Ditch the "consice" OED for the FULL Compact OED

I bought decades ago now a form of the Oxford English Dictionary that is not the "concise" version, but is called the "Compact OED" and this book is absolutely invaluable for its incredibly extensive etymologies, which the concise cannot provide. The "compact" version is the full-multi-volume OED put in a single, larger-than-usual binder-sized form, where the text is one level above microfiche and the publisher provides a magnifying glass to be able to read. My ministry has been aided TREMENDOUSLY by the absolutely comprehensive etymologies in that book.

Please digitize this wonderful resource, The Compact Oxford English Dictionary.

Nothing would aid my sermons, my ministry, and my parishioners than having this wonderful resource.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Never heard of it.

I remember in our more early Logosian days, we had dreams of OED. Then, dreams of Shortened. But Concise was all she wrote.

I actually use Merriam-Webster since it often capures word forms; not just the basic word. Concise is interesting, but not quite.

Compact would indeed be good. But I wouldn't hold my breath regarding Oxford. Or FL.

The "compact" version is the full-multi-volume OED put in a single, larger-than-usual binder-sized form, where the text is one level above microfiche and the publisher provides a magnifying glass to be able to read.

As you stated, it is only 'compact' in bound form because of micro-printing. It is the entire OED. So what you really are asking for is for Logos to publish the entire OED.

I imagine that would be an expensive process, if they can get the permission to do so, and would have little chance of breaking even, expense-wise. Perhaps the OED is in some epub format which would allow Logos to produce it more inexpensively.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1293101#Comment_1293101

Not more expensive than the 20,000 page Babylonian Talmud they processed, or the 5 volume Summa Theologica from Aquinas, they have many projects just as large. The cost issue is countered by the gauge of demand from the users, like any prepub.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1293076#Comment_1293076

Things have changed from the early days, far more advanced today, and the Concise Version OED has only been out since the early 2000's. They didn't know the response they would get and said they were shocked that so many sold. The English etymology alone is worth every penny. As a minister we face a lot of criticisms from outsiders who think they know the pagan sources of words like 'church' or 'easter' but the Concise OED tackles all that. I don't think any amount of skepticism based on the early days of logos really cuts the mustard. I recall the days when they didn't have Aquinas' Summa Theologica and many people told me that wasn't going to happen either. They can do it if they move in this direction, like anything else.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1293076#Comment_1293076

Things have changed from the early days, far more advanced today, and the Concise Version OED has only been out since the early 2000's. They didn't know the response they would get and said they were shocked that so many sold. The English etymology alone is worth every penny. As a minister we face a lot of criticisms from outsiders who think they know the pagan sources of words like 'church' or 'easter' but the Concise OED tackles all that. I don't think any amount of skepticism based on the early days of logos really cuts the mustard. I recall the days when they didn't have Aquinas' Summa Theologica and many people told me that wasn't going to happen either. They can do it if they move in this direction, like anything else.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1293076#Comment_1293076

Things have changed from the early days, far more advanced today, and the Concise Version OED has only been out since the early 2000's. They didn't know the response they would get and said they were shocked that so many sold. The English etymology alone is worth every penny. As a minister we face a lot of criticisms from outsiders who think they know the pagan sources of words like 'church' or 'easter' but the Concise OED tackles all that. I don't think any amount of skepticism based on the early days of logos really cuts the mustard. I recall the days when they didn't have Aquinas' Summa Theologica and many people told me that wasn't going to happen either. They can do it if they move in this direction, like anything else.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1293076#Comment_1293076

Things have changed from the early days, far more advanced today, and the Concise Version OED has only been out since the early 2000's. They didn't know the response they would get and said they were shocked that so many sold. The English etymology alone is worth every penny. As a minister we face a lot of criticisms from outsiders who think they know the pagan sources of words like 'church' or 'easter' but the Concise OED tackles all that. I don't think any amount of skepticism based on the early days of logos really cuts the mustard. I recall the days when they didn't have Aquinas' Summa Theologica and many people told me that wasn't going to happen either. They can do it if they move in this direction, like anything else.

