Never a true word!

[Irony]

Yes, a simple one-liner should suffice to clear the matter up. Thank you, Irony.

Actually, it does. You see, even our stuffy legal system recognizes that the meaning of a word can change over time, and that dictionaries record those meanings rather than dictate them. You seem to be the only person having a problem with this.

 

[drkitten]

It seems to me, therefore, that 'common, current and/or popular usage' have no real place when considering the purpose of a dictionary, and that the dictionary (exactly which one, might also be debatable!) may legitimately be used to arbitrate between different views over the proper meaning of words.

Utter hogwash. Language changes. Dictionaries do not. That's why they put out new edition -- because the old one is no longer accurate.

It is therefore necessary for lexicographers to figure out how language has changed in order to update their dictionaries for the new edition.

 

[Southwind17]

Actually, it does. You see, even our stuffy legal system recognizes that the meaning of a word can change over time, and that dictionaries record those meanings rather than dictate them. You seem to be the only person having a problem with this. (emphasis added)

You haven't read this thread very carefully then, have you!

Would you care to provide some examples too, per my request of Brodski at Post #60 above?

 

[Southwind17]

Would somebody care to refer me to an authoritative dictionary that claims to compile its entries and define their meanings based on 'common usage', or suchlike? I refer you back to the OP to show what the Chambers Dictionary has to say on this particular matter.

 

[drkitten]

Would somebody care to refer me to an authoritative dictionary that claims to compile its entries and define their meanings based on 'common usage', or suchlike? I refer you back to the OP to show what the Chambers Dictionary has to say on this particular matter.

How about from the single most authoritative dictionary in existence, the Oxford English Dictionary?

Collecting evidence

The aim of the OED is to provide a record of how the English language is and has been used in writing and in speech. Whether a word is new or long obsolete, its meaning can only be determined by looking at examples of it in use.

The first step in creating or revising an entry is therefore to collect evidence of words and phrases in use from all over the English-speaking world.

Examples of many thousands of new words are collected each year, and we have to choose which of them to include in the OED.

As well as looking out for new words, we also monitor the changing usage of existing words so that their entries can be accurately revised.

They explicitly state that their purpose is to provide a record of use, and they specifically state that meaning only derives from use.

Game, set, match.

 

[Cuddles]

Would somebody care to refer me to an authoritative dictionary that claims to compile its entries and define their meanings based on 'common usage', or suchlike?

I really have to wonder what else you think they could be doing.

1) English existed before dictionaries. Therefore dictionaries are very obviously not needed to define English, they simply record something which already existed.

2) You admit language changes over time. If dictionaries defined language rather than recording it this could not happen unless the people writing them just decided to randomly change meanings on a whim.

Your argument is utterly nonsensical.

 

[Irony]

You haven't read this thread very carefully then, have you!

Would you care to provide some examples too, per my request of Brodski at Post #60 above?

If you stode English history even slightly, that would be unnecessary. You sound a bit idle, in truth.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I propose an Official JREF Dictionary, in which all definitions shall be absolute and unchanging.
Entries welcome, drudges.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Does anybody else have the suspicion that Southwind works for a dictionary publisher, or else is a descendant of the Webster family? I can't think who else would insist so much on the glory and power of the dictionary.

 

[Southwind17]

If you stode English history even slightly, that would be unnecessary. You sound a bit idle, in truth.

I'm not sure for which of these words, if any, you are claiming the meaning has changed, that would have necessarily led to a change in statute had such word been construed as definitive. I guess 'stode' is it, or one, but that particular word doesn't even appear in either of the two dictionaries to which I tend to defer.

I think there's a more-than-subtle difference between words whose meaning has changed over time and words that are completely eliminated from the English language, in the context of what I wrote in the OP.

 

[Southwind17]

How about from the single most authoritative dictionary in existence, the Oxford English Dictionary?

Collecting evidence

The aim of the OED is to provide a record of how the English language is and has been used in writing and in speech. Whether a word is new or long obsolete, its meaning can only be determined by looking at examples of it in use.

The first step in creating or revising an entry is therefore to collect evidence of words and phrases in use from all over the English-speaking world.

Examples of many thousands of new words are collected each year, and we have to choose which of them to include in the OED.

As well as looking out for new words, we also monitor the changing usage of existing words so that their entries can be accurately revised.

They explicitly state that their purpose is to provide a record of use, and they specifically state that meaning only derives from use.

Game, set, match.

Well, I'm not sure of the basis of your assertion about authority inferred upon the OED, but I'll happily defer to the OED in addition to the Chambers Dictionary. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the OED, but I have nop reason to doubt the accuracy of your quote. Here's a quote from the Chambers Dictionary:

"But where does so-called 'standard English' fit into all this, the type of English that is supposedly taught in schools? Here the word standard causes problems, because it has more than one meaning. For some, it is 'an established or accepted model', for others, it is 'a definite level of excellence'. The first definition is the one which applies best to so-called 'standard English'. It refers to written English, rather than spoken, as noted by Henry Wyld in 1909: 'The Grammar of Standard English is practically fixed and uniform, so that among educated speakers, no matter how they may differ in other respects, Pronunciation, Vocabulary and Idiom, they will generally agree in using the same grammatical forms'. What he said then is still valid today."

