15 ms·

Using the wrong dictionary

635 points by jsomers 12y ago

wodow 12y ago
I applied myself to the perusal of our writers; and noting whatever might be of use to ascertain or illustrate any word or phrase, accumulated in time the materials of a dictionary. --Johnson. [0] To use the dictionary files he has hosted on S3 [1] on Linux, GoldenDict [2] works well. [0] Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1913 [1] https://s3.amazonaws.com/jsomers/dictionary.zip https://s3.amazonaws.com/jsomers/dictionary.zip [2] http://goldendict.org/ http://goldendict.org/
- privong 12y ago
  The "dict" program [0] (with the default server) also pulls definitions from 1913 Webster (via The Collaborative International Dictionary of English [1]). It's my go-to dictionary, due to the ease of accessibility via the command line. [0] http://sourceforge.net/projects/dict/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/dict/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_International_Dictionary_of_English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_International_Di...
  - mcguire 12y ago
    Courtesy of Wikipedia, you can get the 1913 Webster's itself, as well, from http://sourceforge.net/projects/xdxf/files/dicts-dictd/001/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/xdxf/files/dicts-dictd/001/ The file is dictd01_dict-web1913-1.4-pre.tar.gz.
leephillips 12y ago
This article is superb and beautiful. Just go read it. I love it when procrastination is repaid.
timdierks 12y ago
This article began with John McPhee, who begins many great things. Somers' article is the most practical single bit of writing advice I've seen in a long time (it even includes software you can install). If you're not familiar with McPhee, you're missing out. He's one of the greatest English-language essayists of the 20th century. My favorite is "Coming into the Country" (on Alaska), but the Hacker News set in general may prefer "The Control of Nature".
- arethuza 12y ago
  "The Curve of Binding Energy: A Journey into the Awesome and Alarming World of Theodore B. Taylor" is excellent as well: http://www.amazon.com/The-Curve-Binding-Energy-Alarming/dp/0374515980 http://www.amazon.com/The-Curve-Binding-Energy-Alarming/dp/0...
- JackFr 12y ago
  Oranges. http://www.amazon.com/Oranges-John-McPhee/dp/0374512973 http://www.amazon.com/Oranges-John-McPhee/dp/0374512973 Absolutely fascinating -- it's just about oranges.
- schoen 12y ago
  "The Control of Nature" was fascinating. I read it right around the time of Hurricane Katrina, which adds a new resonance to McPhee's discussion of the Army Corps of Engineers trying to protect New Orleans from floods.
- jleader 12y ago
  One of my favorites, which I read as a teenager in the 70s, was "The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed", about a startup that tried to commercialize a hybrid airship/airfoil craft. It provided the first description I'd read of using a computer approximation to solve a real-world optimization problem (in this case, finding the shape that gave the best combination of volume for helium and aerodynamic lift with the least drag).
ryandrake 12y ago
TLDR: "New Oxford American Dictionary is the TLDR of dictionaries. There are others out there if you have extra time to look up a word."
joncrocks 12y ago
Isn't this a function traditionally fulfilled by a Thesaurus?
- thathonkey 12y ago
  Thesaurus will give you synonyms but won't provide any detail about the nuanced differences between their semantics. The article specifically talks about why Webster's unabridged dicts are different from thesauri...
  - vertex-four 12y ago
    If you're fluent in the language you're writing in, a combination of a thesaurus and a web search to check that words fit in where you think works well, in my experience.
  - giardini 12y ago
    That's why you should instead use a "dictionary of synonyms, which will provide those details.
    - thathonkey 12y ago
      You mean a collocation dictionary? I've never heard of a dictionary of synonyms and a quick Google search didn't really come up with anything. Could you point me in the direction of a publication? Thanks!
      - giardini 12y ago
        search Amazon.com for "dictionary of synonyms".
phkahler 12y ago
For the wordsmiths out there, you can visit Websters actual house at Greenfield Village in Dearborn Michigan, along with a number of other historic buildings. Note: I didn't say "home" because that's not where the house - nor any of these buildings - originally was. However, they are well preserved and all in one place. Mr Ford's idea of a history museum was rather unique.
lotsofcows 12y ago
I use etymonline.com for similar purpose. Searching for the etymology of words gives you something akin to older dictionaries.
anywhichway 12y ago
Stephen King seems to disagree: "Any word you have to hunt for in a thesaurus is the wrong word. There are no exceptions to this rule."
- aaronem 12y ago
  Stephen King is not the ultimate authority on prose style, nor, I believe, would he presume so to present himself.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    He wrote about himself and writing in a book titled On Writing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Writing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Writing So I guess if he makes statements that sound like writing advice he probably means them as writing advice. (None of which is really a counter to something as absolute as 'ultimate authority', but maybe you could elaborate a little)
    - kbenson 12y ago
      Writing covers a topic large enough to encompass the act of programming, news articles, and poetry. Assuming the author intended it in the widest possible sense and expected it to apply to every situation does a disservice to both them and yourself.
    - aaronem 12y ago
      I've read On Writing, though not recently. The strong impression I have is that his advice was intended as just that -- advice, rather than binding pronouncements. That is, King in On Writing seems essentially to be saying "Here's what worked for me. Maybe it will work for you, too," rather than trying to be Moses on the flank of Mount Sinai. And, for any wordsmith, much of his advice has value! Certainly there's no doubt of that. On the other hand, King is a writer of horror fiction, and I am not. This, at the very least, suggests that not all of his advice will be applicable to my purpose, a consideration which seemed absent from the comment originating this thread.
anywhichway 12y ago
Stephen King seems to disagree: "Any word you have to hunt for in a thesaurus is the wrong word. There are no exceptions to this rule."
stcredzero 12y ago
This is the place where all the words live and the writing’s no good. The New Oxford American dictionary, by the way, is not like singularly bad. Google’s dictionary, the modern Merriam-Webster, the dictionary at dictionary.com: they’re all like this. They’re all a chore to read. There’s no play, no delight in the language. The definitions are these desiccated little husks of technocratic meaningese, as if a word were no more than its coordinates in semantic space. This is the article that's complaining about where all the words live and the editing and writing's no good. (Perhaps this is intentional or tongue in cheek?) EDIT: “the clamour of pedantry” Could be the motto for the 21st century tech industry.
- agarden 12y ago
  > The definitions are these desiccated little husks of technocratic meaningese, as if a word were no more than its coordinates in semantic space. That sentence thrills me. Superb. The author seems to care more about color than efficiency. I do, too. Maybe you value efficiency over color.
  - TillE 12y ago
    I don't generally appreciate attempts at flowery prose, but that sentence is excellent. It expresses something that a simpler formulation cannot. It's actually a fairly concise way to communicate that specific idea.
- mcguire 12y ago
  I'm curious: what specifically do you find wrong with that excerpt?
  - stcredzero 12y ago
    like
    - mcguire 12y ago
      That is true. (Good lord! Why didn't I see that? Dammit.) I assume he meant, "The New Oxford American dictionary, by the way, is not, like, singularly bad," which would be intentional, at least. But still, that hoarks up the paragraph.
Sonthun 12y ago
He lists the http://machaut.uchicago.edu/websters http://machaut.uchicago.edu/websters website as a way to read the 1913 Webster's dictionary. As soon as I saw that I started looking for a plugin to put in my Firefox search bar. Turns out they offer a plugin right on the site: http://machaut.uchicago.edu/plugins http://machaut.uchicago.edu/plugins
pauleastlund 12y ago
I clicked on this thinking it was going to tell me what substitute I should be using for /usr/dict/words. The payoff I got was much better.
madaxe_again 12y ago
And you'd still be using the wrong one if you use Webster's. The correct (inasmuch as anything can be correct in this world - correct for me!) choice is the compact edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, which is quite possibly the most glorious duology of volumes of infinitesimally minuscule type ever published, from Aa to Zyxst. Many happy childhood evenings of eyestrain and ebullient exclamations of sesquipedalian rhapsody. It even comes with a magnifying glass.
- leephillips 12y ago
  As the author of a recent article[0] about the joys of that very edition of that very dictionary, enjoyed at that very time of life, that contained a nasty swipe at Websters, I must say that reading this beautiful encomium to the latter work made me regret my hasty dismissal and want to go back and add a footnote. [0] http://lee-phillips.org/literallyEgregious/ http://lee-phillips.org/literallyEgregious/
  - bradezone 12y ago
    I hate to point this out, but given the theme of your essay, you might want to fix the phrase "you get it's first known appearance in the language" by removing a certain troublesome apostrophe.
    - leephillips 12y ago
      Thank you for noticing that embarrassing typo.
- Theodores 12y ago