The "compact" version is the full-multi-volume OED put in a single, larger-than-usual binder-sized form, where the text is one level above microfiche and the publisher provides a magnifying glass to be able to read.

My mother had a copy of that which she got as a bonus for joining the Book-of-the-Month Club. She kept the membership as long as was required (buying the minimum number of books) but then dropped it. She made out pretty well with that perk! I wish I'd had room to keep it when we cleared out my parents' house after they died. There was just SO MUCH STUFF!

I would love to have the OED in Logos. I briefly had access to an online version of it through my seminary, but it's not one of the e-resources that alumni have access to. It's probably my #1 wished-for reference resource.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1293142#Comment_1293142

WHAT??!! She just 'got' it? LOL Wow. I went into a book store in the early 2000s and paid $450 bucks for it back then. Had no idea I could just sign up and ... poof. That is fantastic. And yes, the Compact OED is definitely the way to go. We have so many resources on the philology and linguistics tools of the Greek and Hebrew, this resource would simply move our English understanding as well it should. Might solve a few KJV issues too.

this book is absolutely invaluable for its incredibly extensive etymologies

When you don't have access to it Etymonline - Online Etymology Dictionary is a reliable source.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1293146#Comment_1293146

Not to push a subscription model in the midst of the current discussion with Logos, the OED has a $100 annual subscription plan. I also have the BOTM version. Can't say I really use it.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1293155#Comment_1293155

I knew of the subscription, of course. And likely that may be the red tape stopping Logos from getting the full Compact version, but I would imagine Logos has the leverage to negotiate with the publisher to get the Compact version in our software since the target market for their subscription and the Logos market really don't have a lot of overlap. Any publisher would appreciate market expansion on the level Logos can provide.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1293155#Comment_1293155

I checked that etymology website you referenced, it does have significant differences, and not to put to fine a point on the difference, that etymology has much more of a liberal bent to it than the Compact OED. I was a little shocked by the level of conservative stance by the COED authors, tbh. So I'll still appeal for Logos to get this version digitized rather than me pulling it down from the top of my book shelf and clearing off a spot on my bed to examine it with the microscope provided. LOL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1293244#Comment_1293244

that etymology has much more of a liberal bent to it than the Compact OED

Sorry, but I don't understand conservative/liberal applied to etymology ... but then the one I keep on my bookshelf is Shipley Amazon.com: Dictionary of Word Origins: 9781442237261: Shipley, Joseph T.: Books

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1293252#Comment_1293252

that etymology has much more of a liberal bent to it than the Compact OED

Sorry, but I don't understand conservative/liberal applied to etymology

I don't understand it either. A word derives from another word. There might sometimes be some guesses about it, some uncertainties, different alternate etymologies. But one theory isn't more "liberal" or "conservative" than another. Do you mean by "conservative" the etymologies that are the older or first theory that someone came up with? And then do you mean that "liberal" ideas are ones that upend the "established" or "received" etymology? But what if that original one was speculative and turned out to be wrong, demonstrably so, as new discoveries shed more light on the way the word developed over time?

Scratching my head...

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1293253#Comment_1293253

What is even more puzzling is that the OED 2nd edition is one of the sources for Etymonline.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1293253#Comment_1293253

Yes, I thought you might not. Your response assumes a naive, and debunked in many scholarly sources these days, assumption of so-called 'objectivity' when we are talking about the history of anything, liberal views creep into explanations. It takes experience reading between various sources and getting a handle on how their comments line up. It turns out to be very common sense, Wiki sources, for instance, are well known for their liberal bent, and the OED just the opposite. But that takes the background issue of liberalism vs. conservatism then recognizing how comments veer in one direction or another. And they always do. I'll stick to the OED since I have it on my shelf, I never asked for other etymology sources, and they are not relevant to this post.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1293254#Comment_1293254

