4 ms·
The critique of dictionaries made by “teams” of people, as against a single person, is odd. Like the writer expects lexicography to be just an art form where wo
by dmvdoug 3y ago
The critique of dictionaries made by “teams” of people, as against a single person, is odd. Like the writer expects lexicography to be just an art form where word lovers can explore and display their idiolects or something.
If a dictionary is supposed to state the meanings of words as those words are used, you have to go out and look at how they’re used, not toil in isolation at your desk, tracing in your mind the lines of force emanating from words. Going out and looking means lexicography is something of an observational science (N.B.: “something of”).
Yes, it’s delightful to plumb the depths of something like the OED. But obsolete or antiquated meanings of words are not necessarily somehow latent in the words as used presently. Language changes; meanings change.
You see the same issue more often with etymologies. Some people seem to think that etymology necessarily sheds light on how the word is used today. Like you’re supposed to go “ah-ha!” when someone shows you the meanings of root words or something. Etymology, too, is delightful to play with, but it, too, has a more rigorous face. But thinking you’ve discovered something deep about the present use of a word because you’ve run across a peculiar or otherwise interesting etymology just reveals a basic misunderstanding of what an etymology is for.
All that said, as a somewhat hyperverbal person myself, I completely understand and appreciate the real delight you can experience in word exploration and wordplay. So I throw no shade at it. But the idea that “you are using the wrong dictionary” or even “using the dictionary wrong” because you are looking for the basic descriptive fact(s) about word usage in the present is asinine. From it wafts the odor of one who spends too much time smelling their own farts.
- Kamq 3y ago> But obsolete or antiquated meanings of words are not necessarily somehow latent in the words as used presently. Language changes; meanings change. I think you're ignoring that, if enough of us do this, they can also change back.
- dmvdoug 3y agoNah, that’s just not how language tends to evolve, except perhaps for specialized vocabularies that are created to denote specific, technical things for the purpose of agreement among those involved.
- mdp2021 3y ago> evolve Develop. Awareness, as I mentioned nearby, we could say is required for language to "evolve". Out of entropy, a natural occurrence, language can devolve.
- mdp2021 3y ago> Some people seem to think that etymology necessarily sheds light on how the word is used today More precisely, we think that an etymological analysis is needed to shed light on why the word is used in some ways today, and to basically reveal its core ideal meaning that allows (or contributes explaining) its uses. It's awareness. You have your tools, you should know them adequately well. Language is worth special attention.
- dmvdoug 3y ago> we think that an etymological analysis is needed to shed light on why the word is used in some ways today I doubt this very much. Words are used the ways they are today because people, at some time, adopted that use. That’s it. That’s the story. Now, something like the OED is wonderful for investigating when/where word uses emerged. Why they emerged when/where they did suggests some deeper reason than “people started using the words those ways.” Except for technical or official vocabulary, I doubt such a deeper reason exists. > and to basically reveal its core ideal meaning I don’t know why you’d think an etymology reveals that. “Core ideal meaning” sounds too purposive, like someone somewhere innovated the word you’re studying to capture just that meaning. Suppose a language‘s etymology for “car” (the language’s equivalent I mean) is “fire wagon” because that was what people happened to start calling it and it caught on and spread. That doesn’t give you any deep insight into cars, fire or wagons. Nor does it give you any deep insight into word formation (semantically), nor about the range of possible extensions of “car” in that language (e.g., if they invented a car powered by water and introduced the term “water car,” they wouldn’t then find it somehow forbidden because etymologically it’s a water fire wagon). > You have your tools, you should know them adequately well. Language is worth special attention. No disagreement here. But we don’t study the origin and history of hammers simply because we want to be careful, excellent craftspeople in the present. (But, as I say, language and its history are interesting topics in themselves.)
- mdp2021 3y ago> doubt; suppose You may have to study the matter a bit instead of looking it from the outside then. You will see that the relations are relevant (far from being arbitrary). So, ignoring them is just ignorant. > car If 'car' comes from 'cart', and 'cart' could be descendant from an idea of "basket" and/or from an idea of "runner" ex carrus, then this notion should be one you gained, for awareness and competence, present when you use the term, and a notion you should gain to have a proper insight of the term.