Hacker News Reader

Comment by madaxe_again | Hacker News Reader

And you'd still be using the wrong one if you use Webster's. The correct (inasmuch as anything can be correct in this world - correct for me!) choice is the compact edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, which is quite possibly the most glorious duology of volumes of infinitesimally minuscule type ever published, from Aa to Zyxst. Many happy childhood evenings of eyestrain and ebullient exclamations of sesquipedalian rhapsody.

It even comes with a magnifying glass.

View on HN

For the uninitiated, the special thing about the Oxford English Dictionary is that it is not really a dictionary in the sense you are probably used to. It has definitions but they are not the focus. The heart of the OED is the etymologies - they are incredibly thorough and they are accompanied by citations (example sentences) that show not just typical usage of the word like modern dictionaries, or a particularly distinguished use like Webster's, but a series of historical examples beginning with (often) the earliest known written use of a word and tracing its evolution to the present day.

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 free alternative for the etymologically inclined is the excellent Online Etymology Dictionary at http://etymonline.com/

I will spend many hours on that site, thanks.

Etymonline has let me down a few times; I use wiktionary as a useful adjunct (though it is pretty hit-and-miss).

Yep, it is super expensive. I wonder why didn't they go route of free personal access and paid organization plans.

As the author of a recent article[0] about the joys of that very edition of that very dictionary, enjoyed at that very time of life, that contained a nasty swipe at Websters, I must say that reading this beautiful encomium to the latter work made me regret my hasty dismissal and want to go back and add a footnote.

[0] http://lee-phillips.org/literallyEgregious/

I hate to point this out, but given the theme of your essay, you might want to fix the phrase "you get it's first known appearance in the language" by removing a certain troublesome apostrophe.

Thank you for noticing that embarrassing typo.

Does anyone know of an electronic version of the complete OED? I know I could subscribe to the website, but I prefer an offline version.

I'd love to be able to add an old version to my Mac dictionary app.

I think it is still available on CD. I am not sure how feasible it would be to import that into Dictionary.app.

If you have the CD-Rom, you can try to use http://njw.name/oed2dict which is a set of scripts that convert the full Oxford English Dictionary v2 (CDROM version 3.0) into the jargon and DICT file formats. (This is based on a comment from "a well-known Swedish sharing platform", where a compressed DICT format of the Oxford English Dictionary could be available)

Agreed. However, my inner philistine says that it is the Official Scrabble Dictionary that is the dictionary of choice. Every word and every spelling listed but with no meanings, explanations, etymology or anything else given.

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.

We always play a scrabble rule where you can challenge someone to give a definition of the word they "claim" is real ... and if the definition is not in the chosen dictionary, then they are not allowed it ... even if it's a real word.

That is the standard way for serious players, and it has to be an official Scrabble dictionary. If it's not real you loser your turn. If it is real the challenger loses his turn. The game is boring without challenges.

Read the comment you're responding to again, carefully.

That's a pretty lame rule if I may say so myself. Kinda of violates the whole spirit of the game. You have to use real words that you know how to spell. Requiring a definition, especially one that matches some chosen dictionary, opens up a lot of weird challenge problems. Definitions are much more fluid than spelling (although spellings can change over time as well). Spelling and whether or not a word is "real" tend to be much more cut and dry.

>Kinda of violates the whole spirit of the game.

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.

Pretty sure they don't check for definition knowledge in competitive play though? Probably because it is so problematic.

Not a big worry. My guess is for unusual words, meaning variance is pretty low because their use (what fixes the meaning) is low too. If you find out the meaning the player attaches to the word doesn't match the dictionary, you can be pretty much certain he is trying to bullshit it (assuming the rule is in effect, it wouldn't be a problem under the usual rules).

I think the rule just adds some more challenge to the game.

> I like using a word beyond my normal inner-dictionary that is the right one, in the right place.

This is often referred to as le mot juste.

On the subject of OED (and of assembling dictionaries):

"A Minor case: OED contributions from a prison cell" http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2013/02/william-minor/

I think it also comes (came?) in a large multi-volume encyclopaedia like set. The small print with magnifying glass version was a cost and space efficient alternative.

I have a '70's (?) printing of the first edition in 12 volumes with about four volumes of supplements. I prefer it because (a) I am getting old and I can read it without a microscope, and (b) it provides much better ammunition if I'm ever confronted with a room full of internet pedants. Each volume is fairly hefty, and two or three would crush the life out of even the most robust twit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com