Seemed fine until the end, where metaphors have been mistaken for new words. Example: "dumpster fire."
Webster's continues its descent into stupidity.
Webster's 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?
Metaphorically, it's the bubble-skin that separates internal order from external chaos.
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...
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.
And if you don't know what it means, a dictionary can help.
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.
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?
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.
> 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.
If someone is confused about what describing some event as a 'dumpster fire' actually means why can't the dictionary contain the answer?
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.