From aardvark to woke: inside the Oxford English Dictionary
newstatesman.com
newstatesman.com
The rest was really interesting - I wasn’t aware of the history of the OED, and this article gives a decent intro & dive into the process.
Some selections I found interesting—
> By the time the complete first edition was published in 1928, at a length of 16,000 pages, more than 70 years had passed… It was already out of date
> “Our histories, our novels, our poems, our plays – they are all in this one book,” said Stanley Baldwin, the then prime minister, at a dinner to mark the completion of the first edition.
> Having an open mind is essential for the role. “When you’re a lexicographer, if you hear a word that you’ve never heard before, you don’t go, ‘Ew, yuck, what’s that?’ You go, ‘Hmm, that’s interesting, why did they say it like that?’ You want to learn more.
> The OED has never turned a profit: by 1911 the university press had spent £150,000 on it and made less than £60,000 in sales. Today’s revision programme is backed by £34m in funding
But my dictionary is at least 25 years out of date
The 3rd edition is entirely online.
And they publish full books of additions every few years, but it doesn't look ike there have been any for a while. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/oxford-english-dicti...
FYI your single volume is probably the compact OED.
The full OED is a 20 volume monster. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-oxford-english-d...
From the description on Amazon:
Now comes the Compact Edition of OED II, which captures all the wealth of scholarship found in the original edition in just one volume. The Compact is not an abridgement, but a direct photoreduction of the entire 20-volume set, with nine pages of the original on every nine-by-twelve page of the Compact (a magnifying glass comes with it). As in the Second Edition, the Compact combines in one alphabetical sequence the sixteen volumes of the first OED and the four Supplements--plus an extra five thousand new words to bring this monumental dictionary completely up to date.
It was over $400 when I bought it new in the late 90s
https://www.lexico.com/definition/cromulent
But Merriam-Webster fails to agree:
Is this not just playing sides? AFAIK very few TERFs call themselves that, nor do they consider the description accurate.
>Did you intend to be offensive, or was it just the easiest way to describe a certain group of people?
Did you find what they wrote offensive? It isn't clear.
If yes, what aspect of their writing (what particular phrase or word, when considered with/in the appropriate context) was offensive?
If you in particular didn't find what they wrote offensive but believe that others might find it offensive, what aspect of their writing (what particular phrase or word, when considered with/in the appropriate context) do you believe that others would find offensive?
The GP was pointing out that the OP's own use of the word "TERF" is counter-evidence to their original claim, unless OP was indeed meaning to bring offense.
Essentially, it would be like saying "the n-word is obsiously offensive, most n-words don't call themsleves that".
If you truly find the word offensive, you just don't use it to refer to the people it is meant to offend. The fact that OP didn't use another word to refer to this group is evidence that this is one of the best words we have for describing the group that it describes.
except the n-word is considered so offensive, it's offensive in any context, hence why you said "n-word", which is not at all true for "TERF".
> GP was pointing out that..
is this different from "claiming"? because I disagree with this point; burden is on you to demonstrate that this constitutes "counter evidence".
What about black people calling each other that? What about it being used in rap?
In an alternate universe it wouldn't be offensive either, yet this isn't a "gotcha" over my use of "any".
At some point it require of you common sense, unless you are purposefully trolling.
While I can discuss the word "fag" without feeling a need to censor it, I would never use it to refer to gay people explicitly *. TERF is not the same - even for you, it was the term that came easiest to use, because there is no other word that describes feminists opposed to trans rights so easily without writing a whole explanation.
It's not an offensive term, except that many people find their sincere beliefs offensive. It's most similar to "socialist" as used on the right - intended to indicate someone holds offensive beliefs, but not offensive when used about someone who is, in fact, a socialist.
* except perhaps in jokes, with someone who knows me well enough to know I can't mean any offense, but that is a completely different discussion
I disagree, gender critical is also appropriate.
> it was the term that came easiest to use
it was easiest for describing the group to which the term is applied, yes, this proves nothing else about that group eg about people who are not TERFs but to whom the label is applied.
> feminists opposed to trans rights so easily without writing a whole explanation
I don't think the term is self explanatory (what does "exclude" mean) nor that this description is correct (feminists that don't consider trans women as women don't necessarily oppose separate trans rights).
> It's not an offensive term, except that many people find their sincere beliefs offensive
that's not how slurs work.
> It's most similar to "socialist"
except socialists self describe/label, where many TERFs do not.
> It was meant to be a deliberately technically neutral description of an activist grouping. We wanted a way to distinguish TERFs from other RadFems with whom we engaged who were trans*-positive/neutral
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERF (which references https://read.dukeupress.edu/tsq/article-abstract/3/1-2/254/9...)