  Agreed. However, my inner philistine says that it is the Official Scrabble Dictionary that is the dictionary of choice. Every word and every spelling listed but with no meanings, explanations, etymology or anything else given. In my days of being competent at Scrabble there were so many words that our Scrabble playing group knew as legitimate words yet we had no idea at all what they meant. Half of the two letter words were like that and anything else with unusual 'Q, J and Z combinations'. I like using a word beyond my normal inner-dictionary that is the right one, in the right place. There is a feeling that 'yes! I used that word...!'. Such words could have been heard on Radio 4 and never really made it to the inner-dictionary, yet, one day, the need arises for that word and it fits perfectly. It is so nice when that happens.
apetresc 12y ago
While I appreciate the author's love of language, and I also enjoy his examples, he's being a bit disingenuous when he acts mystified and offended about why dictionaries these days aren't written like those a hundred years ago. It's obvious. Dictionaries these days are used to help literate people learning a new language (of which there are many more than 150 years ago) rather than aspiring playwrights. Comparing a "flash" with "eyes suffused with tears, or flowers wet with dew" is fanciful, not what an immigrant trying to decode an instruction manual needs.
- troymc 12y ago
  I figured someone who speaks X and wants to begin learning English would use an X-English / English-X dictionary. English has a vast vocabulary full of similar words, each having subtle differences and nuances. How is one to decide which word to use in a particular context? For example, check out: http://thesaurus.com/browse/pleasant http://thesaurus.com/browse/pleasant
  - 11001 12y ago
    > I figured someone who speaks X and wants to begin learning English would use an X-English / English-X dictionary. At first. You should switch to X-X dictionary as soon as you can, far before it becomes natural and easy to use X-X dictionary. X-English/English-X dictionaries encourage people to continue "thinking" in their language, while successfully learning a new language would absolutely require embracing new ways of forming phrases, building sentences, etc. Source: English is my 3rd language, I'm on my 5th now.
  - tobr 12y ago
    Two things have improved my English more than anything: deciding to read out loud whenever I'm alone reading an English text, and discovering that I can immediately look up any English word with a three finger tap on OS X. If the dictionary had been English–Swedish, I think I would have been more prone to see English as an obstacle, as something that I need to translate to Swedish in order to comprehend the text. Instead, I constantly find myself thinking in English whenever I read or write English, which I never did before.
mrspeaker 12y ago
Wow - that was a fantastic(al) and fun read - and then ends up with a cool bit of hacking to actually fetch and add a dictionary from 1913 as the default on your 'puter. The perfect HN post, I say!
- hkmurakami 12y ago
  I suspect that some may be concerned about referring to such an old tome. Usage does change after all over the years. I recalled David Foster Wallace's effusive praise [1] for Garner's Dictionary of Modern American Usage [2] which seems to have similar characteristics to the Webster, but I doubt there's such a convenient digital integration available for this. If only the world were perfect! ;) [1] http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present_tense.html http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present_tense.html [2] http://www.amazon.com/Garners-Modern-American-Usage-Garner-ebook/dp/B005THW8O0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1400603662&sr=8-1&keywords=dictionary+of+modern+usage http://www.amazon.com/Garners-Modern-American-Usage-Garner-e...
- themodelplumber 12y ago
  I agree. I read the post on my Xubuntu machine and was too lazy to open my Mac, so I opened XFCE's Dictionary application and did a search for "flash". Lo and behold, the same definitions appeared. The heading says "The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 (gcide)" which I learned is derived from the Webster's 1913 edition and contains further improvements. That was kind of exciting and for at least a little while I'll keep the dictionary open or add it to my panel. :-)
skybrian 12y ago
I enjoyed the article, but I think it implicitly encourages elitism through reliance on an old authority. Not all writing styles or writers will benefit from mining a well-written dictionary of flowery language from many decades ago. What about the various dialects of English that have sprung up since then? We should be borrowing new words as well as old.
arooaroo 12y ago
[Self-declared interest: I'm an ex-employee of Pearson Education, the publisher of Longman Dictionaries, and I used to work on the dictionaries team.] The author may appreciate English learners' dictionaries as a possible source of greater lexicographic stimulation, such as Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English or Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. These are aimed at learners of English at an advanced level and therefore can be quite insightful for natives too. On the negative side most dictionaries in this space compete for having definitions expressed as simply as possible. But on the positive they outline significant language nuance, enumerating a word's usage in to multiple fine-grained senses. An entry such as 'go' will have 30-40 different senses of the raw word itself, and then as many again in various phrasal verbs and idiomatic usage. Synonyms and antonyms are a common and significant feature in learners' dictionaries too. Sure, the examples aren't from Shakespeare either but they are usually modern language, derived from vast language corpora of real world language use. Edit: I am of course in British English mode; whilst the dictionaries I referred to do accommodate American variants of usage and spelling they are primarily British English titles. There are exclusively American titles such as Longman Advanced American Dictionary and Oxford Advanced American Dictionary which would suit American readers too. Despite sounding like a salesman I have no interest in either company or publication - just the language!
- girvo 12y ago
  Hah! That reminded me, I had a Longman Pocket English Dictionary when I was in Primary school that I absolutely adored. I used to read through random pages to learn words :)
kemayo 12y ago
I know I'm going to come across as un-romantic or anti-intellectual, but I don't like the "literary" writing style this seeks to emulate. The quotes provided in the article from McPhee all seem over-written to me -- topically, I suppose I would call them fustian. I like prose which adheres to the "as simple as possible, but no simpler" rule. I'm well aware this is a matter of taste.
- SoftwareMaven 12y ago
  Do you really think, in the quote about canoeing, that "sport" would have said remotely the same thing as "diversion of field"? I completely agree with you that writing should be as simple as it can (George Orwell's essay[1] on that is wonderful), but the feeling and depth different words evoke is the difference between technical writing and prose[2]. 1. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm 2. This is not to disparage technical writing. It is a craft in itself, but it, intentionally, is not given life.
  - rquirk 12y ago
    If I did not know what sport meant, and looked it up and saw "diversion of field", I'd still have no idea what it meant. I'd think maybe sport had something to do with electromagnetism.
    - SoftwareMaven 12y ago
      But that's not the entire definition[1] nor the entire context. Taking any phrase out of context can be confusing. 1. "Diversion of the field, as fowling, hunting, fishing, racing, games, and the like, esp. when money is staked."
  - gjm11 12y ago
    Actually, that very example struck me as an instance of style over substance. Football, cricket, baseball, sprinting, javelin throwing: these are all diversions of the field, for sure. But canoeing? Have both McPhee and Somers forgotten that canoeing is done in a canoe, and canoes don't work very well on grass? Yes, indeed, "a diversion of the field" sounds nice. The words have a pleasant ring to them. But they are, as it happens, completely inapplicable to canoeing. Perhaps McPhee or Somers or both would consider this mere pedantry, worthy only of technical writing. I dare to suggest that their heroes Webster and Johnson would disagree. I have to say that the paragraph about the canoeing strikes me as wrongheaded in another respect. "Simply a rite of oneness with certain terrain", writes McPhee. Wait, what? Simply? In what hierarchy of value or complexity or whatever it is that "simply" indicates a lack of does getting efficiently from A to B rank above a "rite of oneness" with the terrain in between? Furthermore, let's return to Webster's definition of "fustian", which he defines as "a kind of writing in which high-sounding words are used, above the dignity of the thoughts or subject". The subject, in this case, is the fact that people take canoeing trips for reasons other than efficient travel. Fair enough; worth pointing out, in its context; but it's a pretty good example of a subject that doesn't demand "high-sounding words". (I have to say that I'm not entirely convinced that what determines the appropriateness of high-sounding words is the dignity of the thoughts or subject. In -- for instance -- a religious ritual, a national celebration, or a musical performance, high-sounding words might be appropriate even for rather unexciting thoughts. Make it "the dignity of the thoughts, subject, and occasion" and I'd agree. So maybe there's something about McPhee's piece that makes elevated language appropriate even for its mundane topic. But I would prefer the elevation of the language not to compromise its meaning, which it has in this case.)
mmorris 12y ago
If anyone wants to install the Webster's Revised 1913 Dictionary as a Chrome Search Engine, you can find it listed on the Mycroft project [0]. Just click on "Webster's 1913 Dictionary" and set the Keyword field to whatever you'd like to type into the Chrome address bar to activate the search engine. [0]: http://mycroftproject.com/search-engines.html?name=webster http://mycroftproject.com/search-engines.html?name=webster
mcguire 12y ago
