NovalisNova
Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2014
- Member Type
- Interested in Language
- Native Language
- Italian
- Home Country
- Italy
- Current Location
- Italy
Hello,
By these days I'm managing a study on the literature of the 1700s, particularly I'm reading a work of Samuel Richardson and I've ran into a word, the only one until now, that I can't find in any dictionary. To say the truth I've found it, but the definition doesn't correspond to the context. Rather I think this word is either a mispronunciation of the author, as he demonstrated in some other case (i.e. with the verb 'to show' that he wrote to shew, shewn, shewn that it seems an influence of Dutch language) or some kind of archaism.
The word in question is NEWELTY, I write you the whole sentence: "He believed he kept no particular mistress; for he had heard newelty, that was the man's word, was every thing with him".
Is it possible which this word stands for "novelty"? I even don't know if it is a noun or an adverb.
Thank you very much
By these days I'm managing a study on the literature of the 1700s, particularly I'm reading a work of Samuel Richardson and I've ran into a word, the only one until now, that I can't find in any dictionary. To say the truth I've found it, but the definition doesn't correspond to the context. Rather I think this word is either a mispronunciation of the author, as he demonstrated in some other case (i.e. with the verb 'to show' that he wrote to shew, shewn, shewn that it seems an influence of Dutch language) or some kind of archaism.
The word in question is NEWELTY, I write you the whole sentence: "He believed he kept no particular mistress; for he had heard newelty, that was the man's word, was every thing with him".
Is it possible which this word stands for "novelty"? I even don't know if it is a noun or an adverb.
Thank you very much