I Invoke the Holy Dictionary!

[Quintessence]

It is not atypical that various members invoke the dictionary in the course of discussion and debate on our forums. Given the purpose of words is the communicate, it is helpful and important if parties involved in the communication understand how various words are being used. At the same time, when dictionaries are invoked, it is often done inappropriately. That is to say, the intention behind quoting the dictionary definition isn't for that person to clarify what they mean, but to do this:

"Now, pulling out a dictionary might seem like an innocuous act, but frequently it isn’t. Often the motivation behind the turn to the dictionary is not a desire for greater understanding, but a desire for control. Dictionary worshipers do not want to understand how others use words; rather, they want to control how others use words.

...

Dictionary worshipers use the dictionary in the same way Biblical literalists use the Bible: to divide everyone in the world into two categories. For the Biblical literalist, the world is divided into the morally pure and the morally impure — those who adhere to “the Word” and those who don’t. To the dictionary worshiper, the world is divided into the etymologically pure and the etymologically impure."​

You can read Halsted's full article here if you're interested, and while it's written for a Pagan audience, the rest of the article goes into some nuances that are important to the topic at hand. We have all seen cases where conversations on our very forums have invoked the Holy Dictionary as the last word to control the course of a discussion or debate. But do you agree with Halsted's characterization of those who invoke the dictionary as if it were the word of God? Have you been guilty of invoking the Holy Dictionary yourself?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It's an interesting analogy. And, although it's not always an absolutely direct analogy, it often does seem that those who regularly resort to calling out the dictionary do so in an almost religious fashion.

It is an apt observation that people who regularly trudge out specific dictionary definitions in a discussion, usually do so in order to try to control (or limit) the bounds of the discussion to what they deem acceptable - which, always, happens to limit the discussion in a way which supports their argument (usually semantical).

Basically, I find if one finds themself trying to semantically manipulate the debate via dictionary definitions, then they've usually already lost the debate of actual ideas. It's usually nothing more than a childish tactic to distract and redirect the conversation away from a point they cannot meaningfully argue against - usually one in a string of childish and intellectually dishonest tactics.

 

[Sees]

I try not to engage in that unless it really, really seems like a terrible misuse or misunderstanding is at hand. If I can get the meaning based on context and the overall direction then I won't bother about it. So, not a word worshipper in general.

 

[Quintessence]

It is an apt observation that people who regularly trudge out specific dictionary definitions in a discussion, usually do so in order to try to control (or limit) the bounds of the discussion to what they deem acceptable - which, always, happens to limit the discussion in a way which supports their argument (usually semantical).

In fairness to the people who do this, there can be good reasons to limit the bounds of a discussion where it is for the sake of clear communication. "For now, let's grant that this word means this, and let's explore it from that perspective. Next, we can consider it from another." That sort of thing.

Basically, I find if one finds themself trying to semantically manipulate the debate via dictionary definitions, then they've usually already lost the debate of actual ideas. It's usually nothing more than a childish tactic to distract and redirect the conversation away from a point they cannot meaningfully argue against - usually one in a string of childish and intellectually dishonest tactics.

What's interesting is that I've observed that dictionary thumpers often consider deviation from the dictionary to be poor form as well. They will accuse others of "redefining" the word to suit their agenda instead of obeying the "correct" definition of the term. Or they will say that others should use a new or different word instead of the word their subculture uses to describe that particular meaning. All in all, there is at times a lack of listening on both sides.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

In fairness to the people who do this, there can be good reasons to limit the bounds of a discussion where it is for the sake of clear communication. "For now, let's grant that this word means this, and let's explore it from that perspective. Next, we can consider it from another." That sort of thing.

Indeed. Now it would be nice if such a scenario actually occurred more often.

What's interesting is that I've observed that dictionary thumpers often consider deviation from the dictionary to be poor form as well. They will accuse others of "redefining" the word to suit their agenda instead of obeying the "correct" definition of the term. Or they will say that others should use a new or different word instead of the word their subculture uses to describe that particular meaning. All in all, there is at times a lack of listening on both sides.

Absolutely. Childish and manipulative semantical tactics aren't limited to the dictionary-thumping crowd.

 

[Riverwolf]

Yeah, I'm guilty of doing that in the past. It's an easy trap to fall into.

However, if I may suggest, there is at least one instance where breaking out a dictionary would absolutely be appropriate: misuse of another language's vocabulary. I don't mean loan words that organically came into broad usage with slightly (or even very) different meanings from the original; I'm talking about someone (perhaps in the early stages of learning a new language) taking words from another language and applying them to situations without any thought for cultural or contextual accuracy, or whether the word being used would even communicate the idea remotely effectively. The worst case of such a thing would be a foreigner trying to school a native speaker on a word's meaning. (Which I mght have been unintentionally guilty of; I'm not sure.)