Dictionaries are all kinds of good, clean fun. From http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=potato&use1913=on&use1828=on http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=potat..., potato: In 1913, "Potato (?), n.; pl. Potatoes (#). [Sp. patata potato, batata sweet potato, from the native American name (probably batata) in Hayti.] (Bot.) (a) A plant (Solanum tuberosum) of the Nightshade family, and its esculent farinaceous tuber, of which there are numerous varieties used for food...." In 1828, "POTATO, n. A plant and esculent root of the genus Solanum, a native of America. The root of this plant, which is usually called potatoe, constitutes one of the cheapest and most nourishing species of vegetable food; it is the principal food of the poor in some countries, and has often contributed to prevent famine. It was introduced into the British dominions by Sir Walter Raleigh or other adventurers in the 16th century; but is came slowly into use, and at this day is not much cultivated and used in some countries of Europe. In the British dominions and in the United States, it has proved one of the greatest blessings bestowed on man by the Creator." ...which may go a certain distance towards explaining why the modern default dictionaries are not Webster's. This message brought to you by the word "esculent", because it's lunch time.
ecmendenhall 12y ago
You're probably using the right thesaurus. The default on Apple devices is the Oxford American Writer's Thesaurus, which is great at conveying little shades of meaning. I'm always delighted to find a "Word Notes" entry by an author I like. Try "bourgeois" for Zadie Smith or "feckless" for David Foster Wallace. (Here's a list of all the word notes by author: http://lasersoptional.com/2012/08/21/it-was-wonderful-marvelous-magnificent-superb-glorious-sublime-lovely-delightful/ http://lasersoptional.com/2012/08/21/it-was-wonderful-marvel...)
- mcguire 12y ago
  In addition, that blog post is another incredibly well written example, in case anyone has been left in the mood. "So back in ought-whenever-it-was, the general consensus was that print thesauruses were dead, dead, dead, and that nobody would ever buy them again, but, leaving that aside, Oxford being Oxford and having to publish thesauruses much in the same way that birds gotta fly and fish gotta swim, we had to create a new one anyway."
niix 12y ago
Thought this had to do with dictionaries in CS.
languagehacker 12y ago
The reason for the difference between Webster and Oxford is pretty simple if you do a little studying on the history of language documentation between the 18th and 20th Centuries. Probably the most important, seminal dictionary was from Samuel Johnson. The two-volume Dictionary of the English Language was published in 1755. It was an incomplete catalogue, full of opinion and jokes (see the definition of "oats" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Dictionary_of_the_English_Language#The_Text http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Dictionary_of_the_English_Lan...). But it was a big deal at the time, and very much in the same vein of Diderot's Encyclopedia -- a great philosophical idea born of the Enlightenment, but certainly incomplete and not necessarily easy to distribute. When Webster started in 1806, Samuel Johnson was the best precedent he had to work off of. So it served as a major influence for his format and approach. Webster's goal, of course, was to provide an adequate account of American English to provide additional national identity to a growing nation. The Oxford English Dictionary, on the other hand, had an entirely separate goal. They wanted an objective academic reference to fully catalogue the functional meaning, language of origin, and first documented use of each word. So what happened between 1805 and 1878, when James Murray met with the Oxford University Press to set the groundwork for what would become the OED? Well, over the 19th Century, comparative philology became a big deal academically. This coincided significantly with the increase of nationalist movements in Europe. As vulgar Bibles had established the linguistic boundaries of major mercantile polities between the 14th and 17th Centuries, a combination of historic and scientific research into those languages helped to formulate an intellectual sense of nationality for different states during this time. In other words, the political situation in Europe created a market for a more objective, historical tool for cataloguing language, and not a companion for generating flowery prose. And you can see that as this happened about 70 years after Webster started, the emphasis on science over editorial had amplified over time, as scientific academies and universities increased their influence in their respective nation states. So to say that something like the OED, which has an amazing history (really, look up The Professor and the Madman), is devoid of soul just because it adequately fulfills its historical, scientific, and political purposes is nothing short of melodramatic. I actually think it's a good thing dictionaries don't editorialize too much. Each speaker already injects bias into each definition they write simply based on their local dialect and how they individually evaluate word meaning. Why make this bias worse by letting them crack wise when you're just trying to look up a simple word?
grellas 12y ago
This piece - beautifully written - reminds me of an old PBS documentary I once saw about how a savory-looking new food offering got flattened and homogenized into something really unappealing as it went through the fast-food commercialization process. So too with words as they populate modern dictionaries with trite and sterile definitions in tow. A word does not stand still. It can mean one thing in one era and something related but different in another. It can mean one thing in one place and another in a different place where people came to use it differently. It can have a literal meaning, constituting some tangible thing. That meaning can then be applied by analogy or metaphorical usage to some intangible attribute. As it is ported from one time or place to another, it can continue vibrant in its home tongue or it can die and be absorbed by another tongue. Or it can continue in its original tongue, die in its original meaning, and continue vibrant in other meanings. Caesar's ferre or latus (same word, different forms) could mean "to bear" (as in bear a load) or "to bring" in his day and can today have spawned such words as rich and varied as "superlative" (connoting borne or carried above) and "circumference" (connoting "brought around") (see my write-up on this here: http://www.grellas.com/article_word_origins_fero.html http://www.grellas.com/article_word_origins_fero.html). Wycliffe's "knave", or "young boy" as it meant to him in the 14th century, is today a far more sinister character than originally meant. Sinister itself derives from the Latin, meaning left-handed. And so on and so on, almost literally ad infinitum. So how does the compiler of a language go about capturing what it all means when putting together a dictionary? First, by deciding to be either prescriptive (stating how words ought to be used) or descriptive (stating simply how words are used). Second, by deciding how much to bring in of the historic origin or etymology of a word. Third, by deciding how much to illustrate its usage with examples from existing literature. And, of course, by deciding how to formulate the meaning or the various meanings of the word as used in then-current usage or at times in historic usage (anachronistic words). As pointed out in this piece, modern dictionaries tend to do this task superficially, by committee. They are serviceable. They are helpful. The are easily accessible. Thus, they have utility. But they rarely go beneath the surface of a word's meaning and, in so limiting themselves, even leave the false impression that words mean only what the flattened, homogenized, "fast-food" version says they mean - that is, something not very interesting. As the author of this piece points out, when a dictionary is so done by committee, it misses much of what is valuable in words. But there is a reason too for the fast-food character of the modern dictionary and that is that people have limited ability or patience to want to dive into the deeper or subtler meanings of words. That takes hard work and, while a joy to the one coming at it from a specialty angle, is off-putting to many modern readers or even writers. People want something fast and to the point, without too much nuance. For those who value the joy of words, and who seek to write with some measure of nuance and precision, there is (for English) the old Webster's (as noted by the author), there is Samuel Johnson, and of course there is the OED (a stupendous achievement with huge emphasis on word origins, illustrative usage, and subtle shades of meaning). There are also major (and very thick) Latin and Greek dictionaries that go deeper into many of the words from which the English words were derived. So too are there medieval dictionaries capturing the English of Chaucer and Wycliffe, as well as dictionaries of Old English, which bring out the Germanic origins of many of the words that predated a good number of those we use today. But of course this brings us back to the point that massive complexity this way lies. Word meanings can have a priceless fascination just because their study can take you into many times and many eras and many languages. For those inclined to dive deeply, and to work hard in seeking to excel in expressing themselves, the resources are there for the taking. Just don't expect an easy path. The author of this piece does a splendid job of suggesting the joy of words as one uses a solid dictionary to help bring them to life. This is an excellent read and one to be highly recommended. The rest (the hard work) is up to you.
thinkersilver 12y ago
As a teenager I collected dictionaries for this very reason,it was exciting because each word became more than the sum of its letters but a treasure hunt that would last hours. Halfway through the article I thought he should just use an old edition of Merriam Webster or an Oxford Dictionary that predates the early 80s only to find that he does mention it. My word toolbox now consists of: * Old Dictionary , Oxford and sometimes Websters * Roget's Thesaurus * Online etymology tool * English Wordnet * Oxford's Modern English Usage by Fowler ( 2nd or 3rd edition ) - it's a hoot to read. * Samuel Johnson's Dictionary - if you want a nice bedside chuckle. There are many ways of slicing and dicing this data set to fit a particular writing style( e.g like Stephens King's no adverb policy,); If the data is ingested in a tree form , searching for word replacements based on Part Of Speech, sound or syllables , mitre is not that hard. Using these techniques doesn't necessarily make you a better writer but it sure does make it more fun!
