Engaged?

[richardm]

Why?

Who has rated dictionaries in terms of authority?

The SOED is an abridged version of the full OED, which I hope you would accept is an authoritative dictionary. The Concise is not. It is intended to give definitions of words in common usage, but those definitions are (in order to keep the size manageable) quite short. Which can lead to misunderstandings as I believe we have above:

When the Concise OED uses the word "formal" I believe that rather than meaning that they have to do the whole I-am-down-on-one-knee-don't choke-on-the-diamond-ring-in-the-champagne-please bit, it is attempting to indicate that the couple have to acknowledge that they are definitely going to get married. It is not enough for someone to think that at some point in the future they might like to get married, as you suggested above. They have to have some sort of agreement along the lines of "Wanna get hitched?" "Yep".

This impression is reinforced when the definition is checked in a version of the dictionary that gives fuller, more complete expositions of the word and we discover that the word "formal" is not used.

 

[CFLarsen]

The SOED is an abridged version of the full OED, which I hope you would accept is an authoritative dictionary. The Concise is not. It is intended to give definitions of words in common usage, but those definitions are (in order to keep the size manageable) quite short. Which can lead to misunderstandings as I believe we have above:

When the Concise OED uses the word "formal" I believe that rather than meaning that they have to do the whole I-am-down-on-one-knee-don't choke-on-the-diamond-ring-in-the-champagne-please bit, it is attempting to indicate that the couple have to acknowledge that they are definitely going to get married. It is not enough for someone to think that at some point in the future they might like to get married, as you suggested above. They have to have some sort of agreement along the lines of "Wanna get hitched?" "Yep".

This impression is reinforced when the definition is checked in a version of the dictionary that gives fuller, more complete expositions of the word and we discover that the word "formal" is not used.

Whoa....just because it is an abridged version doesn't make it less authoritative.

Does volume now determine quality?

 

[Steven Howard]

If you had stated this a little more clearly, you could have avoided the above pointless argument.

Remember who you're talking to. Claus didn't rack up the highest post count on the forum by avoiding pointless arguments.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Not a word from you about taking a "representative sample of, say, 10". Not a word from you about seeing what the "widely accepted view is from a number of dictionaries".

Quote mining, the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt. Don't pretend to be so stupid that you are comparing a request for you to clarify what definition you are using, with an assertion that if I accept a dictionary definition I MUST accept that in the only dictionary you have found that agrees with you, even though it is contradicted by its more authoritative version.

You settled on one dictionary, and one dictionary only.

So, the question is really: Why do you get to choose the dictionary?

And the answer is that I am not claiming to - I am the one offering to accept the definition contained in a representative sample.

So again, will YOU accept the majority definition from a representative sample of dictionaries?

Please try and answer this question so I don't have to keep repeating it, I know you hate lists of unanswered questions.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

The Concise OED is a less authoritative version? That what?

The Shorter OED.

Oh, you forgot this: Do you stand by your statement that I don't "ever" admit an error?

Here's a deal for you, if you can find the post where I made that statement, I will answer it - if you can't then you provide (wholly within a single post, no links, no claims to refer to historical events) the definition YOU are using for "engaged"?

Deal?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

The Collins English Dictionary (at least the hard copy I have) defines engaged as "pledged to be married, betrothed".

 

[richardm]

Whoa....just because it is an abridged version doesn't make it less authoritative.

Does volume now determine quality?

Did you actually read anything that I wrote about the relative merits of the dictionaries?

 

[CFLarsen]

Quote mining, the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt. Don't pretend to be so stupid that you are comparing a request for you to clarify what definition you are using, with an assertion that if I accept a dictionary definition I MUST accept that in the only dictionary you have found that agrees with you, even though it is contradicted by its more authoritative version.

No, I am not quote mining. Nowhere did you use other dictionaries. You demanded that I went with the one you chose.

And the answer is that I am not claiming to

That's exactly what you did.

