Never a true word!

[Roboramma]

Which just goes to support the purpose for which I believe they're intended to be used. How much would you pay for some 'anorak's' train spotting or car number plate note books?

The comparison isn't really useful because it's obvious that if a dictionary is a list of common usage, that is useful. Knowing how other people use words and what they'll think you mean when you use that word seems pretty useful to me.

In fact, it seems far more useful than knowing what someone decreed a word to mean if no one actually uses it that way.

But let's look at it another way. I believe there's a big clue in the spelling of the word 'massive' to its intended meaning. Let's drop the suffix '-ive' for a moment. What are we left with? 'Mass'. Now, go look up 'mass' in your dictionaries and see what you find.

Hold on - do you really think that all words with suffixes mean the same thing as the root word + the suffix implies?

What's the difference between the meanings of these two words:
Awesome, Aweful?

Tell me, since when did 'mass' become a synonym for 'nothing', which is the essence of a hole?

Non-sequiteur. If mass was a synonym for nothing, then a massive hole would be a "holey hole". Which isn't what a massive hole is. It's an impressively large hole.
So even if your argument made sense (that words with suffixes mean exactly what the root word + the suffix imply) this sentence still wouldn't make sense.

 

[Cuddles]

Cuddles, what is your opinion of the below post?

I think it should be put in a field to scare birds away.

 

[Southwind17]

Southwind - care to respond to this?

Unfortunately, I don't have my dictionary with me right now, but it means whatever the dictionary gives as its meaning (whichever dictionary it is that you wish to defer, and whatever the context is in which you're seeking to use the word).

 

[Southwind17]

In other words, you're going state what you believe the purpose of a dictionary to be, overruling if necessary the people who actually produce dictionaries.

These "some people" including dictgionary publishers.

Maybe; most people on this Forum don't seem to have very much of a good word to say for lexicographers. But perhaps different dictionaries have different stated purposes(?)

No. The purpose of a dictionary is to list the common, accepted, meanings of words. Not to define them.

OK, I'm happy to dispense with the word 'define'; I don't think it's paticularly important. The key points are the word 'meaning' (which some posters have disputed), and, therefore, the fact that the main use of a dictionary is for consultation in order to understand what words mean.

This is demonstrably wrong; the English language was coherent and largely consistent prior to the publication of the first dictionary.

What that dictionary changed was not the coherency and/or consistency, but the accessibility to outsiders. If you spoke a regional dialect or were unfamiliar with the meanings of relatively rare words ("contrafibularity," anyone?), you could use the list given in the dictionary to access the words that you didn't know. But that doesn't mean that the dictionary defines the common meanings. It merely compiles them.

I'm not sure whether this alteration corrects the so-called wrong, but even if your explanation of the historical purpose of a dictionary is correct, surely it doesn't apply now. Why else do most households have one? Surely they'd just be sold in tourist information centres, and suchlike.

Not all. The OED is fairly explicit that it is a chronological list.

OK, so dictionaries list the varying meanings of words in different ways. I guess one just has to be selective as to which dictionary to refer to then, depending on the requirement in hand.

Yes. You still need massive amounts of education, because you affect knowledge in an area in which you are witlessly ignorant, and the effect is to make you into a pretentious and arrogant poseur.

Actually, believe it or not, I am prepared now to concede that I am wrong regarding my assertions as to the meaning(s) of the word 'massive'. It is the suffix '-ive' that has been throwing me, which I've been incorrectly interpreting in the context of it being applied as a word ending to adjectives. 'Massive' clearly is not an adjective, and I accept now that it's a word in its own right. With regard to this part of the debate I suppose I should hope that a massive hole would now appear and swallow me up!

At least I'm prepared to acknowledge when I'm wrong, once proven to be so (yes, I'm a stubborn b****** at times - apologies to all). I also appreciate what the 'E' stands for in 'JREF', so there you go.

 

[Southwind17]

The comparison isn't really useful because it's obvious that if a dictionary is a list of common usage, that is useful. Knowing how other people use words and what they'll think you mean when you use that word seems pretty useful to me.

The only part of this that doesn't sit comfortably with me is your reference to 'other people'. Are you referring to the guy next door, for example? If so, I can't see why a dictionary is necessary (assuming you're both native speakers). If not, then whom?

Hold on - do you really think that all words with suffixes mean the same thing as the root word + the suffix implies?

What's the difference between the meanings of these two words:
Awesome, Aweful?

Thanks Robo - this comparison essentially threw the much-needed light on the word 'massive' for me.

 

[drkitten]

Maybe; most people on this Forum don't seem to have very much of a good word to say for lexicographers.