sitkack 12y ago
ARCTIC Arc"tic, a. Etym: [OE. artik, OF. artique, F. arctique, L. arcticus, fr. Gr. ursus bear, Skr. Defn: Pertaining to, or situated under, the northern constellation called the Bear; northern; frigid; as, the arctic pole, circle, region, ocean; an arctic expedition, night, temperature. Note: The arctic circle is a lesser circle, parallel to the equator, 23� 28' from the north pole. This and the antarctic circle are called the polar circles, and between these and the poles lie the frigid zones. See Zone.
AaronFriel 12y ago
One of my favorite works of literature is the preamble to A Dictionary of the English Language, by one of the first lexicographers, Samuel Johnson. Perhaps I'm so fond of it because I can beat his prose over the head of prescriptivists and Francophones in an argument, but whatever the reason, I find it beautiful and captivating. Here's a passage (joined from two paragraphs) describing the futility of prescribing language or fixing it with a work as diminutive as his dictionary: When we see men grow old and die at a certain time one after another, from century to century, we laugh at the elixir that promises to prolong life to a thousand years; and with equal justice may the lexicographer be derided, who being able to produce no example of a nation that has preserved their words and phrases from mutability, shall imagine that his dictionary can embalm his language, and secure it from corruption and decay, that it is in his power to change sublunary nature, or clear the world at once from folly, vanity, and affectation. With this hope, however, academies have been instituted, to guard the avenues of their languages, to retain fugitives, and repulse intruders; but their vigilance and activity have hitherto been vain; sounds are too volatile and subtile for legal restraints; to enchain syllables, and to lash the wind, are equally the undertakings of pride, unwilling to measure its desires by its strength. I suppose early lexicographers had to become a master of language themselves - or persuade themselves it was so. If they didn't, how could they presuppose to describe the entirety of their language in such a tome? The full text of the preface can be found here: http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/preface.html http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/preface.html
- zaroth 12y ago
  sub·lu·nar·y - of, relating to, or characteristic of the terrestrial world. Webster would be ashamed!
  - Cthulhu_ 12y ago
    Situated beneath the moon; hence, of or pertaining to this world; terrestrial; earthly. All things sublunary are subject to change. --Dryden. All sublunary comforts imitate the changeableness, as well as feel the influence, of the planet they are under. --South. I like the new dictionary I just added to mac.
stblack 12y ago
Can we please stop linking to websites with meta viewport tags that set the maximum scale to 1.0?
egypturnash 12y ago
Oh my god it ends with a way to get the 1913 Webster's into Dictionary on a Mac. Installing that so hard right now. Because most of the time when I pop open Dictionary it's to look for the same kind of inspiration he describes John McPhee as finding.
loevborg 12y ago
My secret weapon for writing English prose is the "Kenkyusha Dictionary of English Collocations". A collocation dictionary gives you words that commonly go together with another word. In particular, you find the right verb to go with a given noun, or descriptive adjectives to further chacterize that noun. It's helpful for brainstorming. It also helps a lot (but not only!) if English is not your first language. In my view, a collocations dictionary is more useful than a thesaurus. The Kenkyusha dictionary includes Japanese translations (unreadable to me), but the collocations are given in English. It's very comprehensive, more so than any other list of collocations I've seen. It's hard to find as a book, but a digital edition can be found on a well-known Swedish sharing platform.
- softgrow 12y ago
  It's not hard to find as a book, Amazon Japan has it http://www.amazon.co.jp/新編-英和活用大辞典―英語を書くための38万例-市川-繁治郎/dp/4767410355 http://www.amazon.co.jp/新編-英和活用大辞典―英語を書くための38万例-市川-繁治郎/dp/47... There is a look-inside feature that includes a few pages that shows what it is about
literalusername 12y ago
The dict protocol, and dict.org in particular, provides easy access to Webster's 1913 as well as other dictionaries. I normally use Webster's 1913 from the command line, since I usually have a terminal in front of me. I keep this in my .zshrc: function dict () { if [[ $1 == (d|m) ]]; then curl dict://dict.org/$1:$2 | $PAGER else echo 'Unknown command. Use (d)efine or (m)atch.' fi } That allows me to issue queries such as `dict d example` to define "example", or `dict m exampel` to figure out how "example" ought to be spelled.
- pandatigox 12y ago
  dict protocol? As in http and FTP? That's so cool! Are there any more protocols to play around with?
  - staunch 12y ago
    dict ftps gopher http https imap imaps ldap ldaps pop3 pop3s rtmp rtsp sftp smtp smtps telnet tftp
    - e12e 12y ago
      And if you want to go explore, you could continue with everything (not all are plain text!) in: /etc/services ...
      - staunch 12y ago
        Well, that list is things curl supports.
  - gone35 12y ago
    Of course not every URI scheme corresponds one-to-one to a layer 7 protocol, but there's plenty of interesting stuff in this list nonetheless [1]. [1] http://www.w3.org/wiki/UriSchemes http://www.w3.org/wiki/UriSchemes
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
cratermoon 12y ago
When I was studying writing and composition in college (well before computerized dictionaries and word processors were common), all of my professors had strong opinions about dictionaries, and made specific recommendations about which ones to choose. I still have and sometimes use my Webster's New World Dictionary 2nd College Edition from back then. I'm really glad to see someone writing up about how to not just use the dictionary built into your software, but to evaluate and it change it to suit.
dang 12y ago
This is beautiful! Anyone who has such feeling for English at its most alive is someone I want to read more of. It's an exemplary piece of intellectual detective work, too, with a satisfying reward. I think the article should be called "Using the Right Dictionary". It is far too good to commingle with the shite genre that is internet bait titles.
zem 12y ago
beautiful piece of writing. it reminds me of why chambers was my favourite dictionary when i was growing up; the definitions had a definite sense of style and individuality to them.
vacri 12y ago
What a weird essay. The author doesn't want a dictionary, but a thesaurus, which gives you alternate ways of communicating your concept.
H4ssi 12y ago
Love this post! Does anyone know about a german dictionary of such a quality that s/he could recommend? I really enjoy disecting words/sentences/speech and to find those pin-point-descriptive paraphrases/expressions :-) (pls do not judge my english, I r no native speaker :O)
MasterScrat 12y ago
The "js" in the URL led me to believe this article was about Javascript and its object notation ^^
alanning 12y ago
That was beautiful. I am very glad that I clicked on that link. (I need to study that dictionary...)
markbnj 12y ago
I probably enjoyed this post more than any other I've read so far this year, and would have enjoyed it every bit as much even if it had not mentioned one of my favorite authors of non-fiction. Whether we have actually lost something or not I can't say, but at least it seems certain there are no more Noah Websters, just as there are no more Bertrand Russels, etc.
marc_omorain 12y ago
I would love to see a homebrew package to install this dictionary on a Mac (or better yet, for it to be the default in OSX 10.10).
e12e 12y ago
I'm a little shocked that anyone would not be using a proper dictionary (be that Webster's or Oxford). I always aptitude install at least "dict-gcide" and "dict-moby-thesaurus" -- and usually also "dict-devil" as well. Clearly not everyone do -- great way to bring attention to proper tools for writing. However, a small aside -- the phrasing: "In fact [the definitions are] so much better that to use another dictionary is to keep yourself forever at arm’s length from the actual language." is somewhat unfortunate. Arm's length is exactly the distance one should be from one's dictionary of choice (be that an actual book, or accessed via a keyboard/screen) ... ;-) If anyone feels the need for a little balance against the flourish of this text, I can recommend reading an essay or two by George Orwell, for example: "Politics and the English Language" http://www.gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200151.txt http://www.gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200151.txt
tobinfricke 12y ago
This is a beautiful essay, thank you. What is the literal meaning of "a diversion of the field"? Is "diversion" used in the sense of "that which diverts, and makes mirth; pastime; amusement", and "of the field" in the sense of "pertaining to a large grassy open area where one might kick a ball around"? If so, it seems a bit of a stretch to apply the phrase to an activity that takes place on water. (Though Webster does also give a broader meaning for field: "An unresticted or favorable opportunity for action, operation, or achievement; province; room.")
jc123 12y ago
http://tinyurl.com/ddddict http://tinyurl.com/ddddict I created a short link in case using someone else's computer.
AnonJ 12y ago
I don't really think modern dictionaries are that bad. In fact I don't find them bad at all. When I prepared for SAT and had to go through all the SAT words, I did it with joy because I could form endless hilarious and crazy imaginations in my head just using the solid definitions provided by normal dictionaries. This article seems too much.

