You said :
>Since 1955, if not earlier. My "Webster's New International Dictonary of
>the English Language," 2nd Edition, unabridged, 1955, gives "Ur" as a
>prefix, "signifiying primitive, primeval, original, as in Ur-Hamlet."
>(From the German, of course.)
.
>My-brother-the-word-maven confirms my sense that the usage has become
>increasingly common "in English," but adds that it often takes a while til
>dictionaries include these things. If you have access to a recent Random
>House edition, try that, as he says they're pretty good at being uptodate.
You are of course right. I was too keen to make the 'urine' point and so took my
own feelings as to the derivation and the way the word seems to sit
uncomfortably in English, as sufficient basis for my comment. This was
reprehensible.
'Ur' is, of course, an everyday prefix for philologists. The OED gives a use in
1864,all our Chambers, except the 1901 edition, give it, as does the kitchen
dictionary, a 1960 Concise Oxford. Strange how they all seem to be so keen on
the 'ur-Hamlet' example.
But, as you might say say, there is a little of the high falutin' flapdoodle
about it.
To keep it on list, what did Herschel do with the pee ?
Terry