Using the wrong dictionary
jsomers.net
jsomers.net
A word does not stand still. It can mean one thing in one era and something related but different in another. It can mean one thing in one place and another in a different place where people came to use it differently. It can have a literal meaning, constituting some tangible thing. That meaning can then be applied by analogy or metaphorical usage to some intangible attribute. As it is ported from one time or place to another, it can continue vibrant in its home tongue or it can die and be absorbed by another tongue. Or it can continue in its original tongue, die in its original meaning, and continue vibrant in other meanings. Caesar's ferre or latus (same word, different forms) could mean "to bear" (as in bear a load) or "to bring" in his day and can today have spawned such words as rich and varied as "superlative" (connoting borne or carried above) and "circumference" (connoting "brought around") (see my write-up on this here: http://www.grellas.com/article_word_origins_fero.html). Wycliffe's "knave", or "young boy" as it meant to him in the 14th century, is today a far more sinister character than originally meant. Sinister itself derives from the Latin, meaning left-handed. And so on and so on, almost literally ad infinitum.
So how does the compiler of a language go about capturing what it all means when putting together a dictionary? First, by deciding to be either prescriptive (stating how words ought to be used) or descriptive (stating simply how words are used). Second, by deciding how much to bring in of the historic origin or etymology of a word. Third, by deciding how much to illustrate its usage with examples from existing literature. And, of course, by deciding how to formulate the meaning or the various meanings of the word as used in then-current usage or at times in historic usage (anachronistic words).
As pointed out in this piece, modern dictionaries tend to do this task superficially, by committee. They are serviceable. They are helpful. The are easily accessible. Thus, they have utility. But they rarely go beneath the surface of a word's meaning and, in so limiting themselves, even leave the false impression that words mean only what the flattened, homogenized, "fast-food" version says they mean - that is, something not very interesting. As the author of this piece points out, when a dictionary is so done by committee, it misses much of what is valuable in words.
But there is a reason too for the fast-food character of the modern dictionary and that is that people have limited ability or patience to want to dive into the deeper or subtler meanings of words. That takes hard work and, while a joy to the one coming at it from a specialty angle, is off-putting to many modern readers or even writers. People want something fast and to the point, without too much nuance.
For those who value the joy of words, and who seek to write with some measure of nuance and precision, there is (for English) the old Webster's (as noted by the author), there is Samuel Johnson, and of course there is the OED (a stupendous achievement with huge emphasis on word origins, illustrative usage, and subtle shades of meaning). There are also major (and very thick) Latin and Greek dictionaries that go deeper into many of the words from which the English words were derived. So too are there medieval dictionaries capturing the English of Chaucer and Wycliffe, as well as dictionaries of Old English, which bring out the Germanic origins of many of the words that predated a good number of those we use today. But of course this brings us back to the point that massive complexity this way lies. Word meanings can have a priceless fascination just because their study can take you into many times and many eras and many languages. For those inclined to dive deeply, and to work hard in seeking to excel in expressing themselves, the resources are there for the taking. Just don't expect an easy path.
The author of this piece does a splendid job of suggesting the joy of words as one uses a solid dictionary to help bring them to life. This is an excellent read and one to be highly recommended. The rest (the hard work) is up to you.
... Words strain, Crack and sometimes break, under the burden, Under the tension, slip, slide, perish, Decay with imprecision, will not stay in place, Will not stay still. ...
http://www.ted.com/talks/erin_mckean_redefines_the_dictionar...
A collocation dictionary gives you words that commonly go together with another word. In particular, you find the right verb to go with a given noun, or descriptive adjectives to further chacterize that noun. It's helpful for brainstorming. It also helps a lot (but not only!) if English is not your first language. In my view, a collocations dictionary is more useful than a thesaurus.
The Kenkyusha dictionary includes Japanese translations (unreadable to me), but the collocations are given in English. It's very comprehensive, more so than any other list of collocations I've seen.
