Never a true word!

[Southwind17]

I have noticed that many of the threads on the Forum often reach a point where the debate turns from the matter in hand to the meaning(s) of a word or words, often through necessity. Indeed, some threads become completely derailed over word meanings. In such instances it is sometimes the case that there is some disagreement over the extent to which dictionaries may be turned to for help.

I have always been under the impression that the purpose of a dictionary is to 'define' words, in other words, to provide the 'proper' meaning of words, irrespective of how words might be used in society. It seems to me, though, that many forum members might well disagree with this, preferring the notion that the purpose of a dictionary is simply to catalogue common usage. Indeed, even the great man Randi himself, in the video clip of his interview with Richard Dawkins, claims that dictionaries "do not define words" but instead give "common", "current" and/or "popular" usage. He even goes so far as to suggest that it would be "risky" to try to define words, albeit in the context of the MDC!

Now, according to my Chambers dictionary, which, admittedly, is around a decade old, the definition of 'dictionary' is:

"a book containing the words of a language alphabetically arranged, with their meanings, etymology, etc."

In the section of the dictionary that describes its structure the authors seemingly chose not to explain how alternative 'meanings' for words are arranged, electing instead to use the word 'definitions', thereby possibly introducing a degree of confusion, but for which the following explanation is provided, nonetheless:

"... definitions are ordered and grouped with a view to clarity, ease of comprehension and use. Normally the most common meanings are given first, unless an earlier, perhaps more specific, sense serves to clarify or explain its subsequent use."

The entry for the word 'definition' reads: "an explanation of the exact meaning (of a word, term or phrase)" (emphasis added).

The entry for 'etymology' reads: "the science or investigation of the derivation and original signification of words" (emphasis added).

The entry for 'etymon' is given as: "the true origin of a word" (emphasis added).

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.

Let's take an example:

So many people these days use the word 'massive' as a synonym for 'large' or 'huge'. Indeed, even BBC correspondents are prone to referring to the aftermath of a car bomb, for example, as a 'massive hole'. This, to me, could possibly be regarded as the ultimate contradiction.

My dictionary gives the definition of 'massive' as: "bulky; weighty; giving an impression of weight; ...; great in quantity" (this last meaning, interestingly, with reference to the dictionary structure quoted above, is relegated to 6th position!).

The fact that people, for whatever reason, choose to misuse certain words, even to the extent that just about everybody might be doing so, is no reason to change dictionaries to accord. The dictionary should be the final arbiter governing what, exactly, words mean, accepting that some definitions will inevitably lead to a degree of latitude.

 

[Wolfman]

The dictionary should be the final arbiter governing what, exactly, words mean, accepting that some definitions will inevitably lead to a degree of latitude.

I'll skip the rest of it, and just go to your final conclusion.

Which is nonsense.

A dictionary doesn't define for all time the meanings of words. Language -- any language -- evolves and changes over time. Dictionaries, and their definitions, change to reflect that process.

Look up the word "gay" in a dictionary, and it will tell you that the most common use of that word today is to refer to a homosexual; yet in the past, the primary use was to refer to a state of happiness. That does not mean that the past use was wrong, nor that the present use is wrong.

You reflect a view of language that language should be static and unchanging, restricted in its use only to those specific definitions contained in a dictionary. Yet language is constantly changing, constantly evolving...and that is a good thing.

Not only that, dictionaries vary according to where they are published. American dictionaries, British dictionaries, and Australian dictionaries will include words and definitions that don't appear in the others. The fact that your dictionary doesn't have that particular definition does not mean that it is not a valid use.

If a person uses a term in a certain manner, and others understand the intended meaning, then the purpose of communication has been met, regardless of whether or not a dictionary contains that specific usage, and regardless of whether or not you personally agree with it.

Let me point out, finally, that dictionaries generally run behind modern usage. Words may enter popular culture and popular usage, but will not be incorporated into the dictionary until they've been used for 5 or 10 years. It is ridiculous to argue that in the 5 years before it was in the dictionary, it was wrong to use a particular word for a particular meaning, but then after it makes it into the dictionary, suddenly it is "right". Usage determines what goes into the dictionary; the dictionary does not define usage.