635 points by jsomers 12y ago

wodow 12y ago

I applied myself to the perusal of our writers; and noting whatever might be of use to ascertain or illustrate any word or phrase, accumulated in time the materials of a dictionary. --Johnson. [0] To use the dictionary files he has hosted on S3 [1] on Linux, GoldenDict [2] works well. [0] Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1913 [1] https://s3.amazonaws.com/jsomers/dictionary.zip https://s3.amazonaws.com/jsomers/dictionary.zip [2] http://goldendict.org/ http://goldendict.org/

privong 12y ago
The "dict" program [0] (with the default server) also pulls definitions from 1913 Webster (via The Collaborative International Dictionary of English [1]). It's my go-to dictionary, due to the ease of accessibility via the command line. [0] http://sourceforge.net/projects/dict/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/dict/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_International_Dictionary_of_English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_International_Di...
- mcguire 12y ago
  Courtesy of Wikipedia, you can get the 1913 Webster's itself, as well, from http://sourceforge.net/projects/xdxf/files/dicts-dictd/001/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/xdxf/files/dicts-dictd/001/ The file is dictd01_dict-web1913-1.4-pre.tar.gz.

leephillips 12y ago

This article is superb and beautiful. Just go read it. I love it when procrastination is repaid.

timdierks 12y ago

This article began with John McPhee, who begins many great things. Somers' article is the most practical single bit of writing advice I've seen in a long time (it even includes software you can install). If you're not familiar with McPhee, you're missing out. He's one of the greatest English-language essayists of the 20th century. My favorite is "Coming into the Country" (on Alaska), but the Hacker News set in general may prefer "The Control of Nature".

arethuza 12y ago
"The Curve of Binding Energy: A Journey into the Awesome and Alarming World of Theodore B. Taylor" is excellent as well: http://www.amazon.com/The-Curve-Binding-Energy-Alarming/dp/0374515980 http://www.amazon.com/The-Curve-Binding-Energy-Alarming/dp/0...
JackFr 12y ago
Oranges. http://www.amazon.com/Oranges-John-McPhee/dp/0374512973 http://www.amazon.com/Oranges-John-McPhee/dp/0374512973 Absolutely fascinating -- it's just about oranges.
schoen 12y ago
"The Control of Nature" was fascinating. I read it right around the time of Hurricane Katrina, which adds a new resonance to McPhee's discussion of the Army Corps of Engineers trying to protect New Orleans from floods.
jleader 12y ago
One of my favorites, which I read as a teenager in the 70s, was "The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed", about a startup that tried to commercialize a hybrid airship/airfoil craft. It provided the first description I'd read of using a computer approximation to solve a real-world optimization problem (in this case, finding the shape that gave the best combination of volume for helium and aerodynamic lift with the least drag).

ryandrake 12y ago

TLDR: "New Oxford American Dictionary is the TLDR of dictionaries. There are others out there if you have extra time to look up a word."

joncrocks 12y ago

Isn't this a function traditionally fulfilled by a Thesaurus?

thathonkey 12y ago
Thesaurus will give you synonyms but won't provide any detail about the nuanced differences between their semantics. The article specifically talks about why Webster's unabridged dicts are different from thesauri...
- vertex-four 12y ago
  If you're fluent in the language you're writing in, a combination of a thesaurus and a web search to check that words fit in where you think works well, in my experience.
- giardini 12y ago
  That's why you should instead use a "dictionary of synonyms, which will provide those details.
  - thathonkey 12y ago
    You mean a collocation dictionary? I've never heard of a dictionary of synonyms and a quick Google search didn't really come up with anything. Could you point me in the direction of a publication? Thanks!
    - giardini 12y ago
      search Amazon.com for "dictionary of synonyms".

phkahler 12y ago

For the wordsmiths out there, you can visit Websters actual house at Greenfield Village in Dearborn Michigan, along with a number of other historic buildings. Note: I didn't say "home" because that's not where the house - nor any of these buildings - originally was. However, they are well preserved and all in one place. Mr Ford's idea of a history museum was rather unique.

lotsofcows 12y ago

I use etymonline.com for similar purpose. Searching for the etymology of words gives you something akin to older dictionaries.

anywhichway 12y ago

Stephen King seems to disagree: "Any word you have to hunt for in a thesaurus is the wrong word. There are no exceptions to this rule."

aaronem 12y ago
Stephen King is not the ultimate authority on prose style, nor, I believe, would he presume so to present himself.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  He wrote about himself and writing in a book titled On Writing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Writing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Writing So I guess if he makes statements that sound like writing advice he probably means them as writing advice. (None of which is really a counter to something as absolute as 'ultimate authority', but maybe you could elaborate a little)
  - kbenson 12y ago
    Writing covers a topic large enough to encompass the act of programming, news articles, and poetry. Assuming the author intended it in the widest possible sense and expected it to apply to every situation does a disservice to both them and yourself.
  - aaronem 12y ago
    I've read On Writing, though not recently. The strong impression I have is that his advice was intended as just that -- advice, rather than binding pronouncements. That is, King in On Writing seems essentially to be saying "Here's what worked for me. Maybe it will work for you, too," rather than trying to be Moses on the flank of Mount Sinai. And, for any wordsmith, much of his advice has value! Certainly there's no doubt of that. On the other hand, King is a writer of horror fiction, and I am not. This, at the very least, suggests that not all of his advice will be applicable to my purpose, a consideration which seemed absent from the comment originating this thread.

anywhichway 12y ago

Stephen King seems to disagree: "Any word you have to hunt for in a thesaurus is the wrong word. There are no exceptions to this rule."

stcredzero 12y ago

This is the place where all the words live and the writing’s no good. The New Oxford American dictionary, by the way, is not like singularly bad. Google’s dictionary, the modern Merriam-Webster, the dictionary at dictionary.com: they’re all like this. They’re all a chore to read. There’s no play, no delight in the language. The definitions are these desiccated little husks of technocratic meaningese, as if a word were no more than its coordinates in semantic space. This is the article that's complaining about where all the words live and the editing and writing's no good. (Perhaps this is intentional or tongue in cheek?) EDIT: “the clamour of pedantry” Could be the motto for the 21st century tech industry.

agarden 12y ago
> The definitions are these desiccated little husks of technocratic meaningese, as if a word were no more than its coordinates in semantic space. That sentence thrills me. Superb. The author seems to care more about color than efficiency. I do, too. Maybe you value efficiency over color.
- TillE 12y ago
  I don't generally appreciate attempts at flowery prose, but that sentence is excellent. It expresses something that a simpler formulation cannot. It's actually a fairly concise way to communicate that specific idea.
mcguire 12y ago
I'm curious: what specifically do you find wrong with that excerpt?
- stcredzero 12y ago
  like
  - mcguire 12y ago
    That is true. (Good lord! Why didn't I see that? Dammit.) I assume he meant, "The New Oxford American dictionary, by the way, is not, like, singularly bad," which would be intentional, at least. But still, that hoarks up the paragraph.

Sonthun 12y ago

He lists the http://machaut.uchicago.edu/websters http://machaut.uchicago.edu/websters website as a way to read the 1913 Webster's dictionary. As soon as I saw that I started looking for a plugin to put in my Firefox search bar. Turns out they offer a plugin right on the site: http://machaut.uchicago.edu/plugins http://machaut.uchicago.edu/plugins

pauleastlund 12y ago

I clicked on this thinking it was going to tell me what substitute I should be using for /usr/dict/words. The payoff I got was much better.

madaxe_again 12y ago

And you'd still be using the wrong one if you use Webster's. The correct (inasmuch as anything can be correct in this world - correct for me!) choice is the compact edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, which is quite possibly the most glorious duology of volumes of infinitesimally minuscule type ever published, from Aa to Zyxst. Many happy childhood evenings of eyestrain and ebullient exclamations of sesquipedalian rhapsody. It even comes with a magnifying glass.

