(Mike Lyle) wrote:

I was wondering if anybody had some dated examples which might
help us find out when the name was first used in print.

The RHUD dates the term to 1880-85, if that's any help.

--
Ray Heindl
(remove the X to reply)

Martin Ambuhl wrote in message . 77.22...
(Mike Lyle) wrote (17 Jun 2003) in
om /
alt.usage.english:

Does anybody know the pedigree of the new, presumably American, name?
What is the oldest printed use we have? It's not in OED1, where
*tamarisk" is cited from 1400.

Mike.

It can't be that old, since COD10 has

salt cedar
· n. N. Amer. a European tamarisk with reddish-brown branches and
feathery grey foliage. [Tamarix gallica.]

NOAD has almost the same entry, adding that the family is Tamaricaceae.

'Tis strange that the baby Oxfords cited above have the American term
"salt cedar," but neither AHD4 nor MW10CD do.

The Britannica agrees that this term names not all 54 species of
tamarix: "The salt cedar, or French tamarisk (T. gallica), is planted on
seacoasts for shelter; it is cultivated in the United States from South
Carolina to California."

No, I can't tell you the history of this term.

Many thanks to Donna, Ben, and Martin: your sources aren't available
to me just now. Would it be too much to ask you to get back with
chapter and verse?

As AUE regulars may know, but sci.bio.botany readers may not, I like
tracing the history of our words; and have a healthy suspicion of what
may seem obvious origins. "Saltcedar", for example, seems a quite
obvious name given the American tendency to use "cedar" rather
promiscuously and the genus's well-known tolerance of saline
conditions; but there are plenty of English words and expressions
which superficially look as "logical", but which turn out on
investigation to have quite different origins. I wanted to be sure.

Even the name *Tamarix gallica* once had an alternative *Tamarix
anglica*, though I think the species hails from SW Europe. And
*Tamarix germanica* is listed by Hillier as *Myricaria germanica*,
first known to have been cultivated in Britain in 1582. The two true
tamarisks most common in British Isles gardens are *pentandra*,
flowering in August, and *tetrandra*, flowering in May, and don't
appear on the face of it to have been cultivated in Br before the 19C.
But *gallica* is naturalized on some English coasts -- though not,
perhaps, as destructively as in some US zones. I think work needs to
be done on the precise ancestry of British specimens; and I'd like to
know when the various species first arrived in the US.

(AUE knows me as a word-hack; but with another hat on I've just done
an estuarine garden in which I wanted to include both the common
species, to give a longer flowering season. Material wasn't available
in the limited time I had, so *tetrandra* it was.)

Mike.

Mike Lyle wrote:

Many thanks to Donna, Ben, and Martin: your sources aren't available
to me just now. Would it be too much to ask you to get back with
chapter and verse?

OED2 entry:

salt cedar, a tamarisk, Tamarix gallica, growing as a
shrub or small tree in warm parts of the United States

1881 Harper's Mag. Apr. 731/1 *Salt cedars and stunted
live-oaks..were the only trees growing from the thin
soil. 1973 Tucson (Arizona) Daily Citizen 22 Aug. 58/3
We wound up tramping..through the mud and salt cedars.

(No mention of one-word "saltcedar", an equally acceptable variant.)

Entity Yusuf B Gursey spoke thus:

"Tamar" is actually a Date Palm, there may be some non-botanical relation.

this seems to be the Eric Partridge, "Origins", who sees a possible
relation to `ar. tamr , tamar (i.e. from some semitic langauge) "date
palm"
I did some research on this Eric Partridge and he seems to be on the same
track as Isaac Mozeson with his Edenic language:
http://www.homestead.com/edenics/ which coincides with my Spectrum language
concept in which Tamarisk is harmonic 4478, a quadriliteral word combining
these 2 harmonics:
http://www.Spectrumology.com/Cogniti..._Ching.html#44
and
http://www.Spectrumology.com/Cogniti..._Ching.html#78

This word makes perfect sense in the context of Spectrumology, and my
research into the word Eshel makes no sense at all, especially since the
ancient word Eshel seems disputed by scholars.