I think this makes me realize that my OP was written in the context of 'standard English', i.e. written English, as opposed to the spoken word, notwithstanding that I did cite apparent misuse of the word 'massive' as spoken by BBC newsreaders to help make my point. I believe, though, that reputable spoken news reporting does, essentially, seek to mirror the same formality as written reporting. You will note that disagreement over written English, as opposed to spoken English, emanating from various posts made on this Forum, was the main prompt for my OP.

Here's another quote from the same dictionary, in the context of changes to written English grammar:

"But can change actually cause confusion? Yes, occasionally. Disinterested ('impartial') is now quite often used to mean 'uninterested, bored'. Alert speakers are aware of potential difficulties, and will avoid problem words. But this leads us back to the need for dictionaries, which chart the multiple meanings of existing lexical items, and may provide suggestions for alternatives."

Now, notwithstanding my general high regard for the Chambers Dictionary, I must take exception to the view expressed here. People who use the word 'disinterested' in lieu of 'uninterested' do so through plain ignorance, similar to the misuse of 'affect/effect', or the 'borrow/lend' example I quoted above (although that, as I suggested, was probably more down to 'fashion' than ignorance for most users, but not all, I'm sure). Is this dictionary really suggesting that 'disinterested' should replace 'uninterested', and, by inference, that 'affect' should replace 'effect' and/or vice versa, if adopted sufficiently widely over time through plain ignorance? I'm not sure, but I certainly disagree with that notion. I also disagree that 'alert speakers' should avoid 'problem words', preferring that they in fact use such words and ensure that their listener(s) understand them, through explanation and education, if necessary (circumstances permitting, of course).

Whilst the author(s) then writes: "But this leads us back to the need for dictionaries ...", the reasons then given therefor do not, unfortunately, serve to overcome the said occasional confusion. It seems that even the dictionary publishers are unsure of their exact purpose and usage!

Maybe some dictionaries set out to serve a different purpose from others. I don't know. But I'd say it was still Deuce!

 

[Dunstan]

Not taking sides here, but I think people might be interested in reading this series of blog posts by Erin McKean. Also this one, on "that's not a word!"

They're not on the exact subject of this thread, but they do shed some light on the process of how words and definitions find their way into dictionaries.

FYI:

Ms. McKean is the Oxford University Press's Chief Consulting Editor for American Dictionaries; the editor in chief of the New Oxford American Dictionary (2d ed.); the author or coauthor of Weird and Wonderful Words, More Weird and Wonderful Words, Totally Weird and Wonderful Words, and That's Amore; and the author of both the Dictionary Evangelist blog and the A Dress a Day blog. She reports that she'll be blogging this week about Dictionary Myths, "the things people fervently believe about dictionaries, but sadly, aren't true."

 

[Southwind17]

Not taking sides here, but I think people might be interested in reading this series of blog posts by Erin McKean. Also this one, on "that's not a word!"

They're not on the exact subject of this thread, but they do shed some light on the process of how words and definitions find their way into dictionaries.

FYI:

These are very interesting and useful links. Thanks

 

[Southwind17]

1) English existed before dictionaries. Therefore dictionaries are very obviously not needed to define English, they simply record something which already existed.

In pursuit of what purpose, exactly?

2) You admit language changes over time. If dictionaries defined language rather than recording it this could not happen unless the people writing them just decided to randomly change meanings on a whim.

Or, alternatively, maybe the 'people writing them' saw some merit in 'capturing' the common meanings of words, not for historical record purposes, rather to ensure current and future consistency of use and understanding?! What you're suggesting is that a dictionary is just a language 'history' book. The OED must, accordingly, rank as one of the most popular history books ever published!

 

[drkitten]

In pursuit of what purpose, exactly?

What you're suggesting is that a dictionary is just a language 'history' book. The OED must, accordingly, rank as one of the most popular history books ever published!

Well, the OED itself accepts that that as its purpose (see the quote above). As to "most popular" -- I doubt it. The sales of the OED are dwarfed by any moderately popular high school textbook. (Compare the sales of one book per library vs one book per graduating senior....)

 

[Cuddles]

What you're suggesting is that a dictionary is just a language 'history' book. The OED must, accordingly, rank as one of the most popular history books ever published!

Not quite. A history books only records the past, dictionaries try to record the present as well. Otherwise, yes. As already noted, that is exactly what the dictionaries say they are doing. Why do you see a problem with this?

 

[drkitten]

I think this makes me realize that my OP was written in the context of 'standard English', i.e. written English, as opposed to the spoken word, notwithstanding that I did cite apparent misuse of the word 'massive' as spoken by BBC newsreaders to help make my point.

Except that's not what "standard" English means.