There's nothing puzzling about it, if they want credibility, they must acknowledge the OED, that doesn't mean they agree with the sources they are quoting. Lets acknowledge the people behind the comments, shall we? This naivete of some objectivity that detaches from the people involved really is not productive.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1293257#Comment_1293257

Your response assumes a naive, and debunked in many scholarly sources these days, assumption of so-called 'objectivity' when we are talking about the history of anything,

Okay, you have identified your philosophical basis. However, it appears that you have never traced the rules of phonetic changes from one dialect to another that form the basis of etymology. These rules are both explanatory and predictive. Tracing an etymological path resembles mathematical or logic proofs more than history to which your naivete/debunked-objectivity may rightly apply.

I never asked for other etymology sources, and they are not relevant to this post.

Public peer-to-peer forums try to provide answers that will allow others to find answers to their questions. Providing options for those without access to the OED or who want another source to verify the data in the OED may find Etymonline helpful is the norm. You clearly have no interest in alternative free and reliable sources. That's fine.

Sources for the site I recommended:

[quote]

PRINCIPAL SOURCES

Barnhart, Robert K., ed., Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology, H.W. Wilson Co., 1988.

Beekes, Robert, Etymological Dictionary of Greek, Leiden, Netherlands, Brill, 2010.

Boutkan, Dirk, and Sjoerd Michiel Siebinga, Old Frisian Etymological Dictionary, Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Buck, Carl Darling, A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages, University of Chicago, 1949, reprinted 1988.

de Vaan, Michiel, Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages, vol. 7, of Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series, Alexander Lubotsky ed., Leiden: Brill, 2008.

Farmer, John S., Slang and Its Analogues Past and Present, London, 1890.

Fowler, H.W., A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, Oxford University Press, 1926.

Grose, Francis, A Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, London, 1785; 2nd ed., London, 1788; 3rd ed., London, 1796; expanded by others as Lexicon Balatronicum. A Dictionary of Buckish Slang, University Wit, and Pickpocket Eloquence, London, 1811.

Hall, J.R. Clark, A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, Cambridge University Press, 1894, reprint with supplement by Herbert D. Meritt, University of Toronto Press, 1984.

Hindley, Alan, Frederick W. Langley, Brian J. Levy, Old French-English Dictionary, Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Klein, Dr. Ernest, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language, Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., 1971.

Lewis, Charlton T., and Short, Charles, A New Latin Dictionary, Harper & Brothers, New York, 1891.

Liberman, Anatoly, Analytic Dictionary of English Etymology, University of Minnesota Press, 2008.

Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott, eds., Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford University Press, 1883.

McSparran, Frances, chief editor, The Middle English Compendium, University of Michigan, 2006.

Room, Adrian, Place Names of the World, 2nd ed., McFarland & Co., 2006.

The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia, Whitney, William Dwight, ed., New York: The Century Co., 1902.

The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed., Clarendon Press, 1989.

Watkins, Calvert, ed., The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots, 2nd ed., Houghton Mifflin Co., 2000.

Zoëga, Geir T., A Concise Dictionary of Old Icelandic, reprint, University of Toronto Press, 2004.

OTHER SOURCES

Agnes, Michael, ed. in chief, Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th ed., MacMillan, 1999.

Allen, Richard Hinckley, Star Names and Their Meanings, London: Stechert, 1899.

Ayto, John, Dictionary of Word Origins, Arcade Publishing, 1990.

----------, 20th Century Words, Oxford University Press, 1999.

----------, The Diner's Dictionary: Word Origins of Food and Drink, 2nd ed., Oxford, 2002.

Bammesberger, Alfred, English Etymology, Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1984.

Barrère, Albert, Argot and Slang, London, 1889.

----------, and Charles G. Leland, A Dictionary of Slang, Jargon & Cant, Ballantyne Press, 1890.

Bartlett, John Russell, Dictionary of Americanisms, 2nd ed., Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1859.