-- Rachel
http://www.Spectrumology.com

Ben Zimmer wrote:

Depending which government site you believe, tamarisk/saltcedar was
first imported to the US in either 1837 or the 1850s:

http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1999/990708.htm
http://www.nps.gov/whsa/tamarisk.htm

And here's yet another government website with different information:

http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/weed_info/saltcedar.html
It is believed that nurserymen on the east coast made the
first introduction of saltcedar to North America in 1823.

corroborated by:
http://www.werc.usgs.gov/hq/pdfs/bozeman1.pdf

More on the 1837 date, and a possible etymology for "tamarisk":

http://google.com/search?q=cache:www...ome/saltcedar/

By way of Europe and New Jersey, saltcedars came to the
Mojave Desert from central Asia, where, according to
Christie Robinson, Tamarix is "one of the oldest and most
dominant plant genera."

From Asia the saltcedar spread to the Middle East and Spain.
According to the Audubon Society, the botanical name Tamarix
recalls the Spanish river Tamaris.

A member of the Desert Crossroads Garden Club in Lucerne
Valley, Robinson is employed as education and public-
relations coordinator for the Mojave Desert Resource
Conservation District.

"Saltcedar was first introduced to North America as an
ornamental," Robinson said. "The earliest records we have,
dated 1837, are from a nursery in New Jersey."

Gnarlodious wrote in message news:a15c19a71e84f7f8d01f8ef8846fc1a1@TeraNews.. .
Entity Yusuf B Gursey spoke thus:

"Tamar" is actually a Date Palm, there may be some non-botanical relation.

this seems to be the Eric Partridge, "Origins", who sees a possible
relation to `ar. tamr , tamar (i.e. from some semitic langauge) "date
palm"
I did some research on this Eric Partridge and he seems to be on the same
track as Isaac Mozeson with his Edenic language:

I doubt very much all these are what E. Partridge has in mind.

http://www.homestead.com/edenics/ which coincides with my Spectrum language
concept in which Tamarisk is harmonic 4478, a quadriliteral word combining
these 2 harmonics:
http://www.Spectrumology.com/Cogniti..._Ching.html#44
and
http://www.Spectrumology.com/Cogniti..._Ching.html#78

This word makes perfect sense in the context of Spectrumology, and my
research into the word Eshel makes no sense at all, especially since the
ancient word Eshel seems disputed by scholars.

cognates are found in the principle semitic languages


-- Rachel
http://www.Spectrumology.com

(Yusuf B Gursey) wrote in message . com...
Gnarlodious wrote in message news:a15c19a71e84f7f8d01f8ef8846fc1a1@TeraNews.. .
Entity Yusuf B Gursey spoke thus:

[The attributions have got hopelessly messed up in this thread: I
think not Yusuf, but Rachel said the following:]

"Tamar" is actually a Date Palm, there may be some non-botanical relation.

Well, there's certainly no obvious botanical relation! In any case,
though my Arabic's very old and weak, I'm not sure *tamr* applies to
the tree so much as to the fruit taken separately. Isn't the tree
called a *nakhl*? (Yusuf will correct me here if need be.)

this seems to be the Eric Partridge, "Origins", who sees a possible
relation to `ar. tamr , tamar (i.e. from some semitic langauge) "date
palm"
I did some research on this Eric Partridge and he seems to be on the same
track as Isaac Mozeson with his Edenic language:

I doubt very much all these are what E. Partridge has in mind.

