11/12/25
Well, I'm just compulsive enough to write another entry responding to this; but actually, it's instructive. I have to start by saying I don't know for sure the intentions or the state of mind of the person who wrote to me, today. But that being said, I have seen skeptics fasten upon some little mistake--not just mine, but in many different fields--and use that as an excuse to dismiss the entire presentation, or theory. It's not rational, though it seems to be on the surface.

Because the truly rational thing is to get out of black-and-white thinking, and to think in shades of grey; and, to consider the whole. I'll give this most recent case as an example. But the principle applies to a whole bunch of cases.

In my recently-uploaded video introduction to my new book (announced in my first entry, today), I explain that Charles Dickens was copying material from a manuscript he had not thoroughly read. It was a copy of Mathew and Abby's original. He had, as I have concluded, re-written parts of it, but he had not read it word-for-word. Now, he is copying very rapidly into a second draft, editing on-the-fly. He is describing the restaurant where Ebenezer Scrooge takes his dinners before going home. The word is "tavern" in the published book, but in the manuscript, tavern is written above the line, over something which has been scribbled out.

With graphics enhancement, I can discern the two letters, "or," and then Dickens stopped copying.

Now, two different AI systems told me that the only word which would fit in context is an "ordinary," and that that was an American term in 1843. I didn't pursue it as far as I should have. I did determine that Dickens never used it from 1836 up through 1843 (when the "Carol" was published) except in "Martin Chuzzlewit," where it describes an American eating place.

Now, this helpful(?) fellow writes with a screen capture of Merriam-Webster's dictionary, which says:

Ordinary: chiefly British: a tavern or eating house serving regular meals.

But this is painted with too broad a brush. It turns out that the term "ordinary," with this meaning, goes back centuries in England. It then "skipped the pond" and became a common American term. But by 1843 it was already out of favor in England. The Oxford English Dictionary cites the latest usage as 1821; but American instances go on to 1899. There is even an 1866 example written by Mathew Franklin Whittier's brother, the poet John Greenleaf Whittier.

The upshot is that it was originally British; but by 1843 it was primarily American, and the Brits had largely stopped using it. Or so it seems, to me, and this is also what ChatGPT-5 was explaining to me.

I wrote this to the correspondent, but he hasn't written back. Presumably he just wanted to catch me out at something, to prove that I'm full of shit, altogether. Maybe not--but if he really wanted to get at the truth of the thing, you'd think he'd write back and say, "Oh, that's interesting, Merriam-Webster's definition is so broad as to be misleading."

There's another takeaway from this. Authorities--especially, generalists like those who create dictionaries--can't get everything right. They can't go into as much depth as someone like myself, who is focusing in on one word. I'm sure they try, but things slip through the cracks. So whether or not this word "ordinary" is "chiefly British" depends very much on what era one is talking about. This wasn't the only word I questioned, where it was becoming archaic in 1843 England, and having migrated to America, was still going strong, there. And there's another factor, especially when it comes to high-toned language like "to ken (understand) a subject." Mathew was raised Quaker, and the Quakers held onto formal expressions longer than the general culture did.

So there were a lot of nuances. One cannot simply find a seeming discrepancy and "catch me out," as though proving I am a poor scholar. It's rarely that simple--and I have done my homework.

Nonetheless, this was a mistake by emphasis. I had to revise my book, cancel the orders I'd made for 23 physical copies, and I'm going to re-record the entire video presentation with a new 4K webcam I received in, today.

I have a better example, anyway. I was going to reserve it for those who read the book; but if I do that, people won't ever see it because they won't buy it. I think I'll just lead right out with it. If I'm right, this one blows the case wide open. All I would need for proof is this one discovery. So if you have watched my video, you might want to revisit it in a few days, when I post the reshoot.

Sincerely,

Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.