Hacker News Reader

Comment by eli | Hacker News Reader

Though to be fair, actual hardbitten journos use it too. It's the accepted and most popular formulation of the word even if the myth around its origin is bogus.

Earliest reference in my OED is 1951 with "lede" listed then as an alternate spelling of "lead"

View on HN

Yeah. I know long-time journos who use it and it seems to have become pretty widely accepted. But, having been at least somewhat involved in journalism for a long time, I probably had never seen that spelling before 15 years ago or so. I admit I tend to use it today. Here's a piece that William Safire wrote in the Times a long way back:

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/18/magazine/on-language-hed-f...

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.

Since 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.

Though 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.)

It'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.

No need for the snark, I was just curious as to whether the meaning had shifted.

Google Ngram shows high occurence in the 1800s with two peaks around 1815 and 1860, and then heavily declining usage.

Perhaps looking prior to the 1900s would be a more accurate option?

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=lede&case_inse...

EDIT: Never mind I graphed them both -> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16388239

Quick glance at the results prior to 1900 shows that "lede" is not being used in the sense under discussion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com