Retronym confusion

[Danny McG]

I've been reading (wikipedia) about Tony Hancock's half hour and the Blood Donor episode.

It states that the term 'blood donor' is a retronym.

I get the concept (sort of) of a retronym but can't grasp how it applies to blood donor?

 

[Kylara]

Acoustic guitar is another. It is because donor and guitar both mean certain things, which are then changed silghtly/clarified by an additional word. So the donor is a donor of blood and the guitar is specifically an acoustic not electric etc.

 

[The Judge]

I've had a quick look at the Wikipedia entry and my first thought was that it isn't the term "blood donor" itself which is the retronym, but the title of the episode, otherwise I can't see the point of mentioning it (since it's irrelevant to the issue) and especially the use of "though" after telling us the episode is one of the best-known** ie to me it reads as though the original episode title was simply "The Donor" or something of that kind, and they changed it retrospectively. However, if that's the case it's strange there's no reference to an original title in the piece, so I don't know.

It's possible "blood donor" as a term is a retronym if originally a person donating blood was simply a "donor" and the "blood" as a modifier was introduced after organ transplantation came into being -- ie organ donorship is very much later than blood donorship -- whereupon it was necessary to differentiate between blood donors and organ donors, but I've no idea if that's actually the case. We'd need someone with information about medical history and terminology to confirm the situation!


** Having said that, I'm not always convinced the people who make and edit the entries are actually au fait with correct English, so it might simply be an error

 

[Kylara]

I always thought it was something retrospectively respecified. So donor being one thing meant that when blood/organ donation became a thing people needed to be more specific about what type of donor, so the 'organ donor' 'blood donor' reclassification was created retrospectively, hence it being a retronym. Hence why 'acoustic guitar' is a retronym because until electric guitars were invented all guitars were acoustic...

 

[Zoe Mackay]

I think the Hancock wikipedia writer isn't quite using retronym correctly. I think the episodes originally had no titles at all - IIRC there aren't any displayed on screen. So they have been named retrospectively by fans and television historians (leading to some having more than one title).

 

[Danny McG]

Yeah, suppose I should bear in mind that wiki entries are written by whoever deems themselves 'subject matter experts'.
This is similar to IMDB which has a few entries on old UK TV series from yours truly.
Nobody checks what you input for accuracy, just for offensive content.

 

[Zoe Mackay]

I think that a fairly minor (if confusing) grammatical error doesn't really invalidate what's undoubtedly the best, albeit only, encyclopedia entry on "The Blood Donor" in the world.

 

[tinkerdan]

mid-15c., from Anglo-French donour, Old French doneur (Modern French donneur), from Latin donatorem (nominative donator) "giver, donor," agent noun from past participle stem of donare "give as a gift," from donum "gift," from PIE *donum "gift," from root *do- "to give." Of blood, from 1910; of organs or tissues, from 1918.


Applying the term retronym to a title such as this though, in some circles, would mean there is another title in the same show that is similar.

Or looking at movies like
Rocky
Rocky II
Rocky III
and so one.
So I'm not sure what point the wiki-poster was trying to make.
But I am not familiar with Tony Hancock or that broadcast.

 

[Paul Meccano]

Just

I've had a quick look at the Wikipedia entry and my first thought was that it isn't the term "blood donor" itself which is the retronym, but the title of the episode, otherwise I can't see the point of mentioning it (since it's irrelevant to the issue) and especially the use of "though" after telling us the episode is one of the best-known** ie to me it reads as though the original episode title was simply "The Donor" or something of that kind, and they changed it retrospectively. However, if that's the case it's strange there's no reference to an original title in the piece, so I don't know.

It's possible "blood donor" as a term is a retronym if originally a person donating blood was simply a "donor" and the "blood" as a modifier was introduced after organ transplantation came into being -- ie organ donorship is very much later than blood donorship -- whereupon it was necessary to differentiate between blood donors and organ donors, but I've no idea if that's actually the case. We'd need someone with information about medical history and terminology to confirm the situation!


** Having said that, I'm not always convinced the people who make and edit the entries are actually au fait with correct English, so it might simply be an error

Just seen this.

The episode was originally called "The Donor". Hancock was one of my late fathers favourites.
Well spotted, The Judge nails it again.

 

[Vladd67]

For @tinkerdan

Sadly Hancock had been involved in a car accident a day or so before this broadcast, and was having trouble with the script. The solution was cards out of shot he could read, if you look you can see his eyeline is wrong in a lot of shots.