There are a lot of dialectical variations of English, of which African American Vernacular English (aka Ebonics, although that is a etymological travesty) is one of the best known. AAVE is not simply a different way of speaking English, but an entirely different dialect with some substantially different rules for grammar and semantics. Just as an example, AAVE allows optional copula dropping (as do many other Indo-European languages, but not "standard" English), and also makes a distinction between different forms of the copula (mirroring the "esta"/"estaba" difference in Spanish, but again like nothing in Standard American English or Standard British English.)

I'm very bad at writing in AAVE, but I could learn to do it if I needed/wanted to.

"Standard" English is simply one dialect among many, and the one with the most social cachet. As such, it's the target that people are generally taught (and the one the schools push the most), for the simple fact that it's economically the most useful. A key aspect of dictionaries is to provide guidance on "standard" English for those who don't speak it.

But that has nothing do to with fixing the forms of standard English, any more than the Michelin Guide fixes forever which restaurants are the good ones and which ones are not. As restaurants come and go, the Guide tells you which ones are good this year; similarly, a good dictionary tells you what words mean this year. In both cases, next year will need to have a new edition if you want to be absolutely up-to-date. "Massive" may indeed have meant "weighty" eighty years ago -- but "awesome" meant "inspiring fear" four hundred years ago, and "loyal" and "legal" were synonyms eight hundred years ago.

 

[Southwind17]

Well, the OED itself accepts that that as its purpose (see the quote above). As to "most popular" -- I doubt it. The sales of the OED are dwarfed by any moderately popular high school textbook. (Compare the sales of one book per library vs one book per graduating senior....)

You seem not to recognize wit, or even sarcasm, even when they bite you in the bum. Perhaps these might help next time:

Come on Doc, chill, it's not a matter of life and death you know, however you seek to difine those words!

 

[Southwind17]

Not quite. A history books only records the past, dictionaries try to record the present as well. Otherwise, yes. As already noted, that is exactly what the dictionaries say they are doing. Why do you see a problem with this?

I don't see a problem with the above; I see a problem when people claim that the purpose of a dictionary is NOT to define the meanings of words. I'll re-phrase the question I asked before, now in the context of your quote above: For what purpose is a book intended that records the present usage of words?

 

[Southwind17]

Except that's not what "standard" English means.

Now this is interesting, drkitten claiming to know what a particular word means. I wonder what her/his point of reference(s) is? Could it be 'common usage'? I doubt it, not enough people talk about 'standard' English to make that viable. I can only guess it must be a dictionary, or such like (unless she's just positing an opinion, but that doesn't seem so). If so, then that's even more interesting, as my 'broad description' of 'standard English' is taken straight from the preface to my dictionary. Now, I did confess earlier that my dictionary is nearly a decade old, so things might have changed since then. I somehow doubt that, though.

Either way, the key point about my dictionary's broad description is that it differentiates between written and spoken English, and it is this aspect, irrespective of whether my dictionary's description is right or wrong, that I sought to highlight when clarifying the intent of my OP. The rest of your verbosity, drkitten, namely:

There are a lot of dialectical variations of English, of which African American Vernacular English (aka Ebonics, although that is a etymological travesty) is one of the best known. AAVE is not simply a different way of speaking English, but an entirely different dialect with some substantially different rules for grammar and semantics. Just as an example, AAVE allows optional copula dropping (as do many other Indo-European languages, but not "standard" English), and also makes a distinction between different forms of the copula (mirroring the "esta"/"estaba" difference in Spanish, but again like nothing in Standard American English or Standard British English.)

I'm very bad at writing in AAVE, but I could learn to do it if I needed/wanted to.

"Standard" English is simply one dialect among many, and the one with the most social cachet. As such, it's the target that people are generally taught (and the one the schools push the most), for the simple fact that it's economically the most useful. A key aspect of dictionaries is to provide guidance on "standard" English for those who don't speak it.

But that has nothing do to with fixing the forms of standard English, any more than the Michelin Guide fixes forever which restaurants are the good ones and which ones are not. As restaurants come and go, the Guide tells you which ones are good this year; similarly, a good dictionary tells you what words mean this year. In both cases, next year will need to have a new edition if you want to be absolutely up-to-date.

as interesting as it may be, only seems to seek to divert from the thrust of the thread, similar to your commentary on the popularity of the OED in your earlier post. Perhaps this Forum simply presents an opportunity for you to further your seeming quest to demonstrate your impressive breadth of knowledge, under the guise of contributing to a specific point raised. One might be forgiven for thinking that, but I couldn't possibly comment. (take your pick!)

"Massive" may indeed have meant "weighty" eighty years ago -- but "awesome" meant "inspiring fear" four hundred years ago, and "loyal" and "legal" were synonyms eight hundred years ago.

So you don't believe that 'massive' means 'weighty' today? What would you say 'massive' means today then? As you know, my dictionary is only around 10 years old, but neither its various definitions of 'massive' nor any of the four dictionaries' various definitions (excluding the etymology and medical dictionaries) cited on Dictionary.com include the 'common usage' application to a hole in the ground: "a massive hole", that, as I pointed out earlier, we so 'commonly' hear and read in the media, and beyond. Are we simply waiting for all these dictionaries to 'catch up' with what's happening in the real World? I wonder.