Blount, Thomas, Glossographia, 1656, facsimile reprint (Anglistica & Americana series), Georg Olms Verlag, Hildesheim, Germany, and New York, 1972.

Brachet, A., An Etymological Dictionary of the French Language, translated by G.W. Kitchin, Oxford, 1882.

Bright, William, Native American Placenames of the United States, University of Oklahoma Press, 2004.

Brockett, John Trotter, A Glossary of North Country Words, Newcastle, 1829.

Cassidy, Frederic G., and Hall, Joan Houston, eds., Dictionary of American Regional English, Harvard University Press, 1985-2002.

Cockeram, Henry, The English Dictionarie: Or, an Interpreter of Hard English Words, London, 1623.

Craigie, Sir William A., and James R. Hulbert, A Dictionary of American English on Historical Principles, University of Chicago Press, 1938.

Diez, Friederich, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Romanischen Sprachen, Bonn, 1853.

Donkin, T.C., An Etymological Dictionary of the Romance Languages, Edinburgh, 1864.

Farmer, John S., Musa Pedestris, Three Centuries of Canting Songs and Slang Rhymes, privately printed in Holland and London, 1896.

Flood, W.E., The Origins of Chemical Names, London: Oldbourne Book Co., 1963.

Fowler, H.W., A Dictionary of Modern English Usage, 2nd ed., revised by Sir Ernest Gowers, Oxford University Press, 1965.

Gamillscheg, Ernst, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Französischen Sprache, Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1928.

Gelling, Margaret, Signposts to the Past: Place-Names and the History of England, 3rd ed., Chichester: Phillimore & Co., 1997.

Gordon, E.V., An Introduction to Old Norse, 2nd ed., rev., Oxford University Press, 1956.

Grimm, Jacob, and Wilhelm Grimm, Deutsches Wörterbuch, Leipzig, S. Hirzel, 1911.

Hatefeld, Adolphe, & Arsène Darmesteter, Dictionnaire Général de la Langue Française, Paris: Librairie Delagrave, 1926.

Herman, József, Vulgar Latin (Le latin vulgaire), translated by Roger Wright, Penn State, 2000.

Hoblyn, Richard Dennis, A Dictionary of Term Used in Medicine, 2nd ed., London, 1844.

Holthausen, Ferd., Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Englischen Sprache, Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1927.

Jamieson, John, D.D., A Dictionary of the Scottish Language (abridged edition), Edinburgh, 1846.

Johnson, Francis, A Dictionary of Persian, Arabic, and English, London, 1852.

Johnson, Samuel, A Dictionary of the English Language, London, 1755.

Karttunen, Frances, An Analytical Dictionary of Nahuatl, University of Texas, 1983.

Kent, Roland G., Old Persian, New Haven, Conn., American Oriental Society, 1953.

Kipfer, Barbara Ann, ed., and Robert L. Chapman, Dictionary of American Slang, 4th ed., HarperCollins, 2007.

Kluge, Friedrich, Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache, 24 durchgesehene, Berlin, Walter de Gruyter, 2002.

Lass, Roger, Old English, A Historical Linguistic Companion, Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Lyovin, Anatole V., An Introduction to the Languages of the World, Oxford University Press, 1997.

Mencken, H.L., The American Language, 4th ed., Alfred A. Knopf, 1965.

Mills, A.D., A Dictionary of English Place Names, 2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Monier-Williams, Sir Monier, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Etymologically and Philologically Arranged, Oxford University Press, 1899.

Niermeyer, J.F. and van de Kieft, C., Mediae Latinitatis Lexicon Minus, E.J. Brill, Amsterdam, 1976.

Palmer, the Rev. Abram Smythe, Folk-Etymology, London, George Bell and Sons, 1882.

Partridge, Eric, Slang To-day and Yesterday, 3rd ed., Barnes & Noble, 1950.

Pickering, John, A Vocabulary, or Collection of Words and Phrases Which Have Been Supposed to be Peculiar to the United States of America, Boston, 1816.

Pokorny, Julius, Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, Tübingen: A. Francke Verlag, 1959.

