Merriam-Webster Adds 850 new words and definitions | Hacker News Reader

Merriam-Webster Adds 850 new words and definitions

merriam-webster.com

"dumpster fire"

what makes this one worth its own entry? You could make a word for every type of thing that can be on fire: "carrot fire", "chair fire", etc...

EDIT: I take my words back thanks to the replies. Learned that dumpster fire has a non-literal meaning so it's actually worth it. Gee what a dumpster fire this post is :)

Because it's an idiom that has come mean something figuratively, not literally? Like "hot garbage". Plenty of info about the meaning of "dumpster fire" online.

Idioms don't belong in a dictionary though.

Obviously the dictionary disagrees.

Idioms are terms that have meaning distinct from their component parts that are used in a language; their omission from a dictionary would cripple the normal use of a dictionary.

Why not? Since we're talking about definitions of words here, there's nothing in the definition of "dictionary" that precludes idioms. Indeed, having common idioms in a dictionary is useful, because you typically refer to a dictionary when you don't know something, i.e. you also don't know if it's an idiom or not. Better for the dictionary to tell you that it is an idiom (and what it means) than to simply omit it. People typically go to dictionaries to figure out the meaning of something they've just read or heard; whether or not something is an idiom, they still need to know what it means.

As English is my second language, I can say that reliance of English on idioms is enormous and they 100% should be easily lookupable.

Most of the examples given are fairly unsurprising, but I'm unsure how to feel about "embiggen" being in the dictionary.

On the other end of the scale, I'm amazed "demonym" was previously absent.

Keep in mind that a dictionary isn't a manual on what does and does not constite valid English but a reference for how words are used by English speakers and writers.

Whether you think it's good style or not to use embiggen if someone came across a text with the word it is useful to have it's meaning readily available.

Prescription versus Description is a false dichotomy. Certainly, the choice of words to include is prescriptive. Any other interpretation of the debate would be paradox, because, a descriptivist would have to describe it as prescriptive if many users think it's prescriptive. Getting out of that paradox requires reasoning that would be absurd compared to the simple solution that they are in fact being prescriptive whether they want to or not.

> Any other interpretation of the debate would be paradox, because, a descriptivist would have to describe it as prescriptive if many users think it's prescriptive.

Why is this a paradox? Why is prescriptivity a result of the actions of "many users"?

gee, I have a hard time reading that myself now.

Descriptivists would have to describe themselves as prescriptive, if many users think they are being prescriptive. -- Is that better?

The irony is: Many users think the editors are descriptive, because that's what the editors prescribe.

I really don't see a way out of this. Also see the comment I left on the sibling.

That doesn’t make any sense. Descriptivism describes usage, not whether people think it’s prescriptivist or not.

Each dictionary has their own standards for what constitutes enough usage to be considered a word. Otherwise we’d have infinite dictionaries.

Dictionaries look at what many people say, and log those as words eventually. They’re decidedly Descriptivist.

They are prescriptive by extension, e.g. when describing usage from prescriptive speakers.

Language is not inherently descriptive or prescriptive, it is a false dichotomy, because language is acquired by copying, but it is is modified to suit needs, so it is used prescriptive. If language was purely descriptive, where did it first copy from? In a sense, I assume that language faculty is inherently prescribed in a natural way. And in another sense, the words show de-scription is copying (this doesn't work well in english, but in french e.g. it would be quite literall "ecrire de ..."), and pre-scription is what was written before it was copied. It's two sides of the same medal.

If they describe, somebody else will interpret that as prescription, whether that was intended or not.

> Keep in mind that a dictionary isn't a manual on what does and does not constite valid English but a reference for how words are used by English speakers and writers.

A funny thought: dictionaries are to words as the Unicode standard is to characters.

I don’t like that they added “embiggen” but left out “cromulent”, given the shared origin.

Merriam-Webster is ahead of the curve. I just checked Oxford English Dictionary online and don’t see entries for cryptocurrency or blockchain. I do see an entry for Bitcoin on OED, though.

I personally don't like the inclusion of mutli-word phrases such as dark chocolate and dumpster fire. I feel like some of the new words don't yet have solid enough meanings to warrant a dictionary definition.

I may be quite wrong..

If I had to guess at their reasoning, it's because these phrases are greater than the sum of their parts. Dark chocolate isn't just literally dark in appearance, it has a higher percentage of pure cocoa. A dumpster fire isn't literally just a dumpster on fire, it's a situation that's FUBAR.

So having definitions for these phrases has additional utility for readers in a way that having definitions for "red firetruck" or "trashcan fire" does not. Consider that many users of English dictionaries aren't entirely fluent in English, and might be coming from a language where these metaphors are different or non-existent. For instance, the German word for dark chocolate (because German has compound nouns where other languages have phrases) does not call it dark, it calls it bitter.

Where's the list? They mention far less than 850 words.

Can someone explain to me why the “life hack” should be written separately instead with a hyphen as “life-hack”?

One ... guide on the topic:

http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/misc.html#analretentive

Got it, thanks!

Seemed fine until the end, where metaphors have been mistaken for new words. Example: "dumpster fire."

Webster's continues its descent into stupidity.

Why don't you think phrases should have definitions?

If someone is confused about what describing some event as a 'dumpster fire' actually means why can't the dictionary contain the answer?

> Seemed fine until the end, where metaphors have been mistaken for new words. Example: "dumpster fire."