What specifically is offensive about being called a "Trans-exclusionary radical feminist"? The idea that they are radical feminists? Or the idea that they are seeking to exclude trans women from female discourse (and often forcibly seeking to include trans men)?
Now sure, if I used this term to refer to someone like Donald Trump, I would understand why he would be offended at being called a radical feminist, but the people who are seeking to label this "a slur" are exactly radical feminists like JK Rowling who happen to also hate trans identities.
This reminds me of the billionaire who was claiming "billionaire" has become a slur since people use it with a negative connotation. If you're a billionaire and people happen to not like billionaires, they're not being offensive when they're calling you that.
It doesn't even have the mocking grandiose tone of the "Warrior" in SJW used to describe people who are commenting online...
Note: this is not the same as slurs like the infamous n-word, since those were designed as insults, often referring to a hated/perceived as inferior natural characteristic or a mocking comparison. They were not descriptive terms referring to beliefs of a group that the speaker disagreed with.
Don't see any reason to use euphemistic terms they'd prefer like "pro-women" over the more accurate "trans-exclusionary" or "anti-trans" to refer to their politics, but when a position gets converted into a four letter noun to shout at people it's definitely intended to offend. There are variants of the neutral/positive descriptor "trans" which are unambiguously insults too.
Would you say that Bernie Sanders should feel offended when he is called a socialist by Ron Paul? Ron Paul definitely means it as an insult - to him socialism is abhorrent. But Bernie Sanders is, in fact, a socialist (well, a social democrat would probably be a better description, but it's close enough), and he has no reason to feel offended that he is being called something that Ron Paul finds offensive.
> if a term is pretty much exclusively applied to an outgroup by people who really don't like that outgroup (and the acronym itself is pretty much exclusively pejorative) there's a pretty good case for it being offensive
I can agree with this to some extent, but only if there is a better common word to describe that group, and one that is not self aggrandizing or overly obscure. How would you call TERFs, or what would you say describes, say, JK Rowling's position on trans rights in one word?
I have heard "gender critical" thrown around, but that seems just a way to obscure their beliefs, it's a meaningless combination of words in itself. At face value, it could easily describe some postmodernists who believe the whole notion of gender is a fantasy that should be abolished. It could describe non-binary people.
and calls himself one, making the situation non-comparable. The burden is on you to prove the analogy makes sense.
> only if there is a better common word to describe that group
what is the alternative to "SJW"? In this case "gander critical" is the alternative.
> one that is not self aggrandizing or overly obscure
says who? why do you get to decide the criteria for some out-groups' labels?
> JK Rowling's position on trans rights in one word
"gender critical", disregarding the arbitrary constraint on needing one word.
> it's a meaningless combination of words in itself
so is TERF, given "exclusion" is as vague as "critical.".
> but that seems just a way to obscure their beliefs
It doesn't matter, a term needn't be self describing. Also TERF isn't a clear description, much like "anti-trans" isn't either.
The clarification, it seems, is b/c users of the term want is to reduce the topic to two sides (trans, anti-trans), and make it clear which side TERFs are on. This fight over control of the context, versus "feminists" vs trans-women framing, seems to be the point of these descriptors - each side want the power to "describe" their opponents.
If you're a feminist, but trans-exclusionary, you qualify for the "radical" part.
why? Do feminists already "exclude" cis-men?
"Men can't be feminists" is a hotly debated talking point in the feminist community.
History and relevant link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_verification_in_sports#:....
that is a non-sequitur. the conclusion doesnt follow from the premises.
The problem is that many women (who are not trans) have a Y chromosome. They are either XXY (Klinefelter), or XY (Swyer), XY mosaicism, or any of the other intersex conditions.
Are those people not women? They may have fallopian tubes, a vagina, and a uterus, but also a Y chromosome.
I suppose it's also possible that some people who are trans exclusionary would take offense at being called (radical) feminists...
But calling someone who is anti abortion "pro life" or even "anti choice" is not an insult, even if I find their position misguided and monstrous.
It is if it's said as one. Benign terms can become slurs when used in the right context with a particular tone.
Retarded accurately describes the mental development of certain individuals. Retarded was not always a slur. I'm sure you would agree it is used as one now. Not sure why you think TERF should be some sort of special exception.
On the other hand, TERF doesn't imply any particular disability, just a belief that those it is used to refer typically do hold. If TERF started being used as a generic insult for someone who makes a mistake ("you can't put that there, you TERF"), like "retard" did, then I would agree that it has become a slur - but this is not the case.
Have fun though.
If I believe all billionaires are a policy mistake, am I insulting Elon Musk if I call him a billionaire?