 

[RRex]

I don't just invoke the Holy Dictionary. I invoke the Holy OED. There's a difference.

My Holy OED is better than your Holy Dictionary.



Hmm, read the rest of the thread.

In my personal experience, people who are not as well-read and familiar with English resent those of us who are.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Have you been guilty of invoking the Holy Dictionary yourself?

Yep, guilty as charged.

I do sometimes get fed up with people abusing language, and introducing ill-defined jargon. Sometimes it feels like there is a sort of lazy self-indulgence behind it, like "I know what I mean, but I don't see why I should have to explain it clearly or find the right words."

So sue me.

 

[Mackerni]

My irl friends do this; I tend to avoid such things. If I say something with a liberal tongue, they scorch me at the state for such imperfections, invoking the wrath of the Holy Dictionary at their disposal.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Not all of us can recite the holy dictionary
Most of us cant even spell it
Is a lot of word classes in English , sometimes is useful to have dictionary to find a better word.

 

[Revoltingest]

Dictionaries have the potential to be useful when there are different definitions being used, & it results in needless conflict.
We also run across problems when modern dictionaries conflict with historical usage, or vary with locale, eg, libertarian, liberal, conservative.
And some words must be given a context when dictionaries won't resolve anything, eg, conservative, liberal, right (v left), faith.
What matters?
What's best?
At the first sign of needless conflict, clarify one's usage.
If I'm to be the dictionary pedant, then I'll minimize the annoyance I cause by making this known.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I've been guilty of this, sometimes. For me, rational discussion needs to start somewhere, and that somewhere is usually whatever terms are being presented and discussed. Sometimes, someone getting into the discussion will need some framing--sometimes it will be me, sometimes others--of the terms being discussed, and it seems to me the place to start is with the commonly-accepted usages, which can then be further developed as the specific terms used in more limited topical areas by people who specialize in that area. But I've come to realize that invoking the Holy OED or other dictionary is not necessarily productive.

 

[Revoltingest]

But I've come to realize that invoking the Holy OED or other dictionary is not necessarily productive.

That depends upon the meaning of "is".

 

[roger1440]

Did President Clinton lie when he announced to the American people, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”? It depends on how “sexual relations” is defined. The first definition is sexual intercourse. Farther down the line “sexual relations” would include fellatio. Clinton never had sexual intercourse with that woman, but he did receive fellatio from that woman. Depending on how the term “sexual relations” is defined will determine if he lied or not. The term must be defined by the context in which the question is asked. If the question is vague the answer can be just as vague.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Did President Clinton lie when he announced to the American people, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”? It depends on how “sexual relations” is defined. The first definition is sexual intercourse. Farther down the line “sexual relations” would include fellatio. Clinton never had sexual intercourse with that woman, but he did receive fellatio from that woman. Depending on how the term “sexual relations” is defined will determine if he lied or not. The term must be defined by the context in which the question is asked. If the question is vague the answer can be just as vague.

I'm sure they set him up , he upset someone imho and they discredit him rather than JFK .
Really stupid thing to do for a president and not like he and Monica ever got together .
Set up ? Sure I can see pistol pointing through curtain ,lol

 

[Ultimatum]

. Given the purpose of words is the communicate

​

​

Not necessarily.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm sure they set him up , he upset someone imho and they discredit him rather than JFK .
Really stupid thing to do for a president and not like he and Monica ever got together .
Set up ? Sure I can see pistol pointing through curtain ,lol

JFK lived in a different time.
The culture was to protect the president's image.
By the time Clinton entered office, there was less of this.
But more importantly, the internet had arrived, & the major media were no longer the gatekeepers of information doled out to the public.
Clinton's dalliances were known, & were kept quiet by old school media, but Matt Drudge changed everything.
I like the change, because now politicians must worry about their misdeeds being discovered & trumpeted.
It just might keep them slightly honest.

 

[Quintessence]

​

Not necessarily.

With the exception of the small percentage of the time words are used just to make purposeless noise (in which case, why bother with recognizable words rather than make general noises?), yes, they're used to communicate or carry specific meanings.

 

[Ultimatum]

Given the purpose of words is the communicate,

No object. Then you say...

(in which case, why bother with recognizable words rather than make general noises?), yes, they're used to communicate or carry specific meanings.

With object.
Subtle.

 

[Sunstone]

It seems to me that many people don't understand that dictionaries are compilations of common usages for words, rather than arbitrators of what is proper or improper usage. Dictionaries change in response to how people's usages of words changes.

I think it's ordinary and permissible to use a word in a new or offbeat way provided that you either spell out your meaning, or your meaning can be gotten from context. However, I have sometimes been surprised at how many people seem to find it difficult or even impossible to get the meaning of a word from context. It seems to me this often results in arguments that are largely, and needlessly, semantic.