Dictionaries are Not the Final Word on the Definitions of Words

[Revoltingest]

Ooof...your friend is English speaking? Because it's one of the most clear languages in terms of words having bastardized backgrounds and fluid meanings.

They've done some amazing gymnastics.
Take "awful".
It once meant to inspire awe.
Now it's used to describe poor hygiene or
haggis left at room temperature too long.

I'll have to check to see if it's in here....
20 words that once meant something very different

"Enormity" is undergoing a change.
It means heinous, but it's coming to mean "bigness".

 

[Willamena]

There seems to be a somewhat popular notion that dictionaries define the "correct" or "proper" use of words. As it happens, that is far from the truth.

Lexicographers -- that is, people who compile dictionaries -- spend their days searching media such as books, magazines, websites, etc, for examples of how words are being used by you, the average person. Then they publish their findings as the definitions of those words -- usually with the most popular definitions coming first.

In other words, lexicographers do not publish -- or even attempt to publish -- the "correct" or "proper" usages of words, but rather the common or notable usages of words. As the language changes, so do the dictionaries. Ultimately, it is how people are using words that determines their dictionary definitions.

By the way, American dictionaries usually use for their pronunciation guides how words are pronounced in Iowa or Nebraska, because those are considered the most "neutral" accents. Just so you know.

The use of the word isn't its definition, it just points to it. Because language is logical, it's usually not hard to grasp definition in the uses of words.

 

[Willamena]

I'm not sure if it still does, but at one time, the Oxford English Dictionary sought to include every unique usage of every word in the English language -- not just the most popular usages.

I think you're thinking of Webster's.

 

[Willamena]

If we are not to use the dictionary, what are we to use? As the English language is always changing I would think a dictionary that gives the most popular uses would be a good thing. That way we use words that most people will understand.

Popularity is not always a good thing. You're to use the dictionary, but as a reference, not as an authority.

 

[74x12]

There seems to be a somewhat popular notion that dictionaries define the "correct" or "proper" use of words. As it happens, that is far from the truth.

Lexicographers -- that is, people who compile dictionaries -- spend their days searching media such as books, magazines, websites, etc, for examples of how words are being used by you, the average person. Then they publish their findings as the definitions of those words -- usually with the most popular definitions coming first.

In other words, lexicographers do not publish -- or even attempt to publish -- the "correct" or "proper" usages of words, but rather the common or notable usages of words. As the language changes, so do the dictionaries. Ultimately, it is how people are using words that determines their dictionary definitions.

By the way, American dictionaries usually use for their pronunciation guides how words are pronounced in Iowa or Nebraska, because those are considered the most "neutral" accents. Just so you know.

Modern English is an impure monstrosity; with antiquated, nonsensical spelling and an illogical Alphabet.

 

[Revoltingest]

Popularity is not always a good thing. You're to use the dictionary, but as a reference, not as an authority.

Who is the authority?

 

[74x12]

Modern English is an impure monstrosity; with antiquated, nonsensical spelling and an illogical Alphabet.

Incidentally, at least scrabble is interesting for some people.

 

[Valjean]

Ooof...your friend is English speaking? Because it's one of the most clear languages in terms of words having bastardized backgrounds and fluid meanings.

Some people are more technical than others

The use of the word isn't its definition, it just points to it. Because language is logical, it's usually not hard to grasp definition in the uses of words.

 

[Valjean]

Popularity is not always a good thing. You're to use the dictionary, but as a reference, not as an authority.

True -- for popular dictionaries. But some disciplines require linguistic precision, if scientists and technicians are going to coordinate their work.

 

[Sunstone]

I think you're thinking of Webster's.

I think you're thinking of Merriam-Webster's Unabridged English Dictionary. My mom had a copy while I was growing up. Second edition. "Webster's" is not a restricted name. At one time there were six to a dozen "Webster" dictionaries floating around, all published by different companies.

Merriam-Webster's Unabridged might also have attempted at one time to include every known usage of a word in its pages. It was certainly big enough. But the Oxford English Dictionary certainly did at one time.

 

[Sunstone]

My own policy is to use dictionary definitions when possible in order to facilitate communication. When not possible, I generally try to make my meaning clear either through context or explicitly by defining my terms in the text. But in a few cases, I merely warn the reader that I am not using a word in any usual sense.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The use of the word isn't its definition, it just points to it. Because language is logical, it's usually not hard to grasp definition in the uses of words.

Logical?
I think you mean contextual...?

Arj Barker did a funny stand up routine on how Australians make up words, and then understand each other. The example he used was 'squidgerididge'. It's pretty funny, but if looked at seriously it's just an example of how much we rely on context to determine meaning.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

My own policy is to use dictionary definitions when possible in order to facilitate communication. When not possible, I try to make my meaning clear either through context or explicitly by defining my terms in the text.

Or by talking like a Nebraskan, surely??

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Who is the authority?

Australia. Because who else could you trust with such an important job, knackers?

 

[Willamena]

Merriam-Webster's Unabridged might also have attempted at one time to include every known usage of a word in its pages. It was certainly big enough.

That was its trademark.

 

[Willamena]

Logical?
I think you mean contextual...?

Arj Barker did a funny stand up routine on how Australians make up words, and then understand each other. The example he used was 'squidgerididge'. It's pretty funny, but if looked at seriously it's just an example of how much we rely on context to determine meaning.

That they understand each other points to a logic.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That they understand each other points to a logic.

No...words don't understand each other at all, and what you are talking about is context, not logic.

 

[Willamena]

Who is the authority?

What. The dictionary.

 

[Willamena]

No...words don't understand each other at all, and what you are talking about is context, not logic.

I thought you were talking about people understanding each other. My bad.

Context is not exempt of logic.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

They've done some amazing gymnastics.
Take "awful".
It once meant to inspire awe.
Now it's used to describe poor hygiene or
haggis left at room temperature too long.

I'll have to check to see if it's in here....
20 words that once meant something very different

"Enormity" is undergoing a change.
It means heinous, but it's coming to mean "bigness".

You sometimes evoke the most vivid descriptions. Love it-- I could not only picture the decaying haggis, but I could almost smell it too.

LOL!

Question: How much different would it actually be, from a fresh one? Asking for a friend...