1 of 2
1
Ilk
Posted: 25 March 2007 12:34 AM   [ Ignore ]
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  590
Joined  2007-02-22

Having always thought the word ilk, used to mean like, kin, kidney (as in “of the same kidney” derives from a misunderstanding of the the Scottish expression “of that ilk” meaning “of the same” to avoid writing “Guthrie of Guthrie”, I checked in the OED and found that this was the case, but it was flagged as “Erroneously”, despite the earliest citation being 1790.  Well, I know this use arose from a mistake, but hell, how long does a word have to live around here to be accepted as a local?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 March 2007 05:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1153
Joined  2007-02-14

I think most of us South Leftpondians have used “ilk” to mean “sort” for a long time.  We, generally, have no idea of its original meaning.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 March 2007 05:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3412
Joined  2007-01-29

That section of the OED was published in 1899, and the “ilk” entry was written at some earlier date.  I can guarantee you that when they get around to revising the I’s for the third edition, the word “erroneously” will disappear.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 March 2007 06:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2299
Joined  2007-01-30

Surely the 20th century cites are evidence of at least one revision?

1969 Times 8 May 8/6 This habit is confined to Tory backbenchers like..Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles and others of that ilk. 1973 E. MCGIRR Bardel’s Murder ii. 42 One doesn’t like or dislike a fellow of that ilk… He was a kind of barrow boy in a shop.

Or are citations added without necessarily checking that the definition is still current?

[ Edited: 25 March 2007 06:03 AM by aldiboronti ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 March 2007 06:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1365
Joined  2007-01-29

Am I looking at the wrong entry in the online OED?  This is what I found for ilk (a):

[OE. ilca m., ilce f. and n., inflected as weak adj., app. f. the pronominal stem i-, - (cf. Goth. i-s he, Lat. i-s, -dem) + -líc = Goth. -leiks (see LIKE); cf. OE. hwelc, swelc WHICH, SUCH = Goth. hwileiks, swaleiks. As in such, which, etc., the k was in southern and midland ME. palatalized to ch; but the word survives only in the north.]

1. Same, identical; the (this, that) ilk, the same, the identical, the very same (person, thing, etc. already mentioned, or specified in a clause following).

and for ilk (b):

[The northern and north-midland form of ilch, iche = southern ælch, æche, EACH: which see for the derivation and earlier history. After 1500 only in Sc., and now less usual than ILKA.]

1. Followed immediately by a substantive: = EACH 1a; every.

c825-1430 [see EACH A]. c1330 R. BRUNNE Chron. Wace (Rolls) 413 Now schul we seye of ylke parti.

The Afrikaans word for each is “elke” or occasionally “elk”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 March 2007 06:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4600
Joined  2007-01-03

Go all the way to the bottom, under section 3.

¶Erroneously, that ilk: That family, class, set, or ‘lot’. Also, by further extension, = kind, sort.

The “non-erroneous” senses are those meaning identical or of the same name.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 March 2007 07:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3412
Joined  2007-01-29

Or are citations added without necessarily checking that the definition is still current?

That seems to be the case; I guess it’s easier to toss in a new quote than to go to the trouble of rewriting definitions.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 September 2008 10:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  38
Joined  2008-07-21

I came across this thread in a search for “ilk”, having earlier read a post in an archived thread where “ilk” had been used to mean “type”, “kind”, “ of that kidney”.

I am not quite sure, reading through the earlier posts on this thread, what the general consensus is, but I will nail my coloUrs to the mast and state categorically that “ilk” means “place”, it does not mean “type”, kind” , “of like kidney”,

decades, or even centuries of misuse does not confer rectitude on the misuse of a rather noble Scots word.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 September 2008 11:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3412
Joined  2007-01-29

Are you making some kind of joke I’m not getting?  “Ilk” is a pronoun and adjective, not a noun, and it means (or originally meant) ‘(the) same.’ Nobody has ever, to my knowledge, used it to mean ‘place.’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 September 2008 12:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  38
Joined  2008-07-21

languagehat, you need to get a grip of this knee jerk antagonism you manifest whenever I post.

“ilk “ is a Scots word, I have grown up with it, I didn’t come across it while kibitzing in some womens’ group in Massachusetts , nor while surfing the web in search of definitions.

it is part of my heritage, GEDDIT ?

“ilk “ has been misused for decades to mean “kind “ or “type” it IS a noun, and it means “PLACE”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 September 2008 01:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  807
Joined  2007-06-20

I think the confusion here is that “Guthrie of that ilk”, means “Guthrie of that [place with the] same [name]”, and is easy to misinterpret as “Guthrie of that place [with the same name]”.

[ Edited: 19 September 2008 02:40 AM by Zythophile ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 September 2008 01:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2778
Joined  2007-01-31

“ilk “ has been misused for decades to mean “kind “ or “type” it IS a noun, and it means “PLACE”.

You should notify the editors of the Dictionary of the Scots Language, who are laboring under the misapprehension that it’s an adjective that means “same”.

Doubtless your pugnacious certainty that you are correct is all the evidence it will take to change their minds.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 September 2008 04:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3412
Joined  2007-01-29

Ah, but those lexicographers are a bunch of limp-wristed types who probably spend their time at some womens’ group; murrmac is a proud representative of the Plain People of Ireland, I mean Scotland.  He knows what he knows, by God!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 September 2008 05:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  282
Joined  2007-02-23

DSL (SND) on-line does show “ilk” (n.) = “family, race, quality, sort, kind” (not “place” though). SND says “erroneous” although there are old (e.g., 1790) Scots examples.

MW3 shows this “ilk” (n.) with no disparaging comments.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 September 2008 03:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1153
Joined  2007-02-14
murrmac - 18 September 2008 10:17 AM

decades, or even centuries of misuse does not confer rectitude on the misuse of a rather noble Scots word.

This is definitely the opinion of a nice person.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 September 2008 06:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  362
Joined  2007-03-05

I think zytophile’s explained it best. This thread does beg the question though of how long a word needs to be ‘misused’ before the misuse becomes a standard usage. ‘Nice’ would be a case in point which appears to mean almost anything the speaker wants it to mean - how long before the dictionary writers threw up their hands and said “OK, it means pleasant as well - have it your own way!”

Edit: sorry Bayard this thread’s got so heated I didn’t notice that that was your original question way back when!

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1