| Parlett also finds space to complain briefly about the term in his history of cards (though I don't recall it in Botticelli and Beyond, so perhaps it's not quite the same as the Oxford book after all), with a suitably contemptuous tone that made me slightly embarrassed to find the term a rather nice one.
No mention there, either, of where the word actually gets used, anyway. Perhaps someone made it up once while talking to him, and he became so appalled by its horror that even now he takes every opportunity to discredit it, no doubt also having a News Alert faithfully set up to call him to arms in the case of any future uses by projecting a giant chess board onto the clouds. Also, tsk, now I want to write that Ludistics book. Holly - Sat Jan 3 05:27:24 |
| Actually, other online sources (trick: search for the plural) seem to point at the Parlett's Oxford book as being the *source* of the word - I've got the Penguin book, so maybe he made it up in the Oxford one and later regretted it. Kevan - Sat Jan 3 23:32:48 |
New comments have been disabled for years, now, as this blog is no longer updated. Sorry.