I'd really treat Mozeson with caution: the "Edenics" website is
clearly not for professional use; and he admits that the notion arose
before people knew much about philology. But the idea has great power
as a poetic conceit, and it's touching to know from the Bible that
people were already thinking that way in the bronze age: that really
does create the sense of a link across the ages.


http://www.homestead.com/edenics/ which coincides with my Spectrum language
concept in which Tamarisk is harmonic 4478, a quadriliteral word combining
these 2 harmonics:
http://www.Spectrumology.com/Cogniti..._Ching.html#44
and
http://www.Spectrumology.com/Cogniti..._Ching.html#78

This word makes perfect sense in the context of Spectrumology, and my
research into the word Eshel makes no sense at all, especially since the
ancient word Eshel seems disputed by scholars.

cognates are found in the principle semitic languages


I was lost by this point!

Mike.

Mike Lyle schreef
As AUE regulars may know, but sci.bio.botany readers may not, I like
tracing the history of our words; and have a healthy suspicion of what
may seem obvious origins. "Saltcedar", for example, seems a quite
obvious name given the American tendency to use "cedar" rather
promiscuously and the genus's well-known tolerance of saline
conditions; but there are plenty of English words and expressions
which superficially look as "logical", but which turn out on
investigation to have quite different origins. I wanted to be sure.

+ + +
Common names are quite tricky. I have only limited faith in dictionaries,
although obviously they are great for a quick approximation.
+ + +

Even the name *Tamarix gallica* once had an alternative *Tamarix
anglica*, though I think the species hails from SW Europe.

+ + +
This is not the right way to put it.
Tamarix anglica is among the synonyms of Tamarix gallica.
The exact relationship between these two names may require some work to dig
out.
+ + +

And
*Tamarix germanica* is listed by Hillier as *Myricaria germanica*,
first known to have been cultivated in Britain in 1582.

+ + +
Apparently the family has four (five) genera of which Myricaria is one
+ + +

The two true
tamarisks most common in British Isles gardens are *pentandra*,
flowering in August,

+ + +
According to the Hillier you refer to (1998 edition) it now is called
T.ramosissima (introduced c 1885)
+ + +

and *tetrandra*, flowering in May, and don't
appear on the face of it to have been cultivated in Br before the 19C.

But *gallica* is naturalized on some English coasts -- though not,
perhaps, as destructively as in some US zones. I think work needs to
be done on the precise ancestry of British specimens; and I'd like to
know when the various species first arrived in the US.

+ + +
Good luck to you. Seems you have your work cut out for you!
+ + +

(AUE knows me as a word-hack; but with another hat on I've just done
an estuarine garden in which I wanted to include both the common
species, to give a longer flowering season. Material wasn't available
in the limited time I had, so *tetrandra* it was.)

Mike.

+ + +
On a practical note I was interested in seeing that the family is now judged
to belong to Caryophyllales, which is quite fitting considering the sort of
habitats it prefers.
PvR

(Mike Lyle) wrote in message . com...
(Yusuf B Gursey) wrote in message . com...
Gnarlodious wrote in message news:a15c19a71e84f7f8d01f8ef8846fc1a1@TeraNews.. .
Entity Yusuf B Gursey spoke thus:

[The attributions have got hopelessly messed up in this thread: I
think not Yusuf, but Rachel said the following:]

"Tamar" is actually a Date Palm, there may be some non-botanical relation.

Well, there's certainly no obvious botanical relation! In any case,
though my Arabic's very old and weak, I'm not sure *tamr* applies to
the tree so much as to the fruit taken separately. Isn't the tree
called a *nakhl*? (Yusuf will correct me here if need be.)

in arabic, yes, naxl or naxi:l for the tree, tamr , tamar . OTOH,
AFAIK some compounds like tamr hindiyy "tamarind".

but in other semitic languages for the whole plant (tree). these would
be mor relevant in this case.


this seems to be the Eric Partridge, "Origins", who sees a possible
relation to `ar. tamr , tamar (i.e. from some semitic langauge) "date
palm"
I did some research on this Eric Partridge and he seems to be on the same
track as Isaac Mozeson with his Edenic language:

I doubt very much all these are what E. Partridge has in mind.