Specifically does not claim to have coined it, no?: "I have retrospectively been credited as the coiner of the acronym “Terf” (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists). I suspect I’m merely the first person who wrote it on a website that still exists."
What I think the difference shows is that there is a fundamental part of the hierarchical/authoritarian mindset that objects to being labeled by someone in the out-group no matter the label, and that objecting to that labeling is itself an in-group marker.
Wikipedia says otherwise, for what it's worth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERF#Coinage_and_usage
At worst, calling someone by a label that doesn't correctly define them, and that you mean pejoratively, may be considered an insult, but not a slur - say, calling Barack Obama a socialist, or calling Tony Blair a tory.
Words that were considered standards for decades are within the last few years no longer acceptable.
The changing definitions (or at least acceptability) of words, have, among other things, resulted in expensive refactors of code and documentation, and at times even bugs.
As a particular examples, consider Whitelist/Blacklist being changed to Denylist/Allowlist, or Master/Slave to Primary/Secondary.
or if "masterclass" and "karate master" will have the same fate.
:eyeroll:
whitelist/blacklist has an unfortunate recent history, but black/white dualism preceeds it by a good margin:
For example, in a database, the master is usually the running copy while the slave is the backup. First, it doesn't match the idea of a master and a slave, normally, the master commands and the slave works, a (human) slave doesn't sit idle and take the role of the master when he is not available. This is a backup, not a slave.
In the context of process execution, the parallel with slavery is more clear. The master process controls the slave processes completely while they do the work. Interestingly, these are often called "workers" even though it is the closest thing we have to slaves in computing.
In the context of a bus, the master can either simply be the #1 device, while the slave is #2, no real hierarchy here. In other cases the master is the controller and decides which device (sometimes called a slave) talks and which one listens. There is a clear hierarchical relationship but it is a bit different from the master/worker relationship of processes.
And now the "master" branch in git, which is actually more like a trunk (SVN term) or default (Mercurial term).
Rethinking the "master" term forces people to think of more precise terms, in most cases, "master" is just lazy.
If that’s the case, should we really be limping it into the current master/slave renaming zeitgeist? If so, then should we not talk of mastery at all, and why? It seems to be a fairly precise and useful term.
I see no reference to “slave” in git, and the most common interpretation I see of git’s “master” is as “master copy”, a useful mental model.
I recognize that the common interpretation is distinct from its etymology, but given the nature of language, it’s probably the more important bit.
"Allow list" is frankly a much more descriptive and easy to understand term than "white list". It's a list of things that are allowed. If you were trying to learn the English language, I'd imagine a self describing term is much easier to understand.
They only make sense if you disregard any costs associated with the change. In addition to logistical costs, it's culturally costly to make many people change, and even more costly that people who fail to adapt are demonized. Generations of text was written to use blacklist/whitelist, and people who read them would naturally be more comfortable with those usage, and you're asking them to bend over.
>If you were trying to learn the English language, I'd imagine a self describing term is much easier to understand.
The controversies of blacklist/whitelist are very America-centric and your argument is exemplary of that. Terms like blacklist/white list have already permeated many languages by this time. People who have seen blacklist/whitelist in their own language would have no problem adapting to the English version of it.
1) "We should consider using Allowlist" "ok, but let's be careful with externally facing APIs, in exactly the same way we change all our externally facing APIs?" "Sure!"
2) "I was editing this file, find/replaced a couple cases of whitelist while I was in there" "LGTM"
3) "Oh, hey, noticed we had nearly finished opportunistically replacing whitelist. Does anyone mind if I just finish up?" "Sure, timebox it?"
Like, it's extremely low cost? What costs are you imagining?
In many languages a lot of computer related terms have no native correspondent, therefore they use the ones borrowed from English. If the English IT community decides en-masse to change those terms, the best result is that these people will have to catch up - with some unknown delay - or that they'll not bother, and there will be a disconnect in the terms. Which one is more likely and what the overall effects will be, I have no idea. But it will be a point of friction.
Only if you're pretending we were all learned English yesterday. "White list" is an older more established term, and that familiarity makes it easier to understand. Self-describing terms don't aid communication if they're replacing old terms that everybody already understood anyway.
An example, "submarine" and "undersea boat". The latter is self-describing, while the former is vague. A submarine.. what? 'Submarine' alone seems to be an adjective that means 'under the ocean'. But what is under the ocean? A submarine cable? A submarine crab? "Undersea boat" is self-describing; what is underwater? A boat.
