet, would you believe that I fell for that gag not once but twice?

Dinkily yours,
June

1 comment:

R.S. said...

I don't know if you do post requests but I was thinking of this rather tired statement today: "The more you read the better your writing will be." Any opinion on the subject?

Share

Bookmark and Share