leephillips 12y ago
As the author of a recent article[0] about the joys of that very edition of that very dictionary, enjoyed at that very time of life, that contained a nasty swipe at Websters, I must say that reading this beautiful encomium to the latter work made me regret my hasty dismissal and want to go back and add a footnote. [0] http://lee-phillips.org/literallyEgregious/ http://lee-phillips.org/literallyEgregious/
- bradezone 12y ago
  I hate to point this out, but given the theme of your essay, you might want to fix the phrase "you get it's first known appearance in the language" by removing a certain troublesome apostrophe.
  - leephillips 12y ago
    Thank you for noticing that embarrassing typo.
Theodores 12y ago
Agreed. However, my inner philistine says that it is the Official Scrabble Dictionary that is the dictionary of choice. Every word and every spelling listed but with no meanings, explanations, etymology or anything else given. In my days of being competent at Scrabble there were so many words that our Scrabble playing group knew as legitimate words yet we had no idea at all what they meant. Half of the two letter words were like that and anything else with unusual 'Q, J and Z combinations'. I like using a word beyond my normal inner-dictionary that is the right one, in the right place. There is a feeling that 'yes! I used that word...!'. Such words could have been heard on Radio 4 and never really made it to the inner-dictionary, yet, one day, the need arises for that word and it fits perfectly. It is so nice when that happens.

apetresc 12y ago

While I appreciate the author's love of language, and I also enjoy his examples, he's being a bit disingenuous when he acts mystified and offended about why dictionaries these days aren't written like those a hundred years ago. It's obvious. Dictionaries these days are used to help literate people learning a new language (of which there are many more than 150 years ago) rather than aspiring playwrights. Comparing a "flash" with "eyes suffused with tears, or flowers wet with dew" is fanciful, not what an immigrant trying to decode an instruction manual needs.

troymc 12y ago
I figured someone who speaks X and wants to begin learning English would use an X-English / English-X dictionary. English has a vast vocabulary full of similar words, each having subtle differences and nuances. How is one to decide which word to use in a particular context? For example, check out: http://thesaurus.com/browse/pleasant http://thesaurus.com/browse/pleasant
- 11001 12y ago
  > I figured someone who speaks X and wants to begin learning English would use an X-English / English-X dictionary. At first. You should switch to X-X dictionary as soon as you can, far before it becomes natural and easy to use X-X dictionary. X-English/English-X dictionaries encourage people to continue "thinking" in their language, while successfully learning a new language would absolutely require embracing new ways of forming phrases, building sentences, etc. Source: English is my 3rd language, I'm on my 5th now.
- tobr 12y ago
  Two things have improved my English more than anything: deciding to read out loud whenever I'm alone reading an English text, and discovering that I can immediately look up any English word with a three finger tap on OS X. If the dictionary had been English–Swedish, I think I would have been more prone to see English as an obstacle, as something that I need to translate to Swedish in order to comprehend the text. Instead, I constantly find myself thinking in English whenever I read or write English, which I never did before.

mrspeaker 12y ago

Wow - that was a fantastic(al) and fun read - and then ends up with a cool bit of hacking to actually fetch and add a dictionary from 1913 as the default on your 'puter. The perfect HN post, I say!

hkmurakami 12y ago
I suspect that some may be concerned about referring to such an old tome. Usage does change after all over the years. I recalled David Foster Wallace's effusive praise [1] for Garner's Dictionary of Modern American Usage [2] which seems to have similar characteristics to the Webster, but I doubt there's such a convenient digital integration available for this. If only the world were perfect! ;) [1] http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present_tense.html http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present_tense.html [2] http://www.amazon.com/Garners-Modern-American-Usage-Garner-ebook/dp/B005THW8O0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1400603662&sr=8-1&keywords=dictionary+of+modern+usage http://www.amazon.com/Garners-Modern-American-Usage-Garner-e...
themodelplumber 12y ago
I agree. I read the post on my Xubuntu machine and was too lazy to open my Mac, so I opened XFCE's Dictionary application and did a search for "flash". Lo and behold, the same definitions appeared. The heading says "The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 (gcide)" which I learned is derived from the Webster's 1913 edition and contains further improvements. That was kind of exciting and for at least a little while I'll keep the dictionary open or add it to my panel. :-)

skybrian 12y ago

I enjoyed the article, but I think it implicitly encourages elitism through reliance on an old authority. Not all writing styles or writers will benefit from mining a well-written dictionary of flowery language from many decades ago. What about the various dialects of English that have sprung up since then? We should be borrowing new words as well as old.

arooaroo 12y ago

[Self-declared interest: I'm an ex-employee of Pearson Education, the publisher of Longman Dictionaries, and I used to work on the dictionaries team.] The author may appreciate English learners' dictionaries as a possible source of greater lexicographic stimulation, such as Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English or Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. These are aimed at learners of English at an advanced level and therefore can be quite insightful for natives too. On the negative side most dictionaries in this space compete for having definitions expressed as simply as possible. But on the positive they outline significant language nuance, enumerating a word's usage in to multiple fine-grained senses. An entry such as 'go' will have 30-40 different senses of the raw word itself, and then as many again in various phrasal verbs and idiomatic usage. Synonyms and antonyms are a common and significant feature in learners' dictionaries too. Sure, the examples aren't from Shakespeare either but they are usually modern language, derived from vast language corpora of real world language use. Edit: I am of course in British English mode; whilst the dictionaries I referred to do accommodate American variants of usage and spelling they are primarily British English titles. There are exclusively American titles such as Longman Advanced American Dictionary and Oxford Advanced American Dictionary which would suit American readers too. Despite sounding like a salesman I have no interest in either company or publication - just the language!

girvo 12y ago
Hah! That reminded me, I had a Longman Pocket English Dictionary when I was in Primary school that I absolutely adored. I used to read through random pages to learn words :)

kemayo 12y ago

I know I'm going to come across as un-romantic or anti-intellectual, but I don't like the "literary" writing style this seeks to emulate. The quotes provided in the article from McPhee all seem over-written to me -- topically, I suppose I would call them fustian. I like prose which adheres to the "as simple as possible, but no simpler" rule. I'm well aware this is a matter of taste.

SoftwareMaven 12y ago
Do you really think, in the quote about canoeing, that "sport" would have said remotely the same thing as "diversion of field"? I completely agree with you that writing should be as simple as it can (George Orwell's essay[1] on that is wonderful), but the feeling and depth different words evoke is the difference between technical writing and prose[2]. 1. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm 2. This is not to disparage technical writing. It is a craft in itself, but it, intentionally, is not given life.
- rquirk 12y ago
  If I did not know what sport meant, and looked it up and saw "diversion of field", I'd still have no idea what it meant. I'd think maybe sport had something to do with electromagnetism.
  - SoftwareMaven 12y ago
    But that's not the entire definition[1] nor the entire context. Taking any phrase out of context can be confusing. 1. "Diversion of the field, as fowling, hunting, fishing, racing, games, and the like, esp. when money is staked."
- gjm11 12y ago
  Actually, that very example struck me as an instance of style over substance. Football, cricket, baseball, sprinting, javelin throwing: these are all diversions of the field, for sure. But canoeing? Have both McPhee and Somers forgotten that canoeing is done in a canoe, and canoes don't work very well on grass? Yes, indeed, "a diversion of the field" sounds nice. The words have a pleasant ring to them. But they are, as it happens, completely inapplicable to canoeing. Perhaps McPhee or Somers or both would consider this mere pedantry, worthy only of technical writing. I dare to suggest that their heroes Webster and Johnson would disagree. I have to say that the paragraph about the canoeing strikes me as wrongheaded in another respect. "Simply a rite of oneness with certain terrain", writes McPhee. Wait, what? Simply? In what hierarchy of value or complexity or whatever it is that "simply" indicates a lack of does getting efficiently from A to B rank above a "rite of oneness" with the terrain in between? Furthermore, let's return to Webster's definition of "fustian", which he defines as "a kind of writing in which high-sounding words are used, above the dignity of the thoughts or subject". The subject, in this case, is the fact that people take canoeing trips for reasons other than efficient travel. Fair enough; worth pointing out, in its context; but it's a pretty good example of a subject that doesn't demand "high-sounding words". (I have to say that I'm not entirely convinced that what determines the appropriateness of high-sounding words is the dignity of the thoughts or subject. In -- for instance -- a religious ritual, a national celebration, or a musical performance, high-sounding words might be appropriate even for rather unexciting thoughts. Make it "the dignity of the thoughts, subject, and occasion" and I'd agree. So maybe there's something about McPhee's piece that makes elevated language appropriate even for its mundane topic. But I would prefer the elevation of the language not to compromise its meaning, which it has in this case.)