So is "undersea boat" a better term? It self-describes well enough that English speakers with no knowledge of German should be able to figure out what it means easily. But does that mean it's actually a better term? No, in the context of English it isn't a better term, because everybody already knows what a 'submarine' is so this term's failure to self-describe is irrelevant. Already knowing what a word means is always easier than being able to puzzle out what a word means by seeing that it describes itself.
Most words don't self-describe anyway, and even when they do, the words they self-describe with aren't self-describing themselves. What is a 'list' anyway? That doesn't self-describe. Should we replace it with "ordered-collection-of-things"? None of those words self-describe either! The adoption of this word isn't really about self-description, self-describing words just isn't something we [english speakers] prioritize. It's political activism based on the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis.
"White" here is metaphorical. "Allow" is literal. That makes "allow" the easier-to-understand term for those who are learning. Because, yes, English is something that needs to be learned. Not "everybody" already understands everything, unless your definition of "everybody" discounts a whole lot of humans for some reason.
> "White list" is an older more established term, and that familiarity makes it easier to understand.
Only if you already understand it, which is entirely self-referential.
> self-describing words just isn't something we [english speakers] prioritize
I'm going to assume here you mean the difference between metaphors and literals, because otherwise nothing makes sense. And it depends on the audience. If it's technical docs, I sure hope whoever's writing them takes a suitably informed view as to the comprehension level of their readers, because that's the damn job.
> political activism
"We should not make things easier for non-native speakers who don't already have all the implied context of the English language down pat" sounds a lot like a political position to me.
Nobody is agitating for 'string' to be replaced with 'character sequence'. It would be more descriptive, more literal, easier to understand than 'string' which usually means something completely different and not obviously related to character sequences at all. But nobody submitting passive aggressive drive-by PRs to public repos demanding that the word 'string' be stricken because isn't literal or self describing. Because nobody really cares about words being literal and self describing, that's a transparent post-hoc justification for what is fundamentally political activism.
> Nobody cares about words being literal and self describing
I care about literal and self describing language, and I believe you are falling prey to the fundamental attribution error -- you believe there is a group of folks driving some agenda.
I look at the suggestion no matter where it comes from and say, "oh hey, yeah, I think that is a good suggestion".
It's not some grand conspiracy to "post hoc justify political activism". Someone just suggested a thing and many of us said, "oh yeah, that makes sense and is easy to change."
Do you agree underwater-boat should replace "submarine"?
One could argue that it's an insufficiently specific literal term, and that the word "vessel" should be added afterwards, I suppose. But it doesn't really matter because it's not the same error of form that Allowlist and whitelist have.
Marine can mean the sea, but also things associated with the sea.
Nearly all words are somewhat metaphorical, idiomatic - we just learn what those idioms are.
A significant number of people? Or a small minority that will never gain the traction of "allowlist" advocates?
But then, political activism is about the only reason against replacing "whitelist", which unlike "submarine" is neither a technical term, nor common parlance, with the more explicit "allowlist". It's an obscure, relatively modern coinage as an antonym to the word "blacklist" which for most of its existence referred almost exclusively to people and was considered a judgement on their character. I've had to explain to native English speakers what a "whitelist" is intended to do before, never mind the majority of people using internet services who don't speak English as a first language. I suspect they'd have got "allowlist"...
I suspect that in a world where there actually was an issue with people getting upset by casual use of the word "submarine" we probably wouldn't have that much issue getting our heads around "undersea boat" (and that's despite "submarine" being a more universal word and the English language concept of a "boat" being pretty strongly wedded to the idea of small, probably open-topped vessels which sit on top of the water). Of course blacklist/whitelist has no etymological connection with race, but it also has no etymological connection or near-universally understood association with infosec or user preferences
Me: My opinion is A
You: No, your opinion is B, and you are cowardly and insulting.
Me: Genuinely, my opinion is A
You: You are pretending. No one believes opinion A.
I'm not sure what's so challenging here. Either I'm not aware of my own opinions or your worldview needs to be updated. I'm happy to discuss further if you'd like to understand the curious specimen I am better.
Just, maybe can we do that with fewer insults?
Given there's literally no motivation to lie, Occam's razor would suggest that the belief is genuine.
So what are the motivations to lie in this thread?
you keep referring to upvotes, but hn internet points are pretty meaningless either way - the validation behind them is probably more important.
If you look at the other main conversation here, it is far more literal than methodological about these topics - literally is X thing Y. Sure, you can have that argument, but (a) it's not a conversation this article really invites and (b) even if it were, it's not a topic we're really eqiuped for.
Maybe I'm just pointing out we suffer from a failure to find a more generic news source.
I remember early in the CD-ROM era, I rennet having access to the MS-DOS version of the OED. I have often thought about trying to track down a copy and install on my current system