3 ms·
This article also explains TFA's confusion about not finding examples of 'lede' earlier. The variant spelling was an old practice, well-known to Safire & the o
by gojomo 9y ago
This article also explains TFA's confusion about not finding examples of 'lede' earlier.
The variant spelling was an old practice, well-known to Safire & the other "old hands of journalism" mentioned (such as Herb Caen), as inside-jargon – but its initial practical value came from its distinction from the 'common spellings' for similar concepts.
But Safire writes about it, in 1990, because just around then it's starting to sneak out into wider usage. Safire concludes his reporting and wordplay-around-the-word with:
But [lede] has earned its place as a variant spelling, soon to overtake the original spelling for the beginning of a news article. That's lexicographic news, but I have learned never to put the story in the lede.
- duggan 9y agoSince this is an article about language usage, can you explain to me what "TFA" means to you? I've seen in pop up increasingly on HN, and as far as I've always known it was a contraction of RTFA (from RTFM) and thus not generally a civil way to refer to an article.
- ghaff 9y agoIt's just an in-group way to refer to "the article" or "the article under discussion." If it bothers you. well, I guess that's your prerogative.
- duggan 9y agoNo need for the snark, I was just curious as to whether the meaning had shifted.
- gojomo 9y agoThough it's not my usual preference, I suppose I chose 'TFA' here because I do have a little bit of disdain for the original article's veneer of having researched/concluded the issue, without finding context like that in the 1990 Safire column. (That is, the article's "safest conclusion", "that 'lede' is a romantic fiction invented by those who were nostalgic for the passing of the linotype era" is wrong. The word/spelling had genuine long use in American newsrooms, but only broke through into writing-for-the-layperson in the late 20th century.)