I'd really treat Mozeson with caution: the "Edenics" website is
clearly not for professional use; and he admits that the notion arose
before people knew much about philology. But the idea has great power
as a poetic conceit, and it's touching to know from the Bible that
people were already thinking that way in the bronze age: that really
does create the sense of a link across the ages.


http://www.homestead.com/edenics/ which coincides with my Spectrum language
concept in which Tamarisk is harmonic 4478, a quadriliteral word combining
these 2 harmonics:
http://www.Spectrumology.com/Cogniti..._Ching.html#44
and
http://www.Spectrumology.com/Cogniti..._Ching.html#78

This word makes perfect sense in the context of Spectrumology, and my
research into the word Eshel makes no sense at all, especially since the
ancient word Eshel seems disputed by scholars.

cognates are found in the principle semitic languages


I was lost by this point!


I was lost by the word "disputed." since it has cognates in other
semitic languages, I assume it is not a misreading.

Mike.

"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message . ..
Mike Lyle schreef
As AUE regulars may know, but sci.bio.botany readers may not, I like
tracing the history of our words; and have a healthy suspicion of what
may seem obvious origins. "Saltcedar", for example, seems a quite
obvious name given the American tendency to use "cedar" rather
promiscuously and the genus's well-known tolerance of saline
conditions; but there are plenty of English words and expressions
which superficially look as "logical", but which turn out on
investigation to have quite different origins. I wanted to be sure.

+ + +
Common names are quite tricky. I have only limited faith in dictionaries,
although obviously they are great for a quick approximation.
+ + +

Hell of a lot more reliable than people, though! But what they *can*
tell you is when a name was first published.

Even the name *Tamarix gallica* once had an alternative *Tamarix
anglica*, though I think the species hails from SW Europe.

+ + +
This is not the right way to put it.
Tamarix anglica is among the synonyms of Tamarix gallica.
The exact relationship between these two names may require some work to dig
out.
+ + +
Really? I thought it was plain obsolete, having been based on
horticultural practice alone. But I'm not quite convinced that the
specimens available in commerce are always correctly named, anyhow.

And
*Tamarix germanica* is listed by Hillier as *Myricaria germanica*,
first known to have been cultivated in Britain in 1582.

+ + +
Apparently the family has four (five) genera of which Myricaria is one
+ + +

The two true
tamarisks most common in British Isles gardens are *pentandra*,
flowering in August,

+ + +
According to the Hillier you refer to (1998 edition) it now is called
T.ramosissima (introduced c 1885)
+ + +

Thanks again: my Hillier is from 1974, and lists *ramosissima*
(*odessana*) separately from *pentandra*. It's easy to get left far
astern! The '74 descriptions and regions of origin are close enough to
make it easy to see that they were very likely to be the same sp. The
online RHS Plant Finder kindly displays *ramosissima* automatically if
you enter *pentandra*.

and *tetrandra*, flowering in May, and don't
appear on the face of it to have been cultivated in Br before the 19C.

But *gallica* is naturalized on some English coasts -- though not,
perhaps, as destructively as in some US zones. I think work needs to
be done on the precise ancestry of British specimens; and I'd like to
know when the various species first arrived in the US.

+ + +
Good luck to you. Seems you have your work cut out for you!
+ + +

I'll leave the family tree to some hungry graduate student. I'll stick
to the published literature!

(AUE knows me as a word-hack; but with another hat on I've just done
an estuarine garden in which I wanted to include both the common
species, to give a longer flowering season. Material wasn't available
in the limited time I had, so *tetrandra* it was.)

Mike.

+ + +
On a practical note I was interested in seeing that the family is now judged
to belong to Caryophyllales, which is quite fitting considering the sort of
habitats it prefers.
PvR

Thanks again: that does make sense. Till the next reclassification.

Mike.