 

[PrincessIneffabelle]

The fact that people, for whatever reason, choose to misuse certain words, even to the extent that just about everybody might be doing so, is no reason to change dictionaries to accord. The dictionary should be the final arbiter governing what, exactly, words mean, accepting that some definitions will inevitably lead to a degree of latitude.

That's a terrific idea! When people use the wrong words, it's so awful that it makes me nauseous.



Check out this web site for words and their orgins and just how definitions actually can and do change with popular use.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Now, according to my Chambers dictionary, which, admittedly, is around a decade old, the definition of 'dictionary' is:

You're going to a dictionary to get the definition of dictionary? Why that's only going to lead to self-serving definitions cooked up by the publishers of dictionaries. Dictionary publishers would rule the world if everyone was as trusting as you.

But seriously, what the prior poster said about usage defining what's in the dictionary is true. But change is not so rampant that the dictionary shouldn't be viewed as the authority. And word usage seldom changes so rapidly that a word loses a meaning over the course of mere couple years. Anyone who can't make a clear argument using dictionary definitions is getting what they deserve if someone misunderstands their argument.

If you want yourself understood you should either use the proper words. If they are recent additions to the language or come from some specialized field's jargon it's really the burden of the speaker to define the words.

 

[TragicMonkey]

You're backwards. Dictionaries report how words are being used by people. Dictionaries conform to usage, not the other way around.

For instance, "cooperate" used to have that stupid two dots over the second o, and before that it was hyphenated. We don't do that anymore.

 

[alfaniner]

I'm still hoping we can get "cow-orker" into the dictionary.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I'm still hoping we can get "cow-orker" into the dictionary.

Trend is to get rid of hyphens so your window of opportunity is closing.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2986153#post2986153

 

[Tokenconservative]

I have noticed that many of the threads on the Forum often reach a point where the debate turns from the matter in hand to the meaning(s) of a word or words, often through necessity. Indeed, some threads become completely derailed over word meanings. In such instances it is sometimes the case that there is some disagreement over the extent to which dictionaries may be turned to for help.

I have always been under the impression that the purpose of a dictionary is to 'define' words, in other words, to provide the 'proper' meaning of words, irrespective of how words might be used in society. It seems to me, though, that many forum members might well disagree with this, preferring the notion that the purpose of a dictionary is simply to catalogue common usage. Indeed, even the great man Randi himself, in the video clip of his interview with Richard Dawkins, claims that dictionaries "do not define words" but instead give "common", "current" and/or "popular" usage. He even goes so far as to suggest that it would be "risky" to try to define words, albeit in the context of the MDC!

Now, according to my Chambers dictionary, which, admittedly, is around a decade old, the definition of 'dictionary' is:

"a book containing the words of a language alphabetically arranged, with their meanings, etymology, etc."

In the section of the dictionary that describes its structure the authors seemingly chose not to explain how alternative 'meanings' for words are arranged, electing instead to use the word 'definitions', thereby possibly introducing a degree of confusion, but for which the following explanation is provided, nonetheless:

"... definitions are ordered and grouped with a view to clarity, ease of comprehension and use. Normally the most common meanings are given first, unless an earlier, perhaps more specific, sense serves to clarify or explain its subsequent use."

The entry for the word 'definition' reads: "an explanation of the exact meaning (of a word, term or phrase)" (emphasis added).

The entry for 'etymology' reads: "the science or investigation of the derivation and original signification of words" (emphasis added).

The entry for 'etymon' is given as: "the true origin of a word" (emphasis added).

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.

Let's take an example:

So many people these days use the word 'massive' as a synonym for 'large' or 'huge'. Indeed, even BBC correspondents are prone to referring to the aftermath of a car bomb, for example, as a 'massive hole'. This, to me, could possibly be regarded as the ultimate contradiction.

My dictionary gives the definition of 'massive' as: "bulky; weighty; giving an impression of weight; ...; great in quantity" (this last meaning, interestingly, with reference to the dictionary structure quoted above, is relegated to 6th position!).

