Re: Accurate history vs. Fish stories

In a message dated 1/17/07 1:03:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,

<< But obviously it would need to be somehow self-defining to satisfy the
request for proof, and this would be most unexpected in the very few
vernacular sources that could be consulted. >>

Yes using *modern* dictionaries to define what some ancient source meant. In
this case modern being a back-definition upon a word only used once, using a
definition that could possible be ensured to have this or a similar meaning a
hundred years later.

It would be interesting to know when the first *absolutely unquestioned* used
of crokeback or crookeback or cruckback or whatever was used where there is
no question at all that it means "Hunch" back.

gbh...

I can only refer to the OED, which of course does not record
everything, despite the ambitions of the editors. The earliest example
they found of crouchback is:

"c1491 in R. Davies York Records (1843) 221 That Kyng Richard was an
ypocryte, a crochebake, & beried in a dike like a dogge."

Given the negative tone of that quotation, with the word occurring
between "hypocrite" and "buried like a dog", it is extremely unlikely
that "crochebake" here means a crusader.

Next comes:

"1494 FABYAN Chron. VII. 366 Sir Edmunde ye kynges other sone,
surnamed Crowch Bak. 1519 "

but that one certainly doesn't fit your criterion of *absolutely
unquestioned*.

Then there is crook-backed, which is recorded slightly earlier:

1477 EARL RIVERS (Caxton) Dictes Cija, The said ypocras was of littel
stature, grete heded, croke backed.

You can't even trust the OED nowdays :) entrenched opinions don't make a

gbh...

It was compiled by human beings. And etymology is often a matter of
guesswork, as we fumble in the dark for lack of evidence.

position logical and sound.