I am the one offering to accept the definition contained in a representative sample.

No, not a "sample". A specific dictionary, chosen by you as the authoritative one.

So again, will YOU accept the majority definition from a representative sample of dictionaries?

But you didn't do that. Why should I?

The Shorter OED.

Why that?

Here's a deal for you, if you can find the post where I made that statement, I will answer it - if you can't then you provide (wholly within a single post, no links, no claims to refer to historical events) the definition YOU are using for "engaged"?

Deal?

Here is the post:

What is fascinating is to observe the effort that certain posters make to avoid ever admitting making an error. Certainly not the behaviour you would expect of someone who identifies themselves as a skeptic.

Do you still stand by that?

The Collins English Dictionary (at least the hard copy I have) defines engaged as "pledged to be married, betrothed".

You can't just pick your way through the dictionaries and sort those who you like.

 

[CFLarsen]

Did you actually read anything that I wrote about the relative merits of the dictionaries?

Yes, I did. Just because one is longer doesn't make it more authoritative. You can have the exact same description in two different sized chunks.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

No, I am not quote mining. Nowhere did you use other dictionaries. You demanded that I went with the one you chose.

I didn't demand anything. I asked if that was the definition you were using or if not if you would provide the definition you were using. So far you have failed to do so.

So unless you can back up your claim that I demanded you use this definition with evidence, perhaps you will withdraw that claim - you are keen on evidence to support claims, right?

Why that?

Try reading richardm's post, the explanation is very clear.

Here is the post:

Just to be clear this is the post where you claim that I made a "statement that [you] don't "ever" admit an error"?

By the way, can you confirm that you accept the terms of the deal?

You can't just pick your way through the dictionaries and sort those who you like.

If only someone had suggested using a representative sample - oh wait, I did!

Glad you agree that this is what is needed.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Yes, I did. Just because one is longer doesn't make it more authoritative. You can have the exact same description in two different sized chunks.

Does it make it any less authoritative then? Is there any reason why we should back the concise dictionary over its standard counterpart?

 

[CFLarsen]

I didn't demand anything. I asked if that was the definition you were using or if not if you would provide the definition you were using. So far you have failed to do so.

Nonsense. You demanded that I went with your specific dictionary.

Try reading richardm's post, the explanation is very clear.

Try reading my responses to him.

Just to be clear this is the post where you claim that I made a "statement that [you] don't "ever" admit an error"?

Yes.

By the way, can you confirm that you accept the terms of the deal?

No. I don't see any reasons to do any "deals" with you. You are clearly not debating honestly.

If only someone had suggested using a representative sample - oh wait, I did!

No, you didn't. You chose one dictionary above all others.

 

[CFLarsen]

Does it make it any less authoritative then? Is there any reason why we should back the concise dictionary over its standard counterpart?

Not if the two complete each other.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

A few more definitions, to help in finding a representative sample (found from a google search on "ditionary definition engaged" (including typo!)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/engagement
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/engagement
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/engagement
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861608474/engagement.html
http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/ENGAGEMENT
http://www.dictionary.net/engaged

 

[Ian Osborne]

Not if the two complete each other.

So the full version is incomplete without the abridged version?

 

[richardm]

Yes, I did. Just because one is longer doesn't make it more authoritative. You can have the exact same description in two different sized chunks.

Actually I think to an extent size can matter. Whenever you try to shoehorn information into a smaller space you run the risk of compromising meaning or introducing ambiguity. When you have room to expound more carefully and fully then you can make your meaning clearer.

But that is less important than the distinction that the SOED is an abridged version of the full OED. That is to say, they've removed some of the more esoteric words that are almost never encountered, and pretty much ignored anything that was obsolete by the 18th Century. The definitions are the result of careful scholarship. It is much closer to the OED's content than the COED.

The COED, on the other hand, is a different animal because it is intended for a different use. It is a handbook of language, if you like, rather than a mechanic's guide. It's not wrong, but it is less detailed and accurate.

