I Invoke the Holy Dictionary!

[Sunstone]

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.

My readings in theology and politics often left me with the impression that words can quite easily be used to avoid carrying specific meanings. But then, theology and politics are not representative of the vast majority of usage.

 

[Augustus]

Now, pulling out a dictionary might seem like an innocuous act, but frequently it isn’t.

Damn right it's not innocuous, today I noticed that the word 'amazeballs' was in my dictionary and this made me sad about the future of humanity

 

[Quintessence]

My readings in theology and politics often left me with the impression that words can quite easily be used to avoid carrying specific meanings. But then, theology and politics are not representative of the vast majority of usage.

It is true that some use language to obfuscate...

... never been a fan of that sort of thing. Probably for the same reasons I've never been a fan of abstract art.

 

[Revoltingest]

Damn right it's not innocuous, today I noticed that the word 'amazeballs' was in my dictionary and this made me sad about the future of humanity

We must be prepared for language to change.
It has always been this way, & resistance is futile.
Besides, "amazeballs" is now a perfectly cromulent word.

 

[Sunstone]

It is true that some use language to obfuscate...

... never been a fan of that sort of thing. Probably for the same reasons I've never been a fan of abstract art.

It took me a while to "get" abstract art, but I doubt I'll ever "get" obfuscation.

 

[Augustus]

We must be prepared for language to change.
It has always been this way, & resistance is futile.
Besides, "amazeballs" is now a perfectly cromulent word.

It's not change that's the problem, it's lack of aesthetic values. We had much better slang words such as 'skill' when I was a youth.

As in: "Haha. That person who said amazeballs just got mauled by a bear. Skill."

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not change that's the problem, it's lack of aesthetic values. We had much better slang words such as 'skill' when I was a youth.
As in: "Haha. That person who said amazeballs just got mauled by a bear. Skill."

"Skill"....used that way?
Abomination!

 

[Ouroboros]

"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."​

In other words... they're being dogmatic!

Interesting article by the way... good find.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Have you been guilty of invoking the Holy Dictionary yourself?

You mean the OED?
Actually, this is one sin I am not guilty of, insofar as I have repeatedly stated here and elsewhere that dictionaries don't define words, usage does (and that dictionaries guides to usage, not definitions from On High). It's nice to see this point made by another and (moreover) backed by an excellent link!

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Dictionaries aren't authorities on language.

WTF?

Of course dictionaries themselves aren't authorities on language, they are after all books written by people; but the reputable dictionaries are written by people who ARE authorities on language, including structure, usage, meaning, etc. What they do is look to the use of language--ones like OED and MW look at how words are used in the language in general, and identifies the most commonly used senses. Different versions of a given dictionary are more comprehensive than others (abridged or unabridged, for example--the unabridged OED is huge; the MW Collegiate edition is by comparison shorter and incomplete, lacking many of the less common usages and not making sufficient distinction. Online dictionaries, such a dictionary.com, are so basic as to be almost useless except as an quick reference), and the quality varies depending on the organization that has undertaken to make the dictionary. Other dictionaries are dedicated to the use of language in more specific areas, geographically or topically or professionally, for the most part.

One of the biggest drawbacks of dictionaries is that language (especially English) is huge, complex (it isn't just one language after all, it's parts of seven or eight other languages forced together at gunpoint), and is constantly developing new words and bringing new words in from other languages) and always changing in other ways, such a grammar, style and pronunciation, but it takes experts years to identify and develop adequate examples of usage to put into the dictionary because by comparison to the task, there are very few experts devoted to keeping dictionaries current.

Inevitably, there are going to be usages listed in the dictionaries that are not correct to one person or group's usage, and others will assume that the dictionary is the final authority. That's not the dictionary's fault, nor the authors' fault: it's the user's fault. And maybe the education system's fault for holding up dictionaries and encyclopedias and the like as being Authorities From On High.

That dates back to the first dictionaries and rules of the "Proper" use of the English language, which were developed in the early 1600s so that 1) the growing British Empire could be more effectively administered, and 2) everyone would be able to tell who was EDUCATED (and therefore of the upper and middle classes--and you could tell which because the education and socialization was different for those two groups) and who was not, who was of the working class...or foreign, from the colonies, and so on.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Indeed. That's what I was saying.

Oh...well, then...I was restating the obvious...