mmorris 12y ago

If anyone wants to install the Webster's Revised 1913 Dictionary as a Chrome Search Engine, you can find it listed on the Mycroft project [0]. Just click on "Webster's 1913 Dictionary" and set the Keyword field to whatever you'd like to type into the Chrome address bar to activate the search engine. [0]: http://mycroftproject.com/search-engines.html?name=webster http://mycroftproject.com/search-engines.html?name=webster

mcguire 12y ago

Dictionaries are all kinds of good, clean fun. From http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=potato&use1913=on&use1828=on http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=potat..., potato: In 1913, "Potato (?), n.; pl. Potatoes (#). [Sp. patata potato, batata sweet potato, from the native American name (probably batata) in Hayti.] (Bot.) (a) A plant (Solanum tuberosum) of the Nightshade family, and its esculent farinaceous tuber, of which there are numerous varieties used for food...." In 1828, "POTATO, n. A plant and esculent root of the genus Solanum, a native of America. The root of this plant, which is usually called potatoe, constitutes one of the cheapest and most nourishing species of vegetable food; it is the principal food of the poor in some countries, and has often contributed to prevent famine. It was introduced into the British dominions by Sir Walter Raleigh or other adventurers in the 16th century; but is came slowly into use, and at this day is not much cultivated and used in some countries of Europe. In the British dominions and in the United States, it has proved one of the greatest blessings bestowed on man by the Creator." ...which may go a certain distance towards explaining why the modern default dictionaries are not Webster's. This message brought to you by the word "esculent", because it's lunch time.

ecmendenhall 12y ago

You're probably using the right thesaurus. The default on Apple devices is the Oxford American Writer's Thesaurus, which is great at conveying little shades of meaning. I'm always delighted to find a "Word Notes" entry by an author I like. Try "bourgeois" for Zadie Smith or "feckless" for David Foster Wallace. (Here's a list of all the word notes by author: http://lasersoptional.com/2012/08/21/it-was-wonderful-marvelous-magnificent-superb-glorious-sublime-lovely-delightful/ http://lasersoptional.com/2012/08/21/it-was-wonderful-marvel...)

mcguire 12y ago
In addition, that blog post is another incredibly well written example, in case anyone has been left in the mood. "So back in ought-whenever-it-was, the general consensus was that print thesauruses were dead, dead, dead, and that nobody would ever buy them again, but, leaving that aside, Oxford being Oxford and having to publish thesauruses much in the same way that birds gotta fly and fish gotta swim, we had to create a new one anyway."

niix 12y ago

Thought this had to do with dictionaries in CS.

languagehacker 12y ago

The reason for the difference between Webster and Oxford is pretty simple if you do a little studying on the history of language documentation between the 18th and 20th Centuries. Probably the most important, seminal dictionary was from Samuel Johnson. The two-volume Dictionary of the English Language was published in 1755. It was an incomplete catalogue, full of opinion and jokes (see the definition of "oats" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Dictionary_of_the_English_Language#The_Text http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Dictionary_of_the_English_Lan...). But it was a big deal at the time, and very much in the same vein of Diderot's Encyclopedia -- a great philosophical idea born of the Enlightenment, but certainly incomplete and not necessarily easy to distribute. When Webster started in 1806, Samuel Johnson was the best precedent he had to work off of. So it served as a major influence for his format and approach. Webster's goal, of course, was to provide an adequate account of American English to provide additional national identity to a growing nation. The Oxford English Dictionary, on the other hand, had an entirely separate goal. They wanted an objective academic reference to fully catalogue the functional meaning, language of origin, and first documented use of each word. So what happened between 1805 and 1878, when James Murray met with the Oxford University Press to set the groundwork for what would become the OED? Well, over the 19th Century, comparative philology became a big deal academically. This coincided significantly with the increase of nationalist movements in Europe. As vulgar Bibles had established the linguistic boundaries of major mercantile polities between the 14th and 17th Centuries, a combination of historic and scientific research into those languages helped to formulate an intellectual sense of nationality for different states during this time. In other words, the political situation in Europe created a market for a more objective, historical tool for cataloguing language, and not a companion for generating flowery prose. And you can see that as this happened about 70 years after Webster started, the emphasis on science over editorial had amplified over time, as scientific academies and universities increased their influence in their respective nation states. So to say that something like the OED, which has an amazing history (really, look up The Professor and the Madman), is devoid of soul just because it adequately fulfills its historical, scientific, and political purposes is nothing short of melodramatic. I actually think it's a good thing dictionaries don't editorialize too much. Each speaker already injects bias into each definition they write simply based on their local dialect and how they individually evaluate word meaning. Why make this bias worse by letting them crack wise when you're just trying to look up a simple word?

grellas 12y ago

This piece - beautifully written - reminds me of an old PBS documentary I once saw about how a savory-looking new food offering got flattened and homogenized into something really unappealing as it went through the fast-food commercialization process. So too with words as they populate modern dictionaries with trite and sterile definitions in tow. A word does not stand still. It can mean one thing in one era and something related but different in another. It can mean one thing in one place and another in a different place where people came to use it differently. It can have a literal meaning, constituting some tangible thing. That meaning can then be applied by analogy or metaphorical usage to some intangible attribute. As it is ported from one time or place to another, it can continue vibrant in its home tongue or it can die and be absorbed by another tongue. Or it can continue in its original tongue, die in its original meaning, and continue vibrant in other meanings. Caesar's ferre or latus (same word, different forms) could mean "to bear" (as in bear a load) or "to bring" in his day and can today have spawned such words as rich and varied as "superlative" (connoting borne or carried above) and "circumference" (connoting "brought around") (see my write-up on this here: http://www.grellas.com/article_word_origins_fero.html http://www.grellas.com/article_word_origins_fero.html). Wycliffe's "knave", or "young boy" as it meant to him in the 14th century, is today a far more sinister character than originally meant. Sinister itself derives from the Latin, meaning left-handed. And so on and so on, almost literally ad infinitum. So how does the compiler of a language go about capturing what it all means when putting together a dictionary? First, by deciding to be either prescriptive (stating how words ought to be used) or descriptive (stating simply how words are used). Second, by deciding how much to bring in of the historic origin or etymology of a word. Third, by deciding how much to illustrate its usage with examples from existing literature. And, of course, by deciding how to formulate the meaning or the various meanings of the word as used in then-current usage or at times in historic usage (anachronistic words). As pointed out in this piece, modern dictionaries tend to do this task superficially, by committee. They are serviceable. They are helpful. The are easily accessible. Thus, they have utility. But they rarely go beneath the surface of a word's meaning and, in so limiting themselves, even leave the false impression that words mean only what the flattened, homogenized, "fast-food" version says they mean - that is, something not very interesting. As the author of this piece points out, when a dictionary is so done by committee, it misses much of what is valuable in words. But there is a reason too for the fast-food character of the modern dictionary and that is that people have limited ability or patience to want to dive into the deeper or subtler meanings of words. That takes hard work and, while a joy to the one coming at it from a specialty angle, is off-putting to many modern readers or even writers. People want something fast and to the point, without too much nuance. For those who value the joy of words, and who seek to write with some measure of nuance and precision, there is (for English) the old Webster's (as noted by the author), there is Samuel Johnson, and of course there is the OED (a stupendous achievement with huge emphasis on word origins, illustrative usage, and subtle shades of meaning). There are also major (and very thick) Latin and Greek dictionaries that go deeper into many of the words from which the English words were derived. So too are there medieval dictionaries capturing the English of Chaucer and Wycliffe, as well as dictionaries of Old English, which bring out the Germanic origins of many of the words that predated a good number of those we use today. But of course this brings us back to the point that massive complexity this way lies. Word meanings can have a priceless fascination just because their study can take you into many times and many eras and many languages. For those inclined to dive deeply, and to work hard in seeking to excel in expressing themselves, the resources are there for the taking. Just don't expect an easy path. The author of this piece does a splendid job of suggesting the joy of words as one uses a solid dictionary to help bring them to life. This is an excellent read and one to be highly recommended. The rest (the hard work) is up to you.

thinkersilver 12y ago

As a teenager I collected dictionaries for this very reason,it was exciting because each word became more than the sum of its letters but a treasure hunt that would last hours. Halfway through the article I thought he should just use an old edition of Merriam Webster or an Oxford Dictionary that predates the early 80s only to find that he does mention it. My word toolbox now consists of: * Old Dictionary , Oxford and sometimes Websters * Roget's Thesaurus * Online etymology tool * English Wordnet * Oxford's Modern English Usage by Fowler ( 2nd or 3rd edition ) - it's a hoot to read. * Samuel Johnson's Dictionary - if you want a nice bedside chuckle. There are many ways of slicing and dicing this data set to fit a particular writing style( e.g like Stephens King's no adverb policy,); If the data is ingested in a tree form , searching for word replacements based on Part Of Speech, sound or syllables , mitre is not that hard. Using these techniques doesn't necessarily make you a better writer but it sure does make it more fun!

sitkack 12y ago

ARCTIC Arc"tic, a. Etym: [OE. artik, OF. artique, F. arctique, L. arcticus, fr. Gr. ursus bear, Skr. Defn: Pertaining to, or situated under, the northern constellation called the Bear; northern; frigid; as, the arctic pole, circle, region, ocean; an arctic expedition, night, temperature. Note: The arctic circle is a lesser circle, parallel to the equator, 23� 28' from the north pole. This and the antarctic circle are called the polar circles, and between these and the poles lie the frigid zones. See Zone.