> Webster's continues its descent into stupidity.

I feel as if it a move to stay relevant. Who is actually buying dictionaries? When was the last time you saw a commercial or ad for a dictionary? When these additions we're announced I saw it on multiple news feeds with mostly comments like yours. I heard about it on talk radio on my drive to work. I also had coworkers talking about it. To me this is nothing more than advertising and an attempt to gain some sort of engagement to stay relevant.

>where metaphors have been mistaken for new words.

Dictionaries have included metaphorical definitions for ... at least 60 years? I have a 1958 Webster's that defines "feather in one's cap" and "hard row to hoe" and probably quite a few more.

> continues its descent into stupidity

Nice figurative use of the word descent there.

Would you also object to "train wreck" used metaphorically being catalogued in the dictionary? Are these not useful phrases for a language learner? How about "danger money"? How about "white lie"? "Red line"? Where is your red line when it comes to these things?

Anyway maybe dictionaries don't only enumerate bare words. Who made that rule? Lexicographically why make a distinction between single word nouns and multi-word noun phrases? Also, would you ban phrasal verbs. We're allowed to enumerate "set" but "set down", "set up", "set upon", "set aside", … all these are verboten or are they A-OK?

I agree with your comment, but isn’t it “thin red line”? Or am I thinking of something else?

Thin red line is the numerically weak but functionally strong force required to maintain an empire (British redcoats).

Metaphorically, it's the bubble-skin that separates internal order from external chaos.

Cool. I hadn't known the exact provenance of that. There's also "thin blue line" meaning police force[0] (separating decent folk from criminals and chaos) as opposed to a military force[1] which is a red line.

I would add that red lines are topical with Brexit[2] negotiations in the media, lines beyond which this British government is unwilling to step.

[0] Movie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thin_Blue_Line_(1988_film) and TV show https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thin_Blue_Line_(TV_series)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thin_Red_Line_(1998_film) – one of the best films about war ever in my opinion

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/05/theres...

The problem is, what constitutes a word? Speaking as a native speaker of German: If it's idiomatic, make it a compound word, as with "setup",whereas "set up" is an oxymoron.

Of course compounds are no solution either unless you want to have runonsentence-monstrosities. English speakers recognized that and treat compound nouns as noun phrases. So it depends a lot on the feeling of a word. If it is recognizable as a single entity that cannot be split up into constituent parts, then it's a word. Otherwise it is a phrase. And phrases typically don't belong in a wordbook. Otherwise you there would be really no end to it. Wiktionary has a rule to include everything with at least three notable usage examples; And it has another rule not to include "sum of part" phrases. So a lot of discussion revolves around whether something is sum of parts, which is quite subjective. A dumpster really is just something where something is dumped. I can only guess that "dumpster fire" proliferates because it rhymes with dumb. Hot garbage certainly is sum of parts if garbage is readily understood figuratively. Dumpster fire on the other hand just has too many syllables to be recognized as a single entity. It's really just sum of parts, still though, it's a heap of trash that's set on fire deliberately and quite well contained.

The term philology is quite suitable as analogue to philosophy, because it is not an exact science. So there are experts who have quite a good feeling for language. They need to release new words every now and then to stay relevant. And to keep the words relevant. By their own definition, I guess, those dictionaries are a dumpster fire.

If you think the phrase "dumpster fire" is the sum of its parts, then you don't know what it means.

And if you don't know what it means, a dictionary can help.

I think I pretty clearly showed that I understand what it means. The individual parts, each in a particular sense, dumb-store-burning, explain the sense rather well. If this is not readily obvious to a recipient, then it's misused and no dictionary can help that, if enough misuse occurs. But don't get me wrong, I have a dictionary under my pillow (my phone). On the other hand, obscurity might be intentional, so popularization (by inclusion in a dictionary and making a big fuzz about it in the news no less), will only drive the invention of new obscure terms. Which is probably a delight for every dictionary editor. And I choose to largely ignore it and fuel the topic with flame bait, probably because the term in question is negative in principle, eliciting negative emotions.

You've shown that you misunderstand the term. Your misunderstanding includes nonsense examples like "those dictionaries are a dumpster fire". Nobody else would say that.

The "dumb-store-burning" thing is something you made up and you've already managed to convince yourself it's the real definition.

Folk etymologies are never a good way to define a term, but this one is particularly weird and out of nowhere.

> Nobody else would say that.

calibrate your sarcasm detector, it's broken.

I know what a dumpster fire is in the broadest sense, a shit show, a farce, perhaps a tire fire that is toxic and impossible to extinguish.

The rhyme on dumb I think is certainly effective. Sure, it's my own observation.

> you've already managed to convince yourself it's the real definition

I prefer to speak with authority and leave my guesswork implicit. Mistakes I make then are problematic. I'm not above mistakes, so the assumption that I might be wrong is implicit as well. That's only fair, in fact it seems the only way to speak with conviction if the other site asserts authority in the same way. I call it ''objective'', when I can avoid making ad-hominem arguments -- like you do. Rhetorical question: Are you enjoying that?

That’s not a metaphor. A dumpster fire is an idiom meaning a situation where something is FUBAR. It’s not a literal dumpster fire...

Idioms are extremely common in English, and they’re common in other languages as well. Try talking for a week without any idioms at all and you’ll see what I mean.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com