This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
The article deserves careful examination (more so than what i have just made) of the evidence for the lead sent. Gleick may or not have used the word for "finding earlier citations of a particular term than those already known" but i'd be surprised if his popular article, uh, antedates the usage by the world's most authoritative dictionary of English. (about which he wrote): "Antedating is the technical lexicographic term for an earlier example of a word or sense.", which is BTW more compatible with the non-lexicographic use of the word. Gleick's term should be checked against the NYT's text, and at best it should presumably be described as his usage. --Jerzy•t06:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's apparently true that Podhajecka (who coincides at least once with his usage) is a professional linguist, and Gleick a native speaker of English, but neither is both. In any case, it was careless, rude, and sleazy of me to even risk seeming to hint that the OED site's non-ex cathedra prose might authoritatively trump Gleick; if i had written with appropriate care, i'd have said that the crucial evidence is what the OED entry for "antedate" -- and perhaps a separate one for its present participle -- say. I knew i had cause for suspicion, but not hard evidence, and should have been clearer. --Jerzy•t06:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
