6 ms·

Merriam-Webster brags in TFA about their descriptivist reputation; and indeed, they are thw arch-descriptivists. But I'm not aware of any contemporary publisher

Merriam-Webster brags in TFA about their descriptivist reputation; and indeed, they are thw arch-descriptivists. But I'm not aware of any contemporary publisher of dictionaries that doesn't take a descriptivist stance. This places pendants like me at a serious disadvantage; I can't rely on a dictionary to help me win arguments about correct usage. "Nonplussed" is like "disgruntled"; you can't be plussed, and you can't be gruntled.

airstrike 2y ago
> "Nonplussed" is like "disgruntled"; you can't be plussed, and you can't be gruntled. Color me doubleplussed
defrost 2y ago
C double plussed is a whole other language, the American Engrish of Ye Olde English.
Strang 2y ago
American Heritage is much better. They respond to usage, but much more conservatively. And their entries will actually have brief explanations from their "usage panel" about ambiguous or changing meanings. https://dictionary.com https://dictionary.com
- Strang 2y ago
  Uh that was supposed to be https://ahdictionary.com https://ahdictionary.com
ycombinete 2y ago
Collins dictionary is my go to. I avoid Miriam Webster. Unfortunately MW appears to have won the SEO wars.
Y_Y 2y ago
> It had been a rough day, so when I walked into the party I was very chalant, despite my efforts to appear gruntled and consolate. > I was furling my wieldy umbrella for the coat check when I saw her standing alone in a corner. She was a descript person, a woman in a state of total array. Her hair was kempt, her clothing shevelled, and she moved in a gainly way. > I wanted desperately to meet her, but I knew I'd have to make bones about it, since I was travelling cognito. Beknownst to me, the hostess, whom I could see both hide and hair of, was very proper, so it would be skin off my nose if anything bad happened. And even though I had only swerving loyalty to her, my manners couldn't be peccable. Only toward and heard-of behavior would do. etc. - Jack Winter
- Macha 2y ago
  One of these is not like the others. Toward as the opposite of untoward appears in shakespeare
  - drivers99 2y ago
    "kempt" as well. So I don't think the purpose is to only use words that don't actually exist, but where the negative is much more common. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kempt https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kempt Google Books Ngram Viewer for kempt vs unkempt: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=kempt%2C+unkempt&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=kempt%2C+unkem...
giraffe_lady 2y ago
> This places pendants like me at a serious disadvantage; I can't rely on a dictionary to help me win arguments about correct usage. I feel like you're being sent a strong signal about what "correct" means re usage but refusing to heed it. Dictionaries aren't descriptivist because of an idealogical commitment or whatever; a strictly prescriptivist stance is simply not very useful for achieving the goals that a dictionary has.
- denton-scratch 2y ago
  > simply not very useful for achieving the goals that a dictionary has. Apparently the dictionary's goals are not the same as my goals. Sure, I want to know about incorrect usages; but I also want to know that those usages are incorrect.
  - da_chicken 2y ago
    Simply put, that's not how English works. Say that an English speaker speaks a sentence, and an English listener understands it. If they both agree that it was an English sentence -- including no jargon -- and they both agree on the meaning of the sentence, then that's correct English. If the two individuals have also never met before, then it's certainly correct English. That's what "defined by usage" means. English does not have a language regulator or language academy.
    - giraffe_lady 2y ago
      FWIW that's also how languages work that do have an academy. The academy may be a participant in the process but they don't control it, that's basically just a relic of before we understood how languages work.
      - lxgr 2y ago
        > that's basically just a relic of before we understood how languages work Relics that unfortunately maintain significant influence in at least France and Germany. When I grew up and was just learning to write, orthography was "revamped" by literal committee, in some cases even going so far as deriving a new spelling via false etymologies. It wasn't really a big deal for me practically, but it just seems bizarre.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
sltkr 2y ago
> you can't be gruntled. Why? It's a perfectly cromulent word: https://comb.io/tVAKjq https://comb.io/tVAKjq
djur 2y ago
Not to be a pedant about the spelling of "pedant", but...
- denton-scratch 2y ago
  But... it's not customary around here to pull people up for typos. At least, I avoid it unless it's funny.
  - topaz0 2y ago
    I usually don't correct other people's typos, but they are much more funny when they're made by pedants.
    - denton-scratch 2y ago
      Fair!
dragonwriter 2y ago
> This places pendants like me at a serious disadvantage; I can’t rely on a dictionary to help me win arguments about correct usage. First, unless you are dangling from a piece of jewelry, “pedants”, not “pendants”. Second, stop worrying about “correct” usage and worry about clear and effective communication. It’s a lot less useful and convincing to argue that a usage is wrong by some arbitrary standard than to argue, e.g., that it promotes confusion where an alternative expression would be more clear to the target audience. Not only is it a more useful approach, it also lets you get benefit from dictionaries again.
- denton-scratch 2y ago
  > “pedants”, not “pendants” I noticed my fat-finger mistake, but it was too late to edit. > worry about clear and effective communication Oh, I do. That's why I object to using "literally" to mean "figuratively", i.e. the exact opposite. I mean, I don't object to ignorant people using words ignorantly; but lexicographers know better, and should be calling out ignorant usages.
  - gattilorenz 2y ago
    Yeah, that’s literally the worst. I hope you also only use “terrific” in the original meaning (terrifying) instead of this silly modern usage… (joking, of course)
cryptonector 2y ago
> "Nonplussed" is like "disgruntled"; you can't be plussed, and you can't be gruntled. And this is we end up with words like 'combobulate'.

airstrike 2y ago

> "Nonplussed" is like "disgruntled"; you can't be plussed, and you can't be gruntled. Color me doubleplussed

defrost 2y ago

C double plussed is a whole other language, the American Engrish of Ye Olde English.