AaronFriel 12y ago

One of my favorite works of literature is the preamble to A Dictionary of the English Language, by one of the first lexicographers, Samuel Johnson. Perhaps I'm so fond of it because I can beat his prose over the head of prescriptivists and Francophones in an argument, but whatever the reason, I find it beautiful and captivating. Here's a passage (joined from two paragraphs) describing the futility of prescribing language or fixing it with a work as diminutive as his dictionary: When we see men grow old and die at a certain time one after another, from century to century, we laugh at the elixir that promises to prolong life to a thousand years; and with equal justice may the lexicographer be derided, who being able to produce no example of a nation that has preserved their words and phrases from mutability, shall imagine that his dictionary can embalm his language, and secure it from corruption and decay, that it is in his power to change sublunary nature, or clear the world at once from folly, vanity, and affectation. With this hope, however, academies have been instituted, to guard the avenues of their languages, to retain fugitives, and repulse intruders; but their vigilance and activity have hitherto been vain; sounds are too volatile and subtile for legal restraints; to enchain syllables, and to lash the wind, are equally the undertakings of pride, unwilling to measure its desires by its strength. I suppose early lexicographers had to become a master of language themselves - or persuade themselves it was so. If they didn't, how could they presuppose to describe the entirety of their language in such a tome? The full text of the preface can be found here: http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/preface.html http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/preface.html

zaroth 12y ago
sub·lu·nar·y - of, relating to, or characteristic of the terrestrial world. Webster would be ashamed!
- Cthulhu_ 12y ago
  Situated beneath the moon; hence, of or pertaining to this world; terrestrial; earthly. All things sublunary are subject to change. --Dryden. All sublunary comforts imitate the changeableness, as well as feel the influence, of the planet they are under. --South. I like the new dictionary I just added to mac.

stblack 12y ago

Can we please stop linking to websites with meta viewport tags that set the maximum scale to 1.0?

egypturnash 12y ago

Oh my god it ends with a way to get the 1913 Webster's into Dictionary on a Mac. Installing that so hard right now. Because most of the time when I pop open Dictionary it's to look for the same kind of inspiration he describes John McPhee as finding.

loevborg 12y ago

My secret weapon for writing English prose is the "Kenkyusha Dictionary of English Collocations". A collocation dictionary gives you words that commonly go together with another word. In particular, you find the right verb to go with a given noun, or descriptive adjectives to further chacterize that noun. It's helpful for brainstorming. It also helps a lot (but not only!) if English is not your first language. In my view, a collocations dictionary is more useful than a thesaurus. The Kenkyusha dictionary includes Japanese translations (unreadable to me), but the collocations are given in English. It's very comprehensive, more so than any other list of collocations I've seen. It's hard to find as a book, but a digital edition can be found on a well-known Swedish sharing platform.

softgrow 12y ago
It's not hard to find as a book, Amazon Japan has it http://www.amazon.co.jp/新編-英和活用大辞典―英語を書くための38万例-市川-繁治郎/dp/4767410355 http://www.amazon.co.jp/新編-英和活用大辞典―英語を書くための38万例-市川-繁治郎/dp/47... There is a look-inside feature that includes a few pages that shows what it is about

literalusername 12y ago

The dict protocol, and dict.org in particular, provides easy access to Webster's 1913 as well as other dictionaries. I normally use Webster's 1913 from the command line, since I usually have a terminal in front of me. I keep this in my .zshrc: function dict () { if [[ $1 == (d|m) ]]; then curl dict://dict.org/$1:$2 | $PAGER else echo 'Unknown command. Use (d)efine or (m)atch.' fi } That allows me to issue queries such as `dict d example` to define "example", or `dict m exampel` to figure out how "example" ought to be spelled.

pandatigox 12y ago
dict protocol? As in http and FTP? That's so cool! Are there any more protocols to play around with?
- staunch 12y ago
  dict ftps gopher http https imap imaps ldap ldaps pop3 pop3s rtmp rtsp sftp smtp smtps telnet tftp
  - e12e 12y ago
    And if you want to go explore, you could continue with everything (not all are plain text!) in: /etc/services ...
    - staunch 12y ago
      Well, that list is things curl supports.
- gone35 12y ago
  Of course not every URI scheme corresponds one-to-one to a layer 7 protocol, but there's plenty of interesting stuff in this list nonetheless [1]. [1] http://www.w3.org/wiki/UriSchemes http://www.w3.org/wiki/UriSchemes
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

cratermoon 12y ago

When I was studying writing and composition in college (well before computerized dictionaries and word processors were common), all of my professors had strong opinions about dictionaries, and made specific recommendations about which ones to choose. I still have and sometimes use my Webster's New World Dictionary 2nd College Edition from back then. I'm really glad to see someone writing up about how to not just use the dictionary built into your software, but to evaluate and it change it to suit.

dang 12y ago

This is beautiful! Anyone who has such feeling for English at its most alive is someone I want to read more of. It's an exemplary piece of intellectual detective work, too, with a satisfying reward. I think the article should be called "Using the Right Dictionary". It is far too good to commingle with the shite genre that is internet bait titles.

zem 12y ago

beautiful piece of writing. it reminds me of why chambers was my favourite dictionary when i was growing up; the definitions had a definite sense of style and individuality to them.

vacri 12y ago

What a weird essay. The author doesn't want a dictionary, but a thesaurus, which gives you alternate ways of communicating your concept.

H4ssi 12y ago

Love this post! Does anyone know about a german dictionary of such a quality that s/he could recommend? I really enjoy disecting words/sentences/speech and to find those pin-point-descriptive paraphrases/expressions :-) (pls do not judge my english, I r no native speaker :O)

MasterScrat 12y ago

The "js" in the URL led me to believe this article was about Javascript and its object notation ^^

alanning 12y ago

That was beautiful. I am very glad that I clicked on that link. (I need to study that dictionary...)

markbnj 12y ago

I probably enjoyed this post more than any other I've read so far this year, and would have enjoyed it every bit as much even if it had not mentioned one of my favorite authors of non-fiction. Whether we have actually lost something or not I can't say, but at least it seems certain there are no more Noah Websters, just as there are no more Bertrand Russels, etc.

marc_omorain 12y ago

I would love to see a homebrew package to install this dictionary on a Mac (or better yet, for it to be the default in OSX 10.10).

e12e 12y ago

I'm a little shocked that anyone would not be using a proper dictionary (be that Webster's or Oxford). I always aptitude install at least "dict-gcide" and "dict-moby-thesaurus" -- and usually also "dict-devil" as well. Clearly not everyone do -- great way to bring attention to proper tools for writing. However, a small aside -- the phrasing: "In fact [the definitions are] so much better that to use another dictionary is to keep yourself forever at arm’s length from the actual language." is somewhat unfortunate. Arm's length is exactly the distance one should be from one's dictionary of choice (be that an actual book, or accessed via a keyboard/screen) ... ;-) If anyone feels the need for a little balance against the flourish of this text, I can recommend reading an essay or two by George Orwell, for example: "Politics and the English Language" http://www.gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200151.txt http://www.gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200151.txt

tobinfricke 12y ago

This is a beautiful essay, thank you. What is the literal meaning of "a diversion of the field"? Is "diversion" used in the sense of "that which diverts, and makes mirth; pastime; amusement", and "of the field" in the sense of "pertaining to a large grassy open area where one might kick a ball around"? If so, it seems a bit of a stretch to apply the phrase to an activity that takes place on water. (Though Webster does also give a broader meaning for field: "An unresticted or favorable opportunity for action, operation, or achievement; province; room.")

jc123 12y ago

http://tinyurl.com/ddddict http://tinyurl.com/ddddict I created a short link in case using someone else's computer.

AnonJ 12y ago

I don't really think modern dictionaries are that bad. In fact I don't find them bad at all. When I prepared for SAT and had to go through all the SAT words, I did it with joy because I could form endless hilarious and crazy imaginations in my head just using the solid definitions provided by normal dictionaries. This article seems too much.