It's hard to find as a book, but a digital edition can be found on a well-known Swedish sharing platform.
There is a look-inside feature that includes a few pages that shows what it is about
I recalled David Foster Wallace's effusive praise [1] for Garner's Dictionary of Modern American Usage [2] which seems to have similar characteristics to the Webster, but I doubt there's such a convenient digital integration available for this.
If only the world were perfect! ;)
[1] http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present_tense.html
[2] http://www.amazon.com/Garners-Modern-American-Usage-Garner-e...
It even comes with a magnifying glass.
In my days of being competent at Scrabble there were so many words that our Scrabble playing group knew as legitimate words yet we had no idea at all what they meant. Half of the two letter words were like that and anything else with unusual 'Q, J and Z combinations'.
I like using a word beyond my normal inner-dictionary that is the right one, in the right place. There is a feeling that 'yes! I used that word...!'. Such words could have been heard on Radio 4 and never really made it to the inner-dictionary, yet, one day, the need arises for that word and it fits perfectly. It is so nice when that happens.
I would say the spirit of the game is a competition based on vocabulary. Surely memorising character sequences with no understanding is completely against that ideal?
I agree however, that requiring an exact definition would be a bad way to do it. The point is to understand, not to memorise, so they should only need to give an approximate definition. For casual games, I think agreement of the players is fine, and for competitive play, you can have a judge to decide if their definition is close enough.
I think the rule just adds some more challenge to the game.
This is often referred to as le mot juste.
I'd love to be able to add an old version to my Mac dictionary app.
There's something special about the printed OED but the online version is far easier to use, and also up to date. It is an expensive annual subscription ($250 or so) but you may have free access via your local library.
"A Minor case: OED contributions from a prison cell" http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2013/02/william-minor/
The author may appreciate English learners' dictionaries as a possible source of greater lexicographic stimulation, such as Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English or Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. These are aimed at learners of English at an advanced level and therefore can be quite insightful for natives too.
On the negative side most dictionaries in this space compete for having definitions expressed as simply as possible. But on the positive they outline significant language nuance, enumerating a word's usage in to multiple fine-grained senses. An entry such as 'go' will have 30-40 different senses of the raw word itself, and then as many again in various phrasal verbs and idiomatic usage.
Synonyms and antonyms are a common and significant feature in learners' dictionaries too.
Sure, the examples aren't from Shakespeare either but they are usually modern language, derived from vast language corpora of real world language use.
Edit: I am of course in British English mode; whilst the dictionaries I referred to do accommodate American variants of usage and spelling they are primarily British English titles. There are exclusively American titles such as Longman Advanced American Dictionary and Oxford Advanced American Dictionary which would suit American readers too.
Despite sounding like a salesman I have no interest in either company or publication - just the language!
Here's a passage (joined from two paragraphs) describing the futility of prescribing language or fixing it with a work as diminutive as his dictionary:
When we see men grow old and die at a certain time one after another, from
century to century, we laugh at the elixir that promises to prolong life to a
thousand years; and with equal justice may the lexicographer be derided, who
being able to produce no example of a nation that has preserved their words
and phrases from mutability, shall imagine that his dictionary can embalm his
language, and secure it from corruption and decay, that it is in his power to
change sublunary nature, or clear the world at once from folly, vanity, and
affectation.
With this hope, however, academies have been instituted, to guard the avenues
of their languages, to retain fugitives, and repulse intruders; but their
vigilance and activity have hitherto been vain; sounds are too volatile and
subtile for legal restraints; to enchain syllables, and to lash the wind, are
equally the undertakings of pride, unwilling to measure its desires by its
strength.
The full text of the preface can be found here: http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/preface.html
All things sublunary are subject to change. --Dryden.
All sublunary comforts imitate the changeableness, as well as feel the influence, of the planet they are under. --South.
I like the new dictionary I just added to mac.
I normally use Webster's 1913 from the command line, since I usually have a terminal in front of me. I keep this in my .zshrc:
function dict () {
if [[ $1 == (d|m) ]]; then
curl dict://dict.org/$1:$2 | $PAGER
else
echo 'Unknown command. Use (d)efine or (m)atch.'
fi
}
I like prose which adheres to the "as simple as possible, but no simpler" rule. I'm well aware this is a matter of taste.
1. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
2. This is not to disparage technical writing. It is a craft in itself, but it, intentionally, is not given life.
1. "Diversion of the field, as fowling, hunting, fishing, racing, games, and the like, esp. when money is staked."
Yes, indeed, "a diversion of the field" sounds nice. The words have a pleasant ring to them. But they are, as it happens, completely inapplicable to canoeing.
Perhaps McPhee or Somers or both would consider this mere pedantry, worthy only of technical writing. I dare to suggest that their heroes Webster and Johnson would disagree.
I have to say that the paragraph about the canoeing strikes me as wrongheaded in another respect. "Simply a rite of oneness with certain terrain", writes McPhee. Wait, what? Simply? In what hierarchy of value or complexity or whatever it is that "simply" indicates a lack of does getting efficiently from A to B rank above a "rite of oneness" with the terrain in between?
Furthermore, let's return to Webster's definition of "fustian", which he defines as "a kind of writing in which high-sounding words are used, above the dignity of the thoughts or subject". The subject, in this case, is the fact that people take canoeing trips for reasons other than efficient travel. Fair enough; worth pointing out, in its context; but it's a pretty good example of a subject that doesn't demand "high-sounding words".
(I have to say that I'm not entirely convinced that what determines the appropriateness of high-sounding words is the dignity of the thoughts or subject. In -- for instance -- a religious ritual, a national celebration, or a musical performance, high-sounding words might be appropriate even for rather unexciting thoughts. Make it "the dignity of the thoughts, subject, and occasion" and I'd agree. So maybe there's something about McPhee's piece that makes elevated language appropriate even for its mundane topic. But I would prefer the elevation of the language not to compromise its meaning, which it has in this case.)
Obviously what one prefers when reading is a highly subjective thing, but I can't even fathom the problem you have with "simply a rite of oneness with certain terrain". Having spent a lot of time in wilderness, I can't think of many phrases that more appropriately describe the experience. It can be a near religious experience. shrug
The problem I have with simply a rite of oneness with certain terrain" is precisely with the word "simply". What McPhee wrote suggests that a "rite of oneness with certain terrain" is somehow lesser, simpler, less rich, than getting efficiently from A to B. Whereas, in fact, it's quite the opposite.
In other words: I'm agreeing with you that it can be a near religious experience, and I'm saying that for that very reason McPhee's description seems to me to be tone-deaf. "X has become simply Y", to me, suggests that X used to be something more interesting but has (so to speak) come down in the world.
On the Field and Stream, see my other comment nearby that has the full definition from the dictionary used. If you've ever seen Field and Stream magazine, you know the fields it talks about are not football fields, which is an incredibly narrow definition of the word 'field'.
Looking at the other comment you mention, I suppose perhaps you infer from Webster's inclusion of fishing as a "diversion of the field" that "of the field" for him means something very, very broad like "outdoors". I suppose it's possible that it does; but if so I can only say that whatever it may have meant for Webster, it certainly doesn't mean that for me, and I doubt it could mean it for any reader of McPhee who was actually paying attention to the meaning of his words rather than their sound.
You may well be right about what McPhee is getting at with the word "simply". I don't find myself able to read it that way. Especially if I assume for the sake of argument that Somers's interpretation of what McPhee says about "sport" is right -- i.e., that McPhee wanted something that means more or less the same as "sport" but sounds better. For me, though perhaps not for everyone, sport goes in an entirely different category from quasi-religious experience-distilled-down-to-its-essence.
"Football, cricket, baseball, sprinting, javelin throwing: these are all diversions of the field, for sure."
There's where I got it from. One of the Webster's definitions for field is An open space; an extent; an expanse, and that, for whatever reason, was the connotation I read into the passage (probably because I was thinking of the expanses of the Boundary Waters as I read it).
I wonder if the introduction to the passage is what soured the passage for you. If, instead of hearing about how the author built the passage, with a set of connotation applicable to that, you had started with the passage as written, if that would changed things. It shows the power that a turn of phrase can have, that's for sure.
Personally I adore a poetic turn of phrase. Something about the syllabary, the variance in tone and metre, causes resonances in my brain that bely understanding. Words that can usher in melancholy or elation as a lover tempting their beloved. Make love to your darlings, not war?
"Horses for courses". Generally online I dumb down, narrow my vocabulary, often Americanize. But not all prose is simply about transmission of the informational content of the words themselves.
TL;DR (all darlings dead) I like poetry.
If you're not familiar with McPhee, you're missing out. He's one of the greatest English-language essayists of the 20th century. My favorite is "Coming into the Country" (on Alaska), but the Hacker News set in general may prefer "The Control of Nature".
http://www.amazon.com/The-Curve-Binding-Energy-Alarming/dp/0...
Absolutely fascinating -- it's just about oranges.
It's obvious. Dictionaries these days are used to help literate people learning a new language (of which there are many more than 150 years ago) rather than aspiring playwrights. Comparing a "flash" with "eyes suffused with tears, or flowers wet with dew" is fanciful, not what an immigrant trying to decode an instruction manual needs.
English has a vast vocabulary full of similar words, each having subtle differences and nuances. How is one to decide which word to use in a particular context? For example, check out:
At first. You should switch to X-X dictionary as soon as you can, far before it becomes natural and easy to use X-X dictionary. X-English/English-X dictionaries encourage people to continue "thinking" in their language, while successfully learning a new language would absolutely require embracing new ways of forming phrases, building sentences, etc.
Source: English is my 3rd language, I'm on my 5th now.
If the dictionary had been English–Swedish, I think I would have been more prone to see English as an obstacle, as something that I need to translate to Swedish in order to comprehend the text. Instead, I constantly find myself thinking in English whenever I read or write English, which I never did before.
The first claim is clearly absurd; only a handful of new languages have arisen or been invented in the last 150 years.
The second claim is best described by the wikipedian "citation needed". Whether it's true probably depends on what part of the world you're restricting yourself to. The US? The West? The world?
No, I don't have any citations or anything, but I take it as self-evident that there's more people in North America for whom English is a second or third language than there were 150 years ago.
(Here's a list of all the word notes by author: http://lasersoptional.com/2012/08/21/it-was-wonderful-marvel...)
"So back in ought-whenever-it-was, the general consensus was that print thesauruses were dead, dead, dead, and that nobody would ever buy them again, but, leaving that aside, Oxford being Oxford and having to publish thesauruses much in the same way that birds gotta fly and fish gotta swim, we had to create a new one anyway."
The New Oxford American dictionary, by the way, is not like singularly bad. Google’s dictionary, the modern Merriam-Webster, the dictionary at dictionary.com: they’re all like this. They’re all a chore to read. There’s no play, no delight in the language. The definitions are these desiccated little husks of technocratic meaningese, as if a word were no more than its coordinates in semantic space.
This is the article that's complaining about where all the words live and the editing and writing's no good. (Perhaps this is intentional or tongue in cheek?)
EDIT: “the clamour of pedantry” Could be the motto for the 21st century tech industry.
That sentence thrills me. Superb. The author seems to care more about color than efficiency. I do, too. Maybe you value efficiency over color.
I assume he meant, "The New Oxford American dictionary, by the way, is not, like, singularly bad," which would be intentional, at least. But still, that hoarks up the paragraph.
In 1913, "Potato (?), n.; pl. Potatoes (#). [Sp. patata potato, batata sweet potato, from the native American name (probably batata) in Hayti.] (Bot.) (a) A plant (Solanum tuberosum) of the Nightshade family, and its esculent farinaceous tuber, of which there are numerous varieties used for food...."
In 1828, "POTATO, n. A plant and esculent root of the genus Solanum, a native of America. The root of this plant, which is usually called potatoe, constitutes one of the cheapest and most nourishing species of vegetable food; it is the principal food of the poor in some countries, and has often contributed to prevent famine. It was introduced into the British dominions by Sir Walter Raleigh or other adventurers in the 16th century; but is came slowly into use, and at this day is not much cultivated and used in some countries of Europe. In the British dominions and in the United States, it has proved one of the greatest blessings bestowed on man by the Creator."
...which may go a certain distance towards explaining why the modern default dictionaries are not Webster's.
This message brought to you by the word "esculent", because it's lunch time.
I think the article should be called "Using the Right Dictionary". It is far too good to commingle with the shite genre that is internet bait titles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Writing
So I guess if he makes statements that sound like writing advice he probably means them as writing advice.
(None of which is really a counter to something as absolute as 'ultimate authority', but maybe you could elaborate a little)
That is, King in On Writing seems essentially to be saying "Here's what worked for me. Maybe it will work for you, too," rather than trying to be Moses on the flank of Mount Sinai.
And, for any wordsmith, much of his advice has value! Certainly there's no doubt of that. On the other hand, King is a writer of horror fiction, and I am not. This, at the very least, suggests that not all of his advice will be applicable to my purpose, a consideration which seemed absent from the comment originating this thread.
It's more-or-less obvious that it was a great rule for Stephen King, but it's not clear if it would have helped David Foster Wallace write this:
'How did you know I was interested in Byzantine erotica?'
'You seem persistently to confuse me with someone who merely hangs out a shingle with the word Conversationalist on it, and this operation with a fly-by-night one strung together with chewing gum and twine. You think I have no support staff? Researchers at my beck? You think we don't delve full-bore into the psyches of those for whom we've made appointments to converse? You don't think this fully accredited limited partnership would have an interest in obtaining data on what informs and stimulates our conversees?
'I know only one person who'd ever use full-bore in casual conversation.'
'There is nothing casual about a conversation with a professional conversationalist. We delve. We obtain, and then some. Young sir.'
But I know a lot of people who tried it and were turned off; they seemed to get put by this "showboating".
I need a word that pretty much carries definition-X of word-Y, but cannot be word-Y, because I just used word-Y in the last sentence.
As a writer and editor, I come across this exception a dozen times a day. You aren't looking to spice anything up, you simply need a purely functional synonym.
I'm reasonably with King, and I must say the suggestion that I use a 1913 dictionary to add floweriness to my prose makes me feel slightly queasy because I mostly write news and marketing material and I'm usually striving for clarity.
I prefer the notion that if you write a line, then look at it and think "that's the most beautiful, perfect, artful thing I've ever written," then it's probably overworked and you should cross it out and try again.
Basic English. Improving communication since 1930. Er, that is, Making better exchange from 1930.
* Old Dictionary , Oxford and sometimes Websters
* Roget's Thesaurus
* Online etymology tool
* English Wordnet
* Oxford's Modern English Usage by Fowler ( 2nd or 3rd edition ) - it's a hoot to read.
* Samuel Johnson's Dictionary - if you want a nice bedside chuckle.
There are many ways of slicing and dicing this data set to fit a particular writing style( e.g like Stephens King's no adverb policy,); If the data is ingested in a tree form , searching for word replacements based on Part Of Speech, sound or syllables , mitre is not that hard.
Using these techniques doesn't necessarily make you a better writer but it sure does make it more fun!
What is the literal meaning of "a diversion of the field"? Is "diversion" used in the sense of "that which diverts, and makes mirth; pastime; amusement", and "of the field" in the sense of "pertaining to a large grassy open area where one might kick a ball around"? If so, it seems a bit of a stretch to apply the phrase to an activity that takes place on water. (Though Webster does also give a broader meaning for field: "An unresticted or favorable opportunity for action, operation, or achievement; province; room.")
