gullible [WAS: [OT] Entomology of fuck?] - alt.folklore.urban

Message from discussion gullible [WAS: [OT] Entomology of fuck?]

Donna Richoux

View profile

More options Feb 27 2002, 7:51 am

Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban, alt.usage.english

From: t...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux)

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:51:58 +0100

Local: Wed, Feb 27 2002 7:51 am

Subject: gullible [WAS: [OT] Entomology of fuck?]

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

Hugh Gibbons <hgibb...@x-remove-xaxs4u.net> wrote:
> In article <7gjm7uc8n5657hoehvv5o2p62gd04u3...@4ax.com>, Randy Poe
> <rpo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > But "gullible" isn't.

> Wouldn't it be lovely if Websters published a dictionary like that?

Well, Noah Webster did. Cross my heart and hope to die, "gullible" is
not in his 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language.

GULL
GULL
GULLCATCHER
GULLED
GULLER
GULLERY
GULLIED
GULLISH
GULLISHNESS
GULLY
GULLY
GULLYHOLE
GULOSITY

There's an on-line version, the die-hard skeptics should look for
themselves. http://www.christiantech.com/

Now I have to see if "gullible" is in the 1913 Webster's... Yes, with
the name "Burke" given as a citation, but without a full quote. A bit of
web-searching doesn't turn it up; there have been various famous Burkes.
Perhaps someone with an O.E.D. can look to see if the quote is in there?
Or other early quotes? I'll cross-post this to a.u.e to increase the
number of O.E.D. owners.

--
Donna "don't you dare tell me 'gullible' isn't in the OED" Richoux

Reply to author Forward