(Iris Cohen) wrote in message ...
[...]
If you
stand under a large Tamarisk on a hot dry day, the moist air coming from the
leaves is cooling and refreshing. That is why Abraham planted a Tamarisk tree
in Beersheba.
[...]

Thanks for that, Iris. I hope I'll get a chance to see if it works in England!

Mike.

"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote
Common names are quite tricky. I have only limited faith in
dictionaries, although obviously they are great for a quick approximation.
+ + +

Mike Lyle schreef
Hell of a lot more reliable than people, though! But what they *can*
tell you is when a name was first published.

+ + +
Depends on the dictionary!
Usually a dictionary will have been checked more often than what a person
says. Does not mean it is error free. Usually it will only show when a word
was first included in a dictionary.
+ + +

Mike Lyle schreef
Even the name *Tamarix gallica* once had an alternative *Tamarix
anglica*, though I think the species hails from SW Europe.

"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote
This is not the right way to put it.
Tamarix anglica is among the synonyms of Tamarix gallica.
The exact relationship between these two names may require some work to dig
out. + + +

Mike Lyle schreef
Really? I thought it was plain obsolete, having been based on
horticultural practice alone.
+ + +
That is one of the possibilities. There are others.
+ + +

Mike Lyle schreef
But I'm not quite convinced that the
specimens available in commerce are always correctly named, anyhow.

"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote
On a practical note I was interested in seeing that the family is now
judged to belong to Caryophyllales, which is quite fitting considering the
sort of habitats it prefers.
PvR

Mike Lyle schreef
Thanks again: that does make sense. Till the next reclassification.
Mike.

+ + +
Fortunately there is progress and the good tends to be kept in future
classifications
PvR

Mike Lyle schreef
That isn't the case with English dictionaries, British or American:
they generally quote from other dictionaries only when there is no
earlier use known in literature. For examples see *Oxford English
Dictionary*, the very big one we usually call *OED*; or *New Shorter
Oxford English Dictionary*; or Merriam-Webster online.
[...]

Mike.

+ + +
Nice to see someone with such great faith (in dictionaries). I tend to be
wary. Lots of the trouble with language arises of an indiscriminate use of
the wrong dictionary.
PvR

"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message . ..
"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote
Common names are quite tricky. I have only limited faith in
dictionaries, although obviously they are great for a quick approximation.
+ + +

Mike Lyle schreef
Hell of a lot more reliable than people, though! But what they *can*
tell you is when a name was first published.

+ + +
Depends on the dictionary!
Usually a dictionary will have been checked more often than what a person
says. Does not mean it is error free. Usually it will only show when a word
was first included in a dictionary.
+ + +
That isn't the case with English dictionaries, British or American:
they generally quote from other dictionaries only when there is no
earlier use known in literature. For examples see *Oxford English
Dictionary*, the very big one we usually call *OED*; or *New Shorter
Oxford English Dictionary*; or Merriam-Webster online.
[...]

Mike.

"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message . ..
Mike Lyle schreef
That isn't the case with English dictionaries, British or American:
they generally quote from other dictionaries only when there is no
earlier use known in literature. For examples see *Oxford English
Dictionary*, the very big one we usually call *OED*; or *New Shorter
Oxford English Dictionary*; or Merriam-Webster online.
[...]

Mike.

+ + +
Nice to see someone with such great faith (in dictionaries). I tend to be
wary. Lots of the trouble with language arises of an indiscriminate use of
the wrong dictionary.
PvR

I don't think what I said was matter of faith, surely? The
dictionaries have a better chance than I do of identifying the first
published use of a word, given that thousands of people like us are
constantly sending in verifiable dated references: this isn't
guesswork. When they quote examples from other dictionaries, they say
so.

Or do you mean they're not 100% reliable about the *meanings* of
words? Of course you have to use your judgement, as with any reference
book. No argument there.

Mike.