Rawson, Hugh, Wicked Words, Crown Publishers, 1989.

Ringe, Don, From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic, Oxford, 2006.

Simpson, D.P., Cassell's New Latin Dictionary, Funk & Wagnall's, 1959.

Smith, William, ed., A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, London: John Murray, 1878.

Smyth, Adm. William Henry, The Sailor's Word-book: An Alphabetical Digest of Nautical Terms, London, Blackie and Son, 1867.

Thayer, Joseph Henry, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, American Book Co., 1889.

Thompson, D'Arcy Wentworth, A Glossary of Greek Fishes, Oxford, 1947.

Thornton, Richard H., An American Glossary, Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1912.

Tucker, T.G., Etymological Dictionary of Latin, Ares Publishers, 1976 (reprint of 1931 edition).

Venezky, Richard L., The American Way of Spelling, The Guilford Press, 1999.

Watts, Victor, The Cambridge Dictionary of English Place-Names, Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Wedgwood, Hensleigh, A Dictionary of English Etymology, 3rd ed., Macmillan & Co., New York, 1878.

Weekley, Ernest, An Etymological Dictionary of Modern English, John Murray, 1921; reprint 1967, Dover Publications.

Wilson, R.M., and Reaney, Percy H., Dictionary of English Surnames, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, 1995.

Wright, Joseph, The English Dialect Dictionary, London, 1900.

Wright, Thomas, ed., Popular Treatises on Science Written During the Middle Ages, London, 1841.

----------, Anglo-Saxon and Old English Vocabularies, 2nd ed., Richard Paul Wülker, ed., London, 1884, reprinted 1968, Darmstadt.

No, the site doesn't always agree with the OED but it does consistently respond to additions and corrections by scholars in the field. While I have found cases where I might disagree over which PIE root has the stronger case, I have never found the site to be erroneous.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1293256#Comment_1293256

Yes, I thought you might not. Your response assumes a naive, and debunked in many scholarly sources these days, assumption of so-called 'objectivity' when we are talking about the history of anything, liberal views creep into explanations. It takes experience reading between various sources and getting a handle on how their comments line up. It turns out to be very common sense, Wiki sources, for instance, are well known for their liberal bent, and the OED just the opposite. But that takes the background issue of liberalism vs. conservatism then recognizing how comments veer in one direction or another. And they always do. I'll stick to the OED since I have it on my shelf, I never asked for other etymology sources, and they are not relevant to this post.

Maybe, instead of providing a convoluted and obtuse response like this, you could provide a word you looked up that has a "liberal" entry. Don't explain it, as it would get us too far off topic. Just post the word, and those of us with less "experience reading between various sources and getting a handle on how...comments line up" will be able to persevere and discern your meaning.

And though some of us may not be capable of "recognizing how comments veer in one direction or the other," I don't understand how you see an etymological dictionary entry and a wiki source to be comparable resources.

Lastly, I understand that you haven't posted here much, and so you may be new to the forums, so welcome, but you should be careful interacting with people here (as well as anywhere) and making assumptions about their naivety and experience. Not that MJ needs defending, but you've called someone "naive" and inexperienced regarding etymology and discerning arguments in written media whose background is literally, at least in part, in linguistics and rhetoric.

Just remember, wisdom comes with experience.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1293260#Comment_1293260

I would also add that I would love to have the full OED with supplemental updates. I do have the concise version in my classroom, but it is too cumbersome to use on a regular basis.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1293260#Comment_1293260

Yea, I've encountered you before "MJ" on the Logos forums, and if Logos had good sense, they would block you from any forums, I have not encountered any desire from you to contribute to the conversation, but make defensive, argumentative comments. You like a reason to argue. I'm not interested in interacting with you any further. Nothing you've contributed tends to the OP I set for digitizing this excellent resource.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1293146#Comment_1293146

this book is absolutely invaluable for its incredibly extensive etymologies

When you don't have access to it Etymonline - Online Etymology Dictionary is a reliable source.

