Google Dictionary
google.com
google.com
What Google would be extremely good at is creating corpora for all these languages. An example of an excellent Spanish corpus is the following: http://www.corpusdelespanol.org/x.asp
No idea if this specific effort is any good, but Google have done a lot of interesting things with language already.
Dictionaries are still compiled by experienced lexicographers.
* * *
Incidentally, does anyone know of a good online thesaurus, now that thesaurus.com is no longer using decent source material (after being hit with a lawsuit for essentially stealing it). All the ones online seem to use Roget’s II, which is vastly inferior to the original Roget’s.
1. how the word is used,
2. what the consensus is on how the word is used,
3. what the consensus is on how we 'should' use the word,
4. what the consensus of people who are, by consensus, considered "experienced lexicographers", is, on how the word is used,
5. and what the consensus of people who are, by consensus, considered "experienced lexicographers," is, on how the word 'should' be used.
Google is trying the first approach, defining words by trying to learn them itself, like a person who naturally "absorbs" a word by hearing it used in the right context enough. The second is how people usually learn words, by asking others what they mean when they hear them. The third is prescriptivism, but ruled by the majority: words such as "ur" 'should' be valid, and so on, in the majority's opinion. The forth is what dictionaries try to contain, and the fifth is what books of "advice" like Strunk and White contain. All are different, though some overlap (as, e.g., 3 may be influenced by 5.)
I think they should do that, though.
Overall, good news for English learners in the short term, but not so much in the long run (who's going to make dictionaries if you can no longer sell them for money?).
Also, it'd be nice if Google could just read my mind instead of me having to laboriously type in search queries.
- install addon Add to Search Bar
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3682
Then right click in the search page's search field and choose "Add to search bar ..."
Still, those arrow keys are all the way down there and I can type "define:" pretty fast...
2. right-click on the search box, select "add a keyword for this search"
3. for "keyword: " type "def" , for "name: " type "Google Dictionary Search"
Now in your address bar, type "def uniquity"
While you're at it, replace all your search engines with this method and remove your search box. optional: install tiny-menu, move everything from your navigation-toolbar to your top toolbar, hide navigation-bar.
Edit: It only works when I add keywords to the already installed search engines.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pants http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ostensibly
http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en|en&... http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en|en&...
As a plus, Wiktionary lets you download their data :). If Google opens this up, then it could get pretty interesting
Good dictionaries are hard to build. At the same time, the web isn't constrained by space the same way a physical book is, which means that a result should have even more information. You shouldn't accept an online dictionary that gives you only one simple usage of a word.
A good dictionary will list the short & sweet definition, alternative definitions, forms, example usages, pronunciation, history, usages in various situations/jargon, idioms, and word history. This dictionary just points you to a wiki.
Van Dale gives you this: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/381493/van_dale_slim.jpeg
http://www.mijnwoordenboek.nl/
"Slim" isn't a very good example for that dictionary, but check out something with a lot of possible EN-NL translations, usages, and jargon.
http://www.mijnwoordenboek.nl/vertalen.php?src=NL&des=EN...
That site refers you to "Babylon 8", another installable dictionary which just came out with a Mac version. I'm not sure if it returns the same results as the site, but if it does I'd say it's a pretty good competitor for the VDGW (which is truly fantastic, itself).
1. A computer hacker is someone who tries to break into computer systems, especially in order to get secret information.
2. A computer hacker is someone who uses a computer a lot, especially so much that they have no time to do anything else."
http://www.google.com/dictionary?langpair=en%7Cen&q=hack...
I guess we're number two?
"Hacker" has come to primarily mean #1 ... only a small subset of technical people and academics still use it like #2. Similar to the way "Begs the question" has changed in the last few years to mean "directly leads to us asking".
Indeed, definitions are like history. It doesn't always work out the way one might like it to.
panoply /p'ænəpli/ Synonyms: noun: armour, armor
Huh? Since when are "panoply" and "armor" synonyms?
1. a wide-ranging and impressive array or display: the dazzling panoply of the maharaja's procession; the panoply of European history.
2. a complete suit of armor.
3. a protective covering.
4. full ceremonial attire or paraphernalia; special dress and equipment.
1. One who hacks; one who hoes with a hack.
2. That which hacks; an implement for hacking, chopping
wood, or breaking up earth; a chopper, cleaver; a hoe,
mattock.
3a. A person with an enthusiasm for programming or using
computers as an end in itself. colloq. (orig. U.S.).
3b. A person who uses his skill with computers to try to
gain unauthorized access to computer files or
networks. colloq.
1983 Byte May 298/1 ‘Hacker’ seems to have originated at
MIT. The original German/Yiddish expression referred to
someone so inept as to make furniture with an axe, but
somehow the meaning has been twisted so that it now
generally connotes someone obsessed with programming and
computers but possessing a fair degree of skill and
competence.Seems to me this used to be bound to a keyboard shortcut back in the NEXTSTEP OS, though it's possible to add one in the current Mac OS.
Works in Cocoa apps that use native text controls -- Safari, Mail, etc. all work.
It looks like it's generated from statistics plus a language model plus the contents of the web (possibly and/or google books).
If that's the goal it looks like they're doing some great work. If being a dictionary is the goal it looks like there are currently better solutions.
However a) give it a few years and b) if they're able to extract that amount of information from their corpus, just imagine how that could be applied to a search engine - I get the feeling that they're showing their hand a little in their progress on the natural language processing front.
If that's so then I can't wait to see them apply it to search.
For times when my word choice matters greatly I still refer to the Oxford English Dictionary, however. As someone else noted, there's a far cry between Google Dictionary and a hand-compiled one.
This one still needs some work.
Maybe this is just the power of marketing? I imagine usage was fairly low before people started talking about it.
anyway, at least i don't feel bad anymore, thanks :-))
Pronounced wa, but spelled ha.
I bet this will get most online and many offline dictionaries out of business.
This is very good, as it will promote learning the International Phonetic Alphabet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet