|Subject:||Re: Disgruntled about poor quality baby name books|
|Author:||Anneza (guest, 188.8.131.52)|
|Date:||April 13, 2004 at 12:17:55 AM|
|Reply to:||Re: Disgruntled about poor quality baby name books by Lauren|
Never heard of the gent - but in his defence you can derive Little and Womanly from it quite comfortably - Charlot being a (m) diminutive of Charles (and what Charlie Chaplin was known as in France), and the doubled consonant plus -e making it fem; so if the female form of Man is Woman, then QED.
Of course, it'd be more scholarly to say Female Form Of Charles with a cross-reference. But then you might lose more readers than you'd gain; people are odd about accuracy, and about doing research for themselves. They prefer the baby bird approach: keep the beak wide open, and swallow all the worms without looking ...
|Because this message is archived you cannot respond to it.|
|Messages in this thread:|