To the grammer/spelling freaks out there

The point is though that 'firstly' existed when Johnson compiled the dictionary but he chose not to include it. I dont think he would have completely missed it!! The extra 250,000 are likely to have been invented out of neccessity after 1750. Just a guess though.

Anyway thanks for picking holes! I did have a few other points.

Admittedly, Smart (the lexicographer) may not be an absolute authority but doesn't the inclusion of his quote in the OED tell you something? The point I'm making is pendantic and technical (i've already said why i felt the need to make it ) but I don't think it's one that can be disproved, although those of a lenient mindset will believe it can be.

debatable
I think the OP has bigger issues e.g. "grammer"

But does this omission, along with the lexicographer in the OED, not show that there must be something behind the argument?

Some seem sure i haven't got a leg to stand on though..

Grammar.

I'll do it, just send it to me via email and bobs your uncle!!!

Of course not. All it shows is that Johnson was (a) wrong, (b) overwhelmed by the task or (c) opinionated enough not to care about giving correct information (which several of his definitions demonstrate - his definition of oats is infamously anti-Scots, for instance. Or all three, which is most likely.

GRAMMAR!!!!!!!!

You're asserting that his reasoning for omitting 'firstly' was flawed, you don't know this. All i'm saying is that something isn't created out of nothing, and he must've had a reason which, when added to by the other evidence, creates some sort of argument.

EDIT: Oh and i also said some other stuff.

It tells me that the OED is and has been a lot more prescriptive in its approach to the English language than they would perhaps care to admit. But that doesn't make prescriptivism right.

As GB said, not really. A dictionary which was pretty much a one-man effort couldn't possibly have been anywhere near comprehensive. Of course he left out lots of words.

"Legitimate"? What exactly are we talking about here, are the words about to inherit something, so we need to establish which are the legitimate ones and which are the bastards?
I'm sorry, but the notion that there can be such a thing as the "legitimate inception" of a word is ridiculous. There are no hard and fast rules for the formation of new words As It Ought To Be, there are only patterns of ways in which they tend to come about. One is really no more legitimate or incorrect than the other, though.

You're asserting that his reasoning for omitting 'firstly' was flawed, you don't know this. All i'm saying is that something isn't created out of nothing, and he must've had a reason which, when added to by the other evidence, creates some sort of argument.

No, he may have had a valid reason to omit it. He may also have had a completely harebrained reason to omit it. Or he may simply have forgotten to include it. It's not wholly inconceivable that even the mighty Dr Johnson didn't know (or manage to remember) every single word in the English language.

Your logic seems to have gone on holiday, perhaps on a tour of Great Britain to rearch for the long-dead Johnson.

Firstly, I didn't say that at all. I offered three possible reasons Johnson may have made omissions and didn't attribute any one of them to firstly specifically.

Secondly, I gave you three possible reasons, all of which you seem to ignore. He is known to have deliberately omitted some words, and to have put in jokey or opinionated definitions for others. It would be incredible if he weren't wrong to omit some others (as seems likely here). Given the word is known to have been used in the 1500s, he may not have had a deliberate reason for omitting firstly - he may simply have forgotten about it, either because of the enormity of his task or through an oversight.