Some metadata incorporated into Google Books is poor. ("Are poor?" "Metadata" is probably a plural.) In a lot of catalogues, if the librarians didn't insert a date for some reason, it defaulted to 1900.
Beyond this, no doubt there is more to be learned by the diligent googler. But is it research or is it time-wasting?
As for "uke," all the 18th-century uses I skimmed really were OCR errors for such words as "duke" and "take," possibly due to a lower standard of reproducibility in typesetting. Wobbly letters. Differential paper shrinkage. Imperfect application of inks. Take a look yourself.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-12-17 10:43 pm (UTC)A widely-quoted blog entry by curmdgeon Geoffrey Nunberg about this type of problem.
A more concise magazine article by Nunberg.
Progress on the problem.
Beyond this, no doubt there is more to be learned by the diligent googler. But is it research or is it time-wasting?
As for "uke," all the 18th-century uses I skimmed really were OCR errors for such words as "duke" and "take," possibly due to a lower standard of reproducibility in typesetting. Wobbly letters. Differential paper shrinkage. Imperfect application of inks. Take a look yourself.