The fact that people, for whatever reason, choose to misuse certain words, even to the extent that just about everybody might be doing so, is no reason to change dictionaries to accord. The dictionary should be the final arbiter governing what, exactly, words mean, accepting that some definitions will inevitably lead to a degree of latitude.

Mayhaps.

This forum seems, from my reading, to be mostly in English, an ever-changing language unlike say, French or German, and so while the "dictionary definition" of a word not in common use is always helpful, the reality is in a language such as English, connotative, if not always denotative uses of words are ever-changing.

This is the bane of those for whom English is a second, third, etc. language and look at the differences between Aussie, and British and US and Canadian English. What the HELL is "bangers and chips"!? Sounds almost pornographic to American ears, but it's just a pretty common breakfast meal of sausage and potatoes...innit?

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

I'm still hoping we can get "cow-orker" into the dictionary.

As long as we get them out of the fields and away from the livestock, you can put them anywhere else you want.

Don't get me wrong, nothing's more entertaining than watching a "cow-orker" mistake a bull for a cow, but you still end up with a mess to clean.

Tokie

 

[Alt+F4]

Look up the word "gay" in a dictionary, and it will tell you that the most common use of that word today is to refer to a homosexual; yet in the past, the primary use was to refer to a state of happiness.

And today among the teen scene it means stupid. One of my (female) students had a dropped call on her cell phone which she then called gay. I took the phone from her and said, "Is this phone a lesbian? Is it coming on to you? Let's take it to the dean's office and file sexual harrasement charges right now!."

I for one constantly make up new non-derogotory words. I don't like the word calculators, so instead I say calculi. We have lots of teeth in our mouth, so why toothbrush? Teethbrush makes more sense.

 

[TragicMonkey]

And today among the teen scene it means stupid. One of my (female) students had a dropped call on her cell phone which she then called gay. I took the phone from her and said, "Is this phone a lesbian? Is it coming on to you? Let's take it to the dean's office and file sexual harrasement charges right now!."

I for one constantly make up new non-derogotory words. I don't like the word calculators, so instead I say calculi. We have lots of teeth in our mouth, so why toothbrush? Teethbrush makes more sense.

1. Calculi already is a word.

2. "Gay" as a perjorative is a lot older than today's "teen scene". It's very Eighties, dude. It was so ingrained in the Eighties that those of us who were kids in the Eighties sometimes still use it in that way today, despite enlightenment, equality, and being gay ourselves.

 

[Wolfman]

To illustrate the point I raised above, here are examples from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary and the Oxford Dictionary of new words that have recently been added. In some cases, they are entirely new words; in other cases, they are pre-existing words with new definitions added.

The dictionaries added those words because those words and their meanings became understood or common long before the dictionaries acknowledged them. So for Southwind to go to a dictionary, and say, "I can't find that particular meaning" or "I can't find that particular word", then use that as a claim that this word or usage is wrong...well, I say he is a radge (new word added to the Oxford dictionary, one of the meanings of which is to describe a crazy person). I don't mean to therapize him (another new word added to the Oxford dictionary, that means to subject a person to psychological therapy), but he does seem a bit of a twonk (another new word added to the Oxford dictionary, that means a stupid or foolish person), and I might tell him to kiss my bahookie (you can look that one up for yourself), except it might come close to skirting the rules of the forum.

Human beings define words, and their meanings. Those words, and their meanings, change over time. Dictionaries reflect those changes, but are necessarily one step behind actual popular usage. A dictionary cannot predict what words will be created, or what meanings will be added or changed with existing words; it can only reflect changes that have already taken place.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Any discussion of dictionaries always makes me think of my favorite Blackadder episode, the one with Dr Johnson. A great big papery thing, tied up with string.

 

[fuelair]

Part of the problem/disagreement here may well lie with the fields of discussion as opposed to the dictionary being used and how it is arranged (I tend to prefer the Oxford English Dictionary so my prejudice is here noted). If the word being misused is in a field of science or philosophy, the odds are exceptionally good that the word has only one meaning in that field (theory and law as used in science being a major example as both words are generally misused when non-scientists try to talk about science) and, with no regard to how the word is used outside that field, within it any other use is wrong.

