As much as the hand can gripe or contain.Ģ. That breeds in the fed : there is always a hich draws their nour:ſhmentĮach hair c nfids of five or fix others, wraptģ. Round bulbous root which lies pretty deep Mitroſcope, we find that they have each a Shakʃpeare.īargain to be long in coming to the price. A handJe that part of an inſtrument that is taken Familiarity converſe frequent intercourſe. Shakʃpeare, Dryden.ĭoing any thing acquired by frequent doingi. Ainſworth.Īrmour to cover the neck and breaſt. May have out of the King's Bench, thereby to remove himſelf thither at his own Which, a man indicted of ſome treſpafs, being laid in priſon for the ſame, An expreſſion of wonder, ſurpriſe, ſudden queſtion, or ſudden exertion. Is ſcarcely ever mute at the beginning of a word as houſe.ġ. Speech, and is therefore by many grammarians accounted no letter. H Is in Engliſh, as in other languages, a note of aſpiration, ſounded onlyīy a ſtrong emiſſion of the breath, witnout any conformation of the organs of So, please don't be offended if you see ſuck, it is merely 18th-century suck.Īnyway, I hope you enjoy browsing. Equally italic long s looks like Shakʃpeare in the word Shakespeare.Īs you can see from these 18th-century chiselled gravestones, the f (left) and long s (right, between i and h) are distinctly different. So, sounds looks on these pages as ſounds, English looks like Engliſh. Today's letter s was at the time of printing Johnson's Dictionary typically rendered ſ. So these are not mistakes – it just takes a little getting your head round it. Samuel Johnson's Dictionary rendered it as ſenſual. The most notable difference here is the letter s, printed at the time as ſ because it is a long s. This is because the spelling of the 1700s was different from what we recognize today. Third, not ALL of the entries ARE actually garbled. At present it is not just feasible for one person (me) to clean up. Again, the volume here means that the time it would take to fix manually would be enormous. Second, not every word came out accurately in the OCR process and so many definitions will have garbled words and entries. consider its innumerable musical settings down the ages. Many did not succeed during conversion and the sheer volume of entries prohibits be from doing them all manually one by one. Barry Baldwins assessment of Samuel Johnsons Augustan verse. Most of the 47,000 headwords will be highlighted in bold and each definition in separate p-tags. The overall integrity of the contents of the dictionary is here.Ī few notes about this online version of the dictionary. The sheer volume of code behind these pages (137,000 lines of code) means that there is only so much one man can do. It is by no means a clean, perfect text reproduction (yet) but it is an ongoing project. It was produced by combining OCR and sophisticated GREP, in addition to pure, time-consuming search-and-replace grunt for formatting and clean-up. This online version of Johnson's Dictionary (1756) was put together by and the author of The Joy of English. Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |