Terms that require a dictionary referral to verify we used them correctly

[Balthazzar]

I'm really good at using terms I think I know, then second guessing their implementation after posting.

The last two requiring this effort were:

1. Imbued
2. Recompence

I'm certain there will be more as I go. Then there are the standards people use in the discussions here that require like attention.

I needed to look up what a "False dichotomy" is.

How about you? Do you ever have a need to refer to a dictionary to verify correct usage?

 

[Eddi]

Do you ever have a need to refer to a dictionary to verify correct usage?

I have in the past, to check I was using it correctly, that it means what I think it means

I have always been right in my useage

 

[Kathryn]

I'm really good at using terms I think I know, then second guessing their implementation after posting.

The last two requiring this effort were:

1. Imbued
2. Recompence

I'm certain there will be more as I go. Then there are the standards people use in the discussions here that require like attention.

I needed to look up what a "False dichotomy" is.

How about you? Do you ever have a need to refer to a dictionary to verify correct usage?

I do, for math terms.

 

[Balthazzar]

I have in the past, to check I was using it correctly, that it means what I think it means

I have always been right in my useage

I haven't, which is very likely why I make the effort now. If you've ever been grilled and resist stating an understanding of something being discussed as understood by you, when it wasn't, you will understand the why I now make practice of it. People who play nice are the worse. I've been required, after an acknowledgment of a wrong (sometimes years later), and in reference to a discussion where I was made to think I was top dog, just to find out I was the *** in the discussion. I'm sure it still happens from time to time, and I can't help but think of "A Midnight summers Dream." The one with Michelle Phifer in it, not necessarily the literary equivalent.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I always have a good dictionary handy, but after years and years of using it, along with solving (and creating) cryptic crossword puzzles, I rarely have to refer to it any more. Last one was (I think) adumbrate, as in "Feeble is human speech to deal with such high matters, serving, at the best, but dimly to adumbrate ineffable truths."

 

[Balthazzar]

I always have a good dictionary handy, but after years and years of using it, along with solving (and creating) cryptic crossword puzzles, I rarely have to refer to it any more. Last one was (I think) adumbrate, as in "Feeble is human speech to deal with such high matters, serving, at the best, but dimly to adumbrate ineffable truths."

Do you prefer concise or extensive? I still prefer a concise dictionary over a more extensive one. There are typically far less fumbles when we speak a more common language.

"Adumbrate"

to dim or dumb down or make something less than the true value it is imbued with?

 

[Heyo]

I'm really good at using terms I think I know, then second guessing their implementation after posting.

The last two requiring this effort were:

1. Imbued
2. Recompence

I'm certain there will be more as I go. Then there are the standards people use in the discussions here that require like attention.

I needed to look up what a "False dichotomy" is.

How about you? Do you ever have a need to refer to a dictionary to verify correct usage?

I do, though I more frequently need to look up a word for spelling.
And frequently my preferred dictionary, dict.leo.org, fails me and I have to use Urban Dictionary or DuckDuckGo to find what I'm looking for.
The last word I had to look up was "arrant". I learn new vocabulary about weekly.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Do you prefer concise or extensive? I still prefer a concise dictionary over a more extensive one. There are typically far less fumbles when we speak a more common language.

"Adumbrate"

to dim or dumb down or make something less than the true value it is imbued with?

Prefer extensive, myself. I very much enjoy being able to use a word in it's 6th or beyond definition. It's fun to try to use words with many definitions in as many ways as possible, and some words have a LOT of definitions:

Run - 396 (definitions)
Go - 368
Take - 343
Stand - 334
Get - 289
Turn - 288
Put - 268
Fall - 264
Strike - 250

You didn't quite get adumbrate right. Try these definitions in the example I provided, and see if it makes more sense:

- report or represent in outline. ("This is an auteur who works from deep within herself to establish a mood, adumbrate a design, build a tempo, and intimate an idea.")
- indicate faintly. ("The show ends with small paintings that adumbrate a return to Wong's original promise: dramatic black-and-white still-lifes of succulents and cacti from his mother's garden, made at her house the year before he died.")
- foreshadow or symbolize. ("A type is a symbol appointed by God to adumbrate something higher in the future, which is called the antitype.")

 

[Quintessence]

Fun fact - looking up "Paganism" for a college assignment because I didn't understand what the writer meant by it in the context of what I was reading is what sparked the fire that set me on my current lifeway. That rabbit holed into learning about contemporary Paganism.

That aside, I don't really look at dictionaries for "correct" usages of words because I understand that's not what dictionaries are, precisely. Words mean what humans decide they mean and dictionaries collect commonplace usages of words. Whether a particular usage is correct or not depends a lot on context. Specialist dictionaries exist that articulate less commonplace usages, for example - I have a botanical dictionary for example and the definitions in there would be "incorrect" for day-to-day conversation but absolutely correct when you're talking shop with botanists.

 

[Balthazzar]

Prefer extensive, myself. I very much enjoy being able to use a word in it's 6th or beyond definition. It's fun to try to use words with many definitions in as many ways as possible, and some words have a LOT of definitions:

Run - 396 (definitions)
Go - 368
Take - 343
Stand - 334
Get - 289
Turn - 288
Put - 268
Fall - 264
Strike - 250

You didn't quite get adumbrate right. Try these definitions in the example I provided, and see if it makes more sense:

- report or represent in outline. ("This is an auteur who works from deep within herself to establish a mood, adumbrate a design, build a tempo, and intimate an idea.")
- indicate faintly. ("The show ends with small paintings that adumbrate a return to Wong's original promise: dramatic black-and-white still-lifes of succulents and cacti from his mother's garden, made at her house the year before he died.")
- foreshadow or symbolize. ("A type is a symbol appointed by God to adumbrate something higher in the future, which is called the antitype.")

I will be required to better understand the definition. At face value, your previous post and usage seemed to imply something very different than it's true meaning.

The usage itself, and in other words, implies what exactly ...as intended? This is why I prefer a concise dictionary over the more extensive ones. The terms and usage of terms are far more common and more easily understood by our majorities. It would be nice to carry on a conversation with those more skilled in the language arts, though.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I'm not too bad as to word meanings, probably from having done a lot of non-fiction reading earlier on, but I do look up the occasional word to check and have dictionaries plus a thesaurus at home. I also have shortcuts on my computer as to these and an Urban meanings one - given these seem to come thick and fast over time. But I can be caught out just like others.

 

[PureX]

Since when is the dictionary the last word on reasonable term usage?

Are homosexuals "gay"?
Are shoes "trainers"?
Are penises named "Dick"?

The dictionary tells us of the many wrong and stupid ways we humans tend to misuse words.

 

[GoodAttention]

Prefer extensive, myself. I very much enjoy being able to use a word in it's 6th or beyond definition. It's fun to try to use words with many definitions in as many ways as possible, and some words have a LOT of definitions:

Run - 396 (definitions)
Go - 368
Take - 343
Stand - 334
Get - 289
Turn - 288
Put - 268
Fall - 264
Strike - 250

You didn't quite get adumbrate right. Try these definitions in the example I provided, and see if it makes more sense:

- report or represent in outline. ("This is an auteur who works from deep within herself to establish a mood, adumbrate a design, build a tempo, and intimate an idea.")
- indicate faintly. ("The show ends with small paintings that adumbrate a return to Wong's original promise: dramatic black-and-white still-lifes of succulents and cacti from his mother's garden, made at her house the year before he died.")
- foreshadow or symbolize. ("A type is a symbol appointed by God to adumbrate something higher in the future, which is called the antitype.")

The problem with English is that it stems primarily from Vulgar Latin, which is the conversational form.

Many of the words that are heard in conversation or colloquially in Latin are then considered “Prima”. English language attempts to add further meaning to words heard by combining these words.

Ad is Latin meaning “to” and umbra means “shadow”. Its word design seems to minimise what is casting or creating a shadow for the sake of what follows.

It is also both past tense and present, which is to “acknowledge the shadow before that which cast it”.

FYI umbi in Tamil means “the younger brother that follows you”. When this is a person (real brother) the word is thumbi.

 

[Revoltingest]

The pages in my link to dictionary.com are quite dog eared from over-use.

 

[Secret Chief]

My speling is excellent.

 

[Balthazzar]

I should be embarrassed, but I'm not.

I had to look up the term "horticulture" a few minutes ago to verify I was using it correctly.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Eponymous" is confusing.

 

[Balthazzar]

I looked up the term bilateral the other day to couple it with the term unified to convey an intent and effort. It made sense to me but seems a little contradictory in nature or maybe it doesn't. I was under that impression from other posters who had me questioning its usage. The bilateral effort itself could potentially move beyond its standing partners in a more unified effort moving forward, but this has yet to be evidenced, so maybe bilateral would have been enough.

I'm still not sure.