Or, to give it its full title:

A Table Alphabeticall of Hard Usual English Words (1604)

"Robert Cawdrey's Table Alphabeticall, first printed in 1604, is
generally regarded to be the first fully developed representative of the
monolingual dictionary in English."

<https://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/iemls/work/etexts/caw1604w_removed.htm#reader>

And there I was, under the impression that Samuel Johnson's 1755
dictionary was the first 'full' dictionary. (Can dictionaries ever fill up?)

On 24/09/2022 10:30 p.m., occam wrote:
> Or, to give it its full title:
>
> A Table Alphabeticall of Hard Usual English Words (1604)
>
> "Robert Cawdrey's Table Alphabeticall, first printed in 1604, is
> generally regarded to be the first fully developed representative of the
> monolingual dictionary in English."
>
> <https://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/iemls/work/etexts/caw1604w_removed.htm#reader>
>
>
> And there I was, under the impression that Samuel Johnson's 1755
> dictionary was the first 'full' dictionary. (Can dictionaries ever fill up?)

That's because it was not confined to "hard" words.

On 9/24/2022 6:30 AM, occam wrote:
> Or, to give it its full title:

> A Table Alphabeticall of Hard Usual English Words (1604)

> "Robert Cawdrey's Table Alphabeticall, first printed in 1604, is
> generally regarded to be the first fully developed representative of
> the monolingual dictionary in English."

> <https://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/iemls/work/etexts/caw1604w_removed.htm#reader>

Tl;drmuch.
>
>
I checked for entries on "usual" (or "vsual"), and "hard",
but found no joy. I presume without evidence, therefore, that "hard" in
the full title stands for "hardly".

> And there I was, under the impression that Samuel Johnson's 1755
> dictionary was the first 'full' dictionary. (Can dictionaries ever
> fill up?)

On 24/09/2022 15:13, CDB wrote:
> On 9/24/2022 6:30 AM, occam wrote:
>> Or, to give it its full title:
>
>> A Table Alphabeticall of Hard Usual English Words (1604)
>
>> "Robert Cawdrey's Table Alphabeticall, first printed in 1604, is
>> generally regarded to be the first fully developed representative of
>> the monolingual dictionary in English."
>
>> <https://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/iemls/work/etexts/caw1604w_removed.htm#reader>
>
> Tl;drmuch.
>>
>>
> I checked for entries on "usual" (or "vsual"), and "hard",
> but found no joy.  I presume without evidence, therefore, that "hard" in
> the full title stands for "hardly".
>

Alternatively, Cawdrey did not consider "hard" a hard word. Ditto
"usual". Hence, their omission.

>> And there I was, under the impression that Samuel Johnson's 1755
>> dictionary was the first 'full' dictionary. (Can dictionaries ever
>> fill up?)
>
>

On 9/24/2022 11:21 AM, occam wrote:
> CDB wrote:
>> , occam wrote:

>>> Or, to give it its full title:

>>> A Table Alphabeticall of Hard Usual English Words (1604)

>>> "Robert Cawdrey's Table Alphabeticall, first printed in 1604, is
>>> generally regarded to be the first fully developed representative
>>> of the monolingual dictionary in English."

>>> <https://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/iemls/work/etexts/caw1604w_removed.htm#reader>

>>
>>>
Tl;drmuch.

>> I checked for entries on "usual" (or "vsual"), and "hard", but
>> found no joy. I presume without evidence, therefore, that "hard"
>> in the full title stands for "hardly".

> Alternatively, Cawdrey did not consider "hard" a hard word. Ditto
> "usual". Hence, their omission.

I didn't find their omission puzzling. I mentioned it to explain why I
was forced to speculate about Cawdrey's use of "hard".

>>> And there I was, under the impression that Samuel Johnson's 1755
>>> dictionary was the first 'full' dictionary. (Can dictionaries
>>> ever fill up?)

