http://noncompositional.com/2006/10/rare-obsolete-or-plain-wrong/ Wed, 04 Aug 2010 11:04:39 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 http://noncompositional.com/2006/10/rare-obsolete-or-plain-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-3092 Russell Fri, 20 Oct 2006 18:15:11 +0000 http://noncompositional.com/2006/10/rare-obsolete-or-plain-wrong/#comment-3092 <p>Thanks. I only had the online version of the COED to go on, which seems to reference a rebooted numbering sequence (the technical term, I'm sure).</p> Thanks. I only had the online version of the COED to go on, which seems to reference a rebooted numbering sequence (the technical term, I’m sure).

]]> http://noncompositional.com/2006/10/rare-obsolete-or-plain-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-3089 Ben Zimmer Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:35:43 +0000 http://noncompositional.com/2006/10/rare-obsolete-or-plain-wrong/#comment-3089 <p>As I see you pointed out yourself. Sorry about that.</p> As I see you pointed out yourself. Sorry about that.

]]> http://noncompositional.com/2006/10/rare-obsolete-or-plain-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-3088 Ben Zimmer Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:30:51 +0000 http://noncompositional.com/2006/10/rare-obsolete-or-plain-wrong/#comment-3088 <p>The error in the definition for "two" has been corrected in the 11th edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary -- it now reads "sum" instead of "product".</p> The error in the definition for “two” has been corrected in the 11th edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary — it now reads “sum” instead of “product”.

]]>