Re: "reality check" for dodgers... er, codgers
Much as I appreciate the compliment(s), I note that I did not write Roget's Thesaurus, which I explicitly cited as source, nor have I written any part of it in a past life. For those unfamiliar with this classic reference on language (which boasts "256,000 words and phrases: 100,000 more than any other English-language thesaurus"), I'll add that Peter Mark Roget lived 1779 to 1869; his portrait in the front of my 4th "International Edition" (Harper and Row, revised by Robert L. Chapman) shows a most elegant looking gentleman.... and the flyleaf, among other info, notes 16 copyright dates, from 1911 to 1977, printed 1984. As for the terms Don cites ("geezer" and "codger") being given new meanings or "going unisex" -- these have not AFAIK yet arrived in these parts, or (to date) become "common language," as have the terms I cited. Nor, if I understand him correctly, would such developments substantially alter my point. Because my point at this point is that a "correction" or "reality check" is meaningless (if not tendentious) unless it "corrects" or "checks" the "reality" adduced. J.
|