 

[CFLarsen]

A few more definitions, to help in finding a representative sample (found from a google search on "ditionary definition engaged" (including typo!)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/engagement
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/engagement
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/engagement
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861608474/engagement.html
http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/ENGAGEMENT
http://www.dictionary.net/engaged

No need to wear yourself out. You need to define what makes a dictionary authoritative first.

So the full version is incomplete without the abridged version?

No.

Actually I think to an extent size can matter. Whenever you try to shoehorn information into a smaller space you run the risk of compromising meaning or introducing ambiguity. When you have room to expound more carefully and fully then you can make your meaning clearer.

But that is less important than the distinction that the SOED is an abridged version of the full OED. That is to say, they've removed some of the more esoteric words that are almost never encountered, and pretty much ignored anything that was obsolete by the 18th Century. The definitions are the result of careful scholarship. It is much closer to the OED's content than the COED.

The COED, on the other hand, is a different animal because it is intended for a different use. It is a handbook of language, if you like, rather than a mechanic's guide. It's not wrong, but it is less detailed and accurate.

Of course. So, where do we go for The Authoritative Dictionary?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Nonsense. You demanded that I went with your specific dictionary.

Evidence?

Lets see that post in full again shall we?

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Is your definition of engagement that found in the dictionary?

American Heritage Dictionary entry for engage:

To obtain or contract for the services of; employ: engage a carpenter.
To arrange for the use of; reserve: engage a room. See Synonyms at book.
To pledge or promise, especially to marry.
To attract and hold the attention of; engross: a hobby that engaged her for hours at a time.
To win over or attract: His smile engages everyone he meets.
To draw into; involve: engage a shy person in conversation.
To require the use of; occupy: Studying engages most of my time.
To enter or bring into conflict with: We have engaged the enemy.
To interlock or cause to interlock; mesh: engage the automobile's clutch.
To give or take as security.

If not, then can you please explain what definition you ARE using.

What "formal stuff" is required to turn a "promise to marry" into an "engagement" under the definition you are using?

Should be easy enough for you to point out the bit demanding you use that definition - unless of course you are a liar.

Yes.

Good, glad that's clear.

No. I don't see any reasons to do any "deals" with you. You are clearly not debating honestly.[

And here we see how fundamentally dishonest you are, because you KNOW that the post does NOT contain the statement you claimed, you have to refuse the deal, because accepting it means you would have to post a definition (which despite your claims to have done so it is apparent you have not).

Someone is not debating honestly, but you need to give some more thought as to who that is.

No, you didn't. You chose one dictionary above all others.

Another easily proved lie:

All posted by Jaggy Bunnet:

Nope, lets see what the widely accepted view is from a number of dictionaries.

You don't get to choose the dictionary. How about we take a representative sample of, say, 10?

And the answer is that I am not claiming to - I am the one offering to accept the definition contained in a representative sample.

So again, will YOU accept the majority definition from a representative sample of dictionaries?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

No need to wear yourself out. You need to define what makes a dictionary authoritative first.

No I don't.

It is perfectly clear what the widely accepted dictionary definition is.

 

[richardm]

Of course. So, where do we go for The Authoritative Dictionary?

We aren't going anywhere to get it, because I think that if I went to the library, ripped out the page with "Engaged" defined on it and sent it by Pigeon Post to the Conservatoire de Paris where they could set the bloody thing to music and thence take it in a parade to your house to be sung to you by the Danish National Chamber Choir, you would simply say something along the lines of "Well, dictionaries only record past usages of the word whereas I'm using it in a contemporary sense that is whatever I mean it to mean. Because English is a living language!"

I would then be forced to slam shut a large dictionary around your nether regions, and I don't think either of us would enjoy that. But I should warn you that if necessary I will borrow Jaggy's Collins Dictionary to do so, and that is a hard-back edition with thumb indexes.

So I think on balance it's better if I go and get a beer instead.