Ross Clark <
benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> On 19/09/2020 2:07 a.m., António Marques wrote:
>> Christian Weisgerber <
na...@mips.inka.de> wrote:
>>> On 2020-09-18, António Marques <
anton...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now, if you want to establish that there is a word _cirque_ in english,
>>>
>>> You can find it in medium-size dictionaries:
>>>
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cirque
>>>
https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=cirque
>>>
>>
>> You can find many words in Kindle's dictionary, but that doesn't mean
>> anyone actually has passive, much less active, knowledge of them.
>
> It really is an English word, Antonio. I don't understand why you're so
> skeptical. I recognized it, and could have given a rough account of its
> meaning, though I didn't learn it in school. Probably from growing up in
> a fairly mountainous part of the world, having some friends who were
> climbers and hikers, and reading things. In fact, I read it just the
> other day, in Oliver Sacks's autobiographical book _On The Move_. He
> quotes one of his own letters from 1960, when he was traveling across
> Canada, and met a man he calls "the Professor", who took him on some
> excursions into the Rockies:
>
> "The Professor...taught me to recognize glacial cirques and the
> different species of moraine...."
>
> So yes, it's a bit technical, but lots of people know it. What's the
> problem?
I fully believe the lot of you when you say it is indeed an actual english
word. Too many words included in english dictionaries are of questionable
currency and that's what I was getting at. I dare say you and Peter and
maybe the Dowd were the only participants in this thread who knew its
actual meaning rather than assuming it had something to do with circuses
(but that may be another incorrect assumption).