On 25/09/2022 16:12, CDB wrote:
> On 9/24/2022 11:21 AM, occam wrote:
>> CDB wrote:
>>> , occam wrote:
>
>>>> Or, to give it its full title:
>
>>>> A Table Alphabeticall of Hard Usual English Words (1604)
>
>>>> "Robert Cawdrey's Table Alphabeticall, first printed in 1604, is
>>>> generally regarded to be the first fully developed representative
>>>> of the monolingual dictionary in English."
>
>>>> <https://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/iemls/work/etexts/caw1604w_removed.htm#reader>
>
>>>
>>>>
> Tl;drmuch.
>
>>> I checked for entries on "usual" (or "vsual"), and "hard", but
>>> found no joy.  I presume without evidence, therefore, that "hard"
>>> in the full title stands for "hardly".
>
>> Alternatively, Cawdrey did not consider "hard" a hard word. Ditto
>> "usual". Hence, their omission.
>
> I didn't find their omission puzzling.  I mentioned it to explain why I
> was forced to speculate about Cawdrey's use of "hard".

Would you have preferred 'rare' or 'uncommon' rather than 'hard'? Were I
tackling a tome like an English dictionary - as a first attempt - I also
would be tempted to exclude obviously commonplace words like 'a', 'or',
or 'and'. Later dictionaries surely added these for completeness. No
English speaker would look these words up, except out of idle curiosity.

>
>>>> And there I was, under the impression that Samuel Johnson's 1755
>>>> dictionary was the first 'full' dictionary. (Can dictionaries
>>>> ever fill up?)
>
>

On 9/25/2022 10:43 AM, occam wrote:
> CDB wrote:
>> occam wrote:
>>> CDB wrote:
>>>> occam wrote:

>>>>> Or, to give it its full title:

>>>>> A Table Alphabeticall of Hard Usual English Words (1604)

>>>>> "Robert Cawdrey's Table Alphabeticall, first printed in
>>>>> 1604, is generally regarded to be the first fully developed
>>>>> representative of the monolingual dictionary in English."

>>>>> <https://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/iemls/work/etexts/caw1604w_removed.htm#reader>

>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
Tl;drmuch.

>>>> I checked for entries on "usual" (or "vsual"), and "hard", but
>>>> found no joy. I presume without evidence, therefore, that
>>>> "hard" in the full title stands for "hardly".

>>> Alternatively, Cawdrey did not consider "hard" a hard word. Ditto
>>> "usual". Hence, their omission.

>> I didn't find their omission puzzling. I mentioned it to explain
>> why I was forced to speculate about Cawdrey's use of "hard".

> Would you have preferred 'rare' or 'uncommon' rather than 'hard'?
> Were I tackling a tome like an English dictionary - as a first
> attempt - I also would be tempted to exclude obviously commonplace
> words like 'a', 'or', or 'and'. Later dictionaries surely added
> these for completeness. No English speaker would look these words
> up, except out of idle curiosity.

The phrase that caught my attention was "Hard Usual English Words". I
think you have to take "hard usual" as a phrase: "hard" by itself fits
the theme of the collection, at least in modern English, but that leaves
"usual" to fend for itself; and the point, as I understand it, was to
define words that were not usual. So I speculated that "hard" was used
there, where we would use "hardly", and brought the otherwise
banal thought to the attention of the froup because some others may,
like me, hard usually think of "hardly" as closely connected to "with
difficulty".

>>>>> And there I was, under the impression that Samuel Johnson's
>>>>> 1755 dictionary was the first 'full' dictionary. (Can
>>>>> dictionaries ever fill up?)

And now for some drifting:

I found myself spontaneously singing a new song to my squirrels this
morning. Would you like to hear it? I knew you would. It is based on
all I can remember (ie not much) of a Welsh sheep-counting song that Old
Rawhide used to play:

Come on down, down, down,
Have some nutsies, nutsies, nutsies,
Fill your gutsies, fill your gutsies;
Come on down and have some -
Nosh, nosh, nosh.

And here that is, suitably trimmed:

https://youtu.be/olSNMhy-djA?t=100