Thanks for this resource, MJ. I have added it to my toolbox.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1293262#Comment_1293262

With due respect, I have no use for your advice. So feel free to keep your attempt at imbuing wisdom on this post to yourself, I have no need for it. Regarding your comment about "being careful" just bc someone has a background (MJ and I have interacted before on this forum some years ago) I simply say this: background and education do not in any way protect someone from making naive comments. Especially when the primary interest is trolling. I have made a simple suggestion for digitizing this Compact OED and I stand by it because it has served me well for 20 years with etymologies that are strongly conservative. I posted this forum to simply draw attention to the "COMPACT" version, you said you have the "concise" version which is nothing close to what I have offered. Regarding the liberal bent, the OED's entry, for instance, regarding the so-called pagan background of the word "church" is addressed and rebutted whole-sale, but liberals never question the validity of such spurious connections. But let's get something straight: I do not owe you or anyone else any "example" at all. You have no authority to demand one either, this is not a classroom, it is a forum. If you question a statement, I am not here for your pleasure to babysit your homework level.

So to summarize, Mr. Turner:

1. I have no need of your behavioral advice, I will post as I see fit, period. You don't have to like it, either.

2. Background does in no way protect anyone from making naive comments. MJ has no ability to not take a comment personally. And I said the comment she made assumes this, I did not in any way direct this to her entire PERSON, as you misrepresented me. The difference is massive.

3. If you challenge something, I do not owe you any example, homework, or proof. This is a forum, not a classroom. Go do your own homework.

As much as I appreciate interaction, no one on these forums needs advice or assignments from you, sir.

Thank you.

Digitizing the COMPACT OED (not the concise version) for Logos library access is my object of discussion here. Not MJ's peccadillos, not your need to monitor behavior on a text-based forum, and not your by-fiat psychological trick to assign homework to feed your lack of awareness on a topic.

Blessings.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1293283#Comment_1293283

I received the Compact Edition of the OED during the 1970's as a bonus for signing up to a book club (Columbia??).

Besides the OED, I've got a couple worthwhile books from that year (Watership Down).

That edition of the OED is copyrighted 1971. The publisher never offered the compact edition again but it's available on eBay.

There is no way they would allow it to be digitalized out of their total control.

The publishers update the it regularly. It is published (online) for a monthly or yearly subscription.

As an aside, books have been written about the making of the dictionary.

1) The Meaning of Everything, The Story of the Oxford English Dictionary (2003)

2) The Professor and the Madman, A Tale of Murder, Insanity, and the Making of the Oxford English Dictionary (1998) [also a film staring Mel Gibson 2019],

both by by Simon Winchester.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1293300#Comment_1293300

I have the Compact Version open right in front of me, here are the copywrite dates listed, with the reprints:

Original copywrite for the first edition is 1971, the second entry is listed for 1987, and the first entry for the "second edition" is 1989; the second entry for the "second edition" is 1991.

Then it has a number of reprints listed: 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004.

I bought my copy in 2004, chances are good it was this last reprint. And I assure you, there were not many selling, and it didn't stay on the shelf long.

I hate doing homework for you; my bill would be in the mail, but I will just go ahead and accept my treasure in heaven since you made false statements I needed to correct. Again, I actually own the book, its right here in front of me, and it clearly is NOT in front of you. It would be good for you to try not to speak with too much authority on the matter as you rely on second, and third-hand sources.

blessings.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1293280#Comment_1293280

I'm not interested in interacting with you any further.