Strang 2y ago

American Heritage is much better. They respond to usage, but much more conservatively. And their entries will actually have brief explanations from their "usage panel" about ambiguous or changing meanings. https://dictionary.com https://dictionary.com

Strang 2y ago
Uh that was supposed to be https://ahdictionary.com https://ahdictionary.com

ycombinete 2y ago

Collins dictionary is my go to. I avoid Miriam Webster. Unfortunately MW appears to have won the SEO wars.

Y_Y 2y ago

> It had been a rough day, so when I walked into the party I was very chalant, despite my efforts to appear gruntled and consolate. > I was furling my wieldy umbrella for the coat check when I saw her standing alone in a corner. She was a descript person, a woman in a state of total array. Her hair was kempt, her clothing shevelled, and she moved in a gainly way. > I wanted desperately to meet her, but I knew I'd have to make bones about it, since I was travelling cognito. Beknownst to me, the hostess, whom I could see both hide and hair of, was very proper, so it would be skin off my nose if anything bad happened. And even though I had only swerving loyalty to her, my manners couldn't be peccable. Only toward and heard-of behavior would do. etc. - Jack Winter

Macha 2y ago
One of these is not like the others. Toward as the opposite of untoward appears in shakespeare
- drivers99 2y ago
  "kempt" as well. So I don't think the purpose is to only use words that don't actually exist, but where the negative is much more common. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kempt https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kempt Google Books Ngram Viewer for kempt vs unkempt: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=kempt%2C+unkempt&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=kempt%2C+unkem...

giraffe_lady 2y ago

> This places pendants like me at a serious disadvantage; I can't rely on a dictionary to help me win arguments about correct usage. I feel like you're being sent a strong signal about what "correct" means re usage but refusing to heed it. Dictionaries aren't descriptivist because of an idealogical commitment or whatever; a strictly prescriptivist stance is simply not very useful for achieving the goals that a dictionary has.

denton-scratch 2y ago
> simply not very useful for achieving the goals that a dictionary has. Apparently the dictionary's goals are not the same as my goals. Sure, I want to know about incorrect usages; but I also want to know that those usages are incorrect.
- da_chicken 2y ago
  Simply put, that's not how English works. Say that an English speaker speaks a sentence, and an English listener understands it. If they both agree that it was an English sentence -- including no jargon -- and they both agree on the meaning of the sentence, then that's correct English. If the two individuals have also never met before, then it's certainly correct English. That's what "defined by usage" means. English does not have a language regulator or language academy.
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    FWIW that's also how languages work that do have an academy. The academy may be a participant in the process but they don't control it, that's basically just a relic of before we understood how languages work.
    - lxgr 2y ago
      > that's basically just a relic of before we understood how languages work Relics that unfortunately maintain significant influence in at least France and Germany. When I grew up and was just learning to write, orthography was "revamped" by literal committee, in some cases even going so far as deriving a new spelling via false etymologies. It wasn't really a big deal for me practically, but it just seems bizarre.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

sltkr 2y ago

> you can't be gruntled. Why? It's a perfectly cromulent word: https://comb.io/tVAKjq https://comb.io/tVAKjq

djur 2y ago

Not to be a pedant about the spelling of "pedant", but...

denton-scratch 2y ago
But... it's not customary around here to pull people up for typos. At least, I avoid it unless it's funny.
- topaz0 2y ago
  I usually don't correct other people's typos, but they are much more funny when they're made by pedants.
  - denton-scratch 2y ago
    Fair!

dragonwriter 2y ago

> This places pendants like me at a serious disadvantage; I can’t rely on a dictionary to help me win arguments about correct usage. First, unless you are dangling from a piece of jewelry, “pedants”, not “pendants”. Second, stop worrying about “correct” usage and worry about clear and effective communication. It’s a lot less useful and convincing to argue that a usage is wrong by some arbitrary standard than to argue, e.g., that it promotes confusion where an alternative expression would be more clear to the target audience. Not only is it a more useful approach, it also lets you get benefit from dictionaries again.

denton-scratch 2y ago
> “pedants”, not “pendants” I noticed my fat-finger mistake, but it was too late to edit. > worry about clear and effective communication Oh, I do. That's why I object to using "literally" to mean "figuratively", i.e. the exact opposite. I mean, I don't object to ignorant people using words ignorantly; but lexicographers know better, and should be calling out ignorant usages.
- gattilorenz 2y ago
  Yeah, that’s literally the worst. I hope you also only use “terrific” in the original meaning (terrifying) instead of this silly modern usage… (joking, of course)

cryptonector 2y ago

> "Nonplussed" is like "disgruntled"; you can't be plussed, and you can't be gruntled. And this is we end up with words like 'combobulate'.