Most fields have words they use that are also used in common language. As with science and philosophy, that does not preclude their having a different and constant meaning in the field - which anyone trying to discuss the field using it's own terms needs to be aware of and follow. Really good/thorough/complete dictionaries tend to give these special definitions as part of the information they supply.

 

[Southwind17]

To illustrate the point I raised above, here are examples from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary and the Oxford Dictionary of new words that have recently been added. In some cases, they are entirely new words; in other cases, they are pre-existing words with new definitions added.

I have absolutely no objection to new words being added, indeed I welcome it, nor new definitions of existing words (although that, to my mind, tends to show lack of imagination that a suitable new word couldn't be conjured up), provided any such new definitions do not usurp the original definition(s). Incidentally, did you not happen to notice the numbers that appear before some of the definitions of words you refer to, especially the new definitions of existing words? Would you happen to know what those numbers mean? If you re-read the OP there's a big clue there for you. Perhaps you'd care to re-read your erroneous comment hereunder in this context!

The dictionaries added those words because those words and their meanings became understood or common long before the dictionaries acknowledged them. So for Southwind to go to a dictionary, and say, "I can't find that particular meaning" or "I can't find that particular word", then use that as a claim that this word or usage is wrong...well, I say he is a radge (new word added to the Oxford dictionary, one of the meanings of which is to describe a crazy person). I don't mean to therapize him (another new word added to the Oxford dictionary, that means to subject a person to psychological therapy), but he does seem a bit of a twonk (another new word added to the Oxford dictionary, that means a stupid or foolish person), and I might tell him to kiss my bahookie (you can look that one up for yourself), except it might come close to skirting the rules of the forum.

These are great words Wolfman, but, given the foregoing, I think I'd be inclined to reserve them, especially 'twonk', to personify somebody incapable of reading and/or comprehending the OP without drawing erroneous inferences. Somebody, perhaps, who is predisposed to carelessness and shallowness of thought in the interests of seeking attention by crafting an ostensibly smart and witty response, but showing himself, as a result, to be that very type of person to whom he alludes. That said, I reckon I could choose a number of far more poignant existing words that have far clearer long-understood definition to describe such a person!

Human beings define words, and their meanings. Those words, and their meanings, change over time.

Do the original meanings change?

Dictionaries reflect those changes, but are necessarily one step behind actual popular usage.

'Actual proper usage'? Care to elaborate, with reference to authoritative sources?

A dictionary cannot predict what words will be created, or what meanings will be added or changed with existing words; it can only reflect changes that have already taken place.

I agree. I don't dispute this. 'Twonk', again, might be a suitable example

 

[Southwind17]

That's a terrific idea! When people use the wrong words, it's so awful that it makes me nauseous.



Check out this web site for words and their orgins and just how definitions actually can and do change with popular use.

Yes, that looks suitably authoritative: "Words and Language in a Humorous Vein". I'll bet that's the first port of call for most lawyers and copywriters.

 

[Southwind17]

You're backwards. Dictionaries report how words are being used by people. Dictionaries conform to usage, not the other way around.

Says who? When I was at school it was fashionable for kids to say: Hey, borrow me your rubber (that's eraser, if you're not a Brit!). Go check out the definitions of 'borrow' and 'lend', see how well that particular usage took hold!

For instance, "cooperate" used to have that stupid two dots over the second o, and before that it was hyphenated. We don't do that anymore.

That's a really useful example.

I think 'umlaut' is the word that eludes you, but you can say 'omelette' if you like, if you think that might improve your communication skills!

 

[Southwind17]

Trend is to get rid of hyphens so your window of opportunity is closing.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2986153#post2986153

... and then we can dispense with the word 'hyphen' itself eh!

 

[Southwind17]

What the HELL is "bangers and chips"!? Sounds almost pornographic to American ears, but it's just a pretty common breakfast meal of sausage and potatoes...innit?

Tokie

I've never seen it on a breakfast menu, nor its derivative, bangers and mash (with gravy, of course)! Where the hell are you from?!

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

A common tactic in many debate forums; such as this one, is to redefine the words of an opponent. This of course is fallacious.

Another tactic is to redefine words written many years ago with their current common definitions, ignoring the meaning of the word when written. This is another fallacy.