I'll add you to my ignore all posts lists. Remind me if I accidentally for get to ignore you.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1293283#Comment_1293283

With due respect, I have no use for your advice. So feel free to keep your attempt at imbuing wisdom on this post to yourself, I have no need for it. Regarding your comment about "being careful" just bc someone has a background (MJ and I have interacted before on this forum some years ago) I simply say this: background and education do not in any way protect someone from making naive comments. Especially when the primary interest is trolling. I have made a simple suggestion for digitizing this Compact OED and I stand by it because it has served me well for 20 years with etymologies that are strongly conservative. I posted this forum to simply draw attention to the "COMPACT" version, you said you have the "concise" version which is nothing close to what I have offered. Regarding the liberal bent, the OED's entry, for instance, regarding the so-called pagan background of the word "church" is addressed and rebutted whole-sale, but liberals never question the validity of such spurious connections. But let's get something straight: I do not owe you or anyone else any "example" at all. You have no authority to demand one either, this is not a classroom, it is a forum. If you question a statement, I am not here for your pleasure to babysit your homework level.

So to summarize, Mr. Turner:

1. I have no need of your behavioral advice, I will post as I see fit, period. You don't have to like it, either.

2. Background does in no way protect anyone from making naive comments. MJ has no ability to not take a comment personally. And I said the comment she made assumes this, I did not in any way direct this to her entire PERSON, as you misrepresented me. The difference is massive.

3. If you challenge something, I do not owe you any example, homework, or proof. This is a forum, not a classroom. Go do your own homework.

As much as I appreciate interaction, no one on these forums needs advice or assignments from you, sir.

Thank you.

Digitizing the COMPACT OED (not the concise version) for Logos library access is my object of discussion here. Not MJ's peccadillos, not your need to monitor behavior on a text-based forum, and not your by-fiat psychological trick to assign homework to feed your lack of awareness on a topic.

Blessings.

If you were unable to produce an example, you could have just said so. I was legitimately trying to figure out what you meant, but if you don't know, then I guess I can't know.

Digitizing the COMPACT OED (not the concise version) for Logos library access is my object of discussion here. Not MJ's peccadillos, not your need to monitor behavior on a text-based forum, and not your by-fiat psychological trick to assign homework to feed your lack of awareness on a topic.

Yet up to this post, you've spent 644 words discussing the OED and related topics, and 731 words attempting to chide others, including MJ's peccadillos, and my needs both to monitor behavior on a text-based forum, as well as my by-fiat psychological trickery which is somehow due to my lack of awareness. Also including Rob, who was just attempting to have a conversation on your chosen topic.

Concerning my lack of awareness on the subject, I beat your request by 12 years here.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1293320#Comment_1293320

Here's a solid response to the fallacy behind your "if you don't provide, you don't know" argument: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." This despite the fact I did provide you with an example. So sad. And the post you listed as supposedly "beating" me to, is not to the recent, Compact Version, once again. You have linked to the full 20-volume edition. I advise you bone-up on the differences between editions and formats when it comes to titles that sound alike. I think you'll find it edifying. But, as always, take it or leave it, makes no difference to me.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1293308#Comment_1293308

MJ, that would be a blessing beyond words.

I would love to see the fruit of Paul's instructions to women in the Church in your case.

I had no interest in your personal history, but I wanted to discuss the Compact OED as a wonderful addition to the Logos library.

The etymologies would aid every pastor stand against the wiles of the devil's schemes in today's world as history is being re-written.

Blessings.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1293320#Comment_1293320

Mr. Turner,

You need to drop these childish tactics of libeling others, they are not substitutes for legit criticism. I have 'chided' absolutely no one. I HAVE, however, set boundaries, and made corrections, as is a part of the four-fold activity listed for God's Word in our lives.

And I did provide you with an example. You need to read a little closer instead of being enamored with the idea of obtaining the last word.

Mark Barnes (Logos)

Can I plead for civility on this thread, please, and remind y'all of the Forum Guidelines. We've veered a long way off the purpose of the original post, which was to request a specific resource in Logos.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1293378#Comment_1293378

I appreciate you stepping in, I have made this appeal in this forum as well. The Compact OED would be a spectacular addition to the Logos library. Especially since the last reprint of the resource was 20 years ago, and the etymologies would provide such wonderful, conservative scholarship behind English words that slip in and out of English usage, whether by the KJV Bible or other translations.

Quick Links