|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 17, 2008 1:52:11 GMT
Geoff said (on the APS):
They are in my dictionary with no suggestion of impropriety.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 17, 2008 2:07:19 GMT
And Google gives 7.5 million hits for menswear.
The Concise Oxford doesn't have it in the 7th edition (1977) but it has arrived without comment by the 9th edition (1995).
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (1994) -- thanks, Goofy! -- has nothing to say about it.
My access to the Oxford English Dictionary is offline at the moment, so I can't find when it entered common usage. It had never occurred to me anyone could object to it!
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jun 17, 2008 3:54:01 GMT
Menswear. I clearly recall having been fascinated, as a word-mad pre-teen, with those signs that declared men swear. It has been in common use for at least 50 years and I shouldn't have thought now to question it.
Similarly - though possibly of slightly later common use (only because I don't have the same clear memories of them in childhood) - womenswear, childrenswear, and babyswear (although I have seen babywear, which eliminates the apostrophe issue) have been everyday words for ages.
Of all the dictionaries I consulted whilst typing this post, only M-W gives a date (1908).
Macquarie (rev. 3rd edn) has a simple entry for it with no information other than pronunciation and meaning.
Ditto Oxford English Reference (rev. 2nd edn).
SOED (5th edn) has no entry for it.
Chambers (new 9th edn) has a sub-entry under man.
Chambers (7th edn) has no entry.
Collins (UK 7th edn) has an entry for it.
Collins (Oz 5th edn) has an entry for it.
Reader's Digest Wordpower (Oz 1st edn) doesn't list it.
Official Scrabble Players (rev. 4th edn) lists it.
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate (10th edn) lists it and gives a date of 1908.
I'd say it's firmly established in the form menswear.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 17, 2008 8:29:56 GMT
Need dates for those dictionaries, Vv, really!
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 17, 2008 8:34:51 GMT
OED says:
Clothes for men. Freq. attrib.
1902 Times 29 July 11/3 The makers..are fairly well supplied with orders, men's wear excepted. 1947 Partisan Rev. 14 364 Seymour's taste in clothes and men's wear was loud, practically spectacular. 1964 N.Y. Post 4 Nov. 11 Russ Togs in black, brown, loden, navy, and menswear grey. 1972 P. FLOWER Cobweb II. 58 Among the heaps of flowers a wreath from the Menswear Dept. 1995 Face Jan. 76/3 The Paris menswear shows are invaded by a gang of British geeky, untoned male models.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 17, 2008 8:44:16 GMT
From the APS:
Geoff,
>I'm afraid I can't accept menswear or womenswear because they are combinations of mens and womens, words which don't exist.<
But the point is that they do exist. They are fairly newly constructed words which fulfil a useful purpose. (Just the same as a word was made up to fulfil the purpose of calling a speaking-to-someone-far-away-by-using-electricity-machine a "telephone".
Tone (OK, so I did justify it.)
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Jun 17, 2008 9:59:40 GMT
On reflection, I probably have been seeing menswear for a long time but not paid it much attention. I know that, in recent times, when I've entered some of the big department stores and they have their sale signs dangling from their ceilings, I do see men swear and women swear.
The evidence seems to be mounting: too much APS and Not-the-APS and one starts seeing fault here, fault there, fault everywhere. I've got a doctor's appointment on Friday, so I might ask him about the advisability of a starvation diet.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 17, 2008 10:16:39 GMT
Not from here, Geoff, I hope. We'd miss you!
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Jun 17, 2008 11:32:18 GMT
See, I told you, too much APS and Not-the-APS. My son has just come home from work with a printed copy of this, which his boss said to give to me. It's not all about English, but the reason I'm being given it is because of the language references. My reputation obviously extends far and wide (or maybe my screaming at the television can be heard outside the walls of my house).
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jun 17, 2008 11:34:27 GMT
Need dates for those dictionaries, Vv, really! Dun't say I never do nuffin for ya ven. Macquarie (rev. 3rd edn - 2003) has a simple entry for it with no information other than pronunciation and meaning. Ditto Oxford English Reference (rev. 2nd edn - 2002). SOED (5th edn - 2002) has no entry for it. Chambers (new 9th edn - 2003) has a sub-entry under man. Chambers (7th edn - 1992) has no entry. Collins (UK 7th edn - 2005) has an entry for it. Collins (Oz 5th edn - 2003) has an entry for it. Reader's Digest Wordpower (Oz 1st edn - 2006) doesn't list it. Official Scrabble Players (rev. 4th edn - 2005) lists it. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate (10th edn - 2001) lists it and gives a date of 1908. Also: Reader's Digest Oxford Complete Word Finder (1st edn - 1993) has an entry. From googling menswear, I got the following (Australian) businesses that have Menswear as part of their business names (not merely as a descriptor of the business separate from the name): Yates MenswearGlendinnings Menswear Pty Ltd Blades MenswearParisi MenswearAdam MenswearAdriano De Rango MenswearAerial MenswearAmano MenswearAndre J MenswearAnother World of MenswearAnthony Thomas MenswearAnthony Weiss MenswearArchers MenswearArmstrong's MenswearAshman's MenswearBaracca MenswearBarnes MenswearBarry Paul MenswearBatros Menswear & Suit Hire Baymen MenswearBenny's Menswear & Tailoring Berry's Ross MenswearBeveridge's Menswear & Formal Hire ... and on it goes for a total of 1567 hits.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Palmer on Jun 17, 2008 17:52:08 GMT
An oldie but a goodie. This was first written in 2000, dusted off in 2004, and now it appears in another American election year. It's not by John Cleese, BTW; see the debunking on Snopes.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 17, 2008 17:56:36 GMT
Well, on that sample it's only been in dictionaries since about 2000, and is (surprisingly) omitted from the 2002 SOED.
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Jun 17, 2008 20:42:03 GMT
>My son has just come home from work with a printed copy of this, which his boss said to give to me.<
I think that I first saw an earlier version some 40-odd year ago!
Tone
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Jun 17, 2008 21:34:59 GMT
I think that I first saw an earlier version some 40-odd year ago! I gathered it had done the rounds: the printed copy I was given was not quite the same as that to which I referred in the link. Anyway, it made me laugh both at its content and the fact that someone I have not met was 'making a statement' by sending me a copy.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 17, 2008 21:56:42 GMT
Quite a few bits of it are based on misconceptions, though.
|
|