SC - bourreys

[TG]

<< I would not be in the least surprised that Austin is wrong and they
are right, in this instance >>

Any reasons for that?

<< ... the fact that the OED's God-Given Soveriegn Rectitude is largely
based on the fact that it is written by a bunch of guys with degrees
examining old manuscripts .. >>

There is no such kind of rectitude and there is no fact that such a
rectitude is largely based on degrees. The OED is a good _tool_ to work
with for older English texts, even if there are errors; a good tool, not
more, but not less ("nicht mehr, aber auch nicht weniger").

<< ...  _except_ for the fact that the OED team probably found
more references to neres referring to kidneys than Austin did to ears
...>>

I did not say the OED team found more references to _neres_ referring to
kidneys than Austin did do ears, I said that the OED team found many
kidney-references but the OED team found only one ear-reference! --
Frequency of attestation is (often) connected with _currency_ of a word;
and the aspect of currency might affect our view of the passage in
question.

<< My concern with the OED is largely inspired by one particular
situation, in which they assert that "pomys", ... >>

You mean, dictionaries should be without errors? Good idea! I second
that (won't help, anyway). -- Alas, the fact that the OED might have
been wrong on a quotation of "pomys" has nothing to do with the fact
that obviously there was a current usage _nere_ 'kidney'. -- OUR
question at hand is, whether or not this current usage applies to our
recipe or if the rather rare usage in the sense 'ear' applies.

Again: if there are reasons or aspects for this or that interpretation,
I would love to hear them.

Thomas