I applied myself to the perusal of our writers; and
noting whatever might be of use to ascertain or
illustrate any word or phrase, accumulated in time
the materials of a dictionary. --Johnson. [0]
[0] Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1913
[0] http://sourceforge.net/projects/dict/
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_International_Di...
http://sourceforge.net/projects/xdxf/files/dicts-dictd/001/
The file is dictd01_dict-web1913-1.4-pre.tar.gz.
Clearly not everyone do -- great way to bring attention to proper tools for writing.
However, a small aside -- the phrasing: "In fact [the definitions are] so much better that to use another dictionary is to keep yourself forever at arm’s length from the actual language." is somewhat unfortunate. Arm's length is exactly the distance one should be from one's dictionary of choice (be that an actual book, or accessed via a keyboard/screen) ... ;-)
If anyone feels the need for a little balance against the flourish of this text, I can recommend reading an essay or two by George Orwell, for example:
"Politics and the English Language" http://www.gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200151.txt
[0]: http://mycroftproject.com/search-engines.html?name=webster
ARCTIC
Arc"tic, a. Etym: [OE. artik, OF. artique, F. arctique, L. arcticus,
fr. Gr. ursus bear, Skr.
Defn: Pertaining to, or situated under, the northern constellation
called the Bear; northern; frigid; as, the arctic pole, circle,
region, ocean; an arctic expedition, night, temperature.
Note: The arctic circle is a lesser circle, parallel to the equator,
23� 28' from the north pole. This and the antarctic circle are called
the polar circles, and between these and the poles lie the frigid
zones. See Zone.I'm really glad to see someone writing up about how to not just use the dictionary built into your software, but to evaluate and it change it to suit.
Probably the most important, seminal dictionary was from Samuel Johnson. The two-volume Dictionary of the English Language was published in 1755. It was an incomplete catalogue, full of opinion and jokes (see the definition of "oats" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Dictionary_of_the_English_Lan...). But it was a big deal at the time, and very much in the same vein of Diderot's Encyclopedia -- a great philosophical idea born of the Enlightenment, but certainly incomplete and not necessarily easy to distribute.
When Webster started in 1806, Samuel Johnson was the best precedent he had to work off of. So it served as a major influence for his format and approach. Webster's goal, of course, was to provide an adequate account of American English to provide additional national identity to a growing nation.
The Oxford English Dictionary, on the other hand, had an entirely separate goal. They wanted an objective academic reference to fully catalogue the functional meaning, language of origin, and first documented use of each word.
So what happened between 1805 and 1878, when James Murray met with the Oxford University Press to set the groundwork for what would become the OED? Well, over the 19th Century, comparative philology became a big deal academically. This coincided significantly with the increase of nationalist movements in Europe. As vulgar Bibles had established the linguistic boundaries of major mercantile polities between the 14th and 17th Centuries, a combination of historic and scientific research into those languages helped to formulate an intellectual sense of nationality for different states during this time. In other words, the political situation in Europe created a market for a more objective, historical tool for cataloguing language, and not a companion for generating flowery prose. And you can see that as this happened about 70 years after Webster started, the emphasis on science over editorial had amplified over time, as scientific academies and universities increased their influence in their respective nation states.
So to say that something like the OED, which has an amazing history (really, look up The Professor and the Madman), is devoid of soul just because it adequately fulfills its historical, scientific, and political purposes is nothing short of melodramatic. I actually think it's a good thing dictionaries don't editorialize too much.
Each speaker already injects bias into each definition they write simply based on their local dialect and how they individually evaluate word meaning. Why make this bias worse by letting them crack wise when you're just trying to look up a simple word?
"New Oxford American Dictionary is the TLDR of dictionaries. There are others out there if you have extra time to look up a word."