I haven't seen anyone criticising them. They're dutiful if rather focused scholars and they do a useful job. It's just not the job you think they do. They document and categorize, instead of making pronouncements.

OK, I'm happy to dispense with the word 'define'; I don't think it's paticularly important. The key points are the word 'meaning' (which some posters have disputed), and, therefore, the fact that the main use of a dictionary is for consultation in order to understand what words mean.

Actually, I think you'll find that the main use of a dictionary is to check the spelling of a word that people know but are unsure of the "commonly accepted" spelling. For example, I'm rather embarassed that I don't know how to spell "embarrassed." Is there one r or two? How many s's are there? Fortunately, I have a dictionary to hand that will tell me if I need to find out. That's a commendable -- commendible? comendeble? -- trait of a dictionary.

I'm not sure whether this alteration corrects the so-called wrong, but even if your explanation of the historical purpose of a dictionary is correct, surely it doesn't apply now.

You think that there aren't regional dialects today?

Hint: what's the large piece of furniture, the one that seats three or more people, called? You know, the big thing in the room where you watch TV? For that matter, what's the room where you watch TV called? And the sweet carbonated beverage you drink while watching it?

Why else do most households have one?

Spelling corrections, mostly. The other main reason, of course, is that many of the words are not "common" in the sense that absolutely everyone knows them -- those words are almost never looked up. The words that are looked for some people to be unfamiliar with them, despite being relatively common in other contexts. "Massive" is a poor example, because almost every speaker knows what it means (and so no one's likely to look it up). But do you know what a "trope" is? (I didn't until about a year ago, when I encountered it in a scholarly paper from outside my field. It's quite common in some types of lit-crit, though.)

The best way to think about a dictionary is in comparison to other reference works. Think, for example, about a phone book. It's very useful, because it's close to accurate. If I don't know someone's phone number, the phone book is a good spot to start. Now, some people have ex-directory numbers, some other people have changed numbers recently, and there are simply some typos. But if the phone book says my number is 381-1852, but my phone rings when someone dials 318-1852, is the phone book wrong, or is my phone?

Similarly, road atlases are very useful for finding your way around. But the cartographers model the streets, not the other way around. If it turns out that there is a road on the map that was ripped out five years ago, is the cartographer or the road engineer the one who made a mistake?

Heck, think of birding books. Birds of the American Southwest. Very useful if you want to know what a roadrunner really looks like. But if there happens to be a penguin by the side of the road (perhaps an escaped pet, or perhaps an undocumented subspecies of penguin that biologists don't know about), are you going to go by the book and say that the penguin doesn't exist, or are you going to go by the actual physical bird? Because nature doesn't go put penguins where the book tells her to. The book describes where (as best we can tell) nature put the penguins.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Dorian Gray's Law: All forum arguments eventually devolve into etymological (semantic) arguments.

ETA: Caution: Dictionary.com is a compilation of multiple dictionaries, and as such, contains virtually no definitive definitions.

 

[pchams]

This is one of the more enjoyable, and educational posts that I have read in some time.
I think the OP speaks to the fact, that some people wish to preserve a state
of language that one has aquired, and one needs, in able to communicate absolutely, in a clear fashion (the consequences bordering on death), the information at hand.
The seemingly contrary opinion that language is a living thing, is not contrary at all. It is a separate point of debate.
One speaks to the portability of the language, one speaks to the pliability.

It's all just "common sense" anyway, innit?

 

[Southwind17]

Actually, I think you'll find that the main use of a dictionary is to check the spelling of a word that people know but are unsure of the "commonly accepted" spelling.

Well, that's certainly one of the reasons I turn to the dictionary, but not as often as for checking meanings, and it certainly hasn't been suggested as the main use by anybody earlier in this thread. But why is a dictionary accepted as the authority on spelling, as you suggest, but not meaning. What's the difference?

What's the big aversion to accepting that a dictionary's main purpose is to describe the meanings of words? My dictionary, as I explained earlier, certainly cites and demonstrates this as at least part of its purpose. Even accepting the 'common usage' argument, serving to describe the meanings of words still seems to fit well. It's as though there's some kind of stigma associated with the 'M' (meaning) word!

You think that there aren't regional dialects today?

Hint: what's the large piece of furniture, the one that seats three or more people, called? You know, the big thing in the room where you watch TV? For that matter, what's the room where you watch TV called? And the sweet carbonated beverage you drink while watching it?

Of course I do, but I've never seen a regional dictionary (although I can't attest to having looked for any!). I guess you're saying that one purpose of a dictionary is to capture different words that might be used only regionally for the benefit of all. Is that correct?

Spelling corrections, mostly.

See my comment above re. spelling. Given that dictionary publishers compile them based on common usage, and as such new entries in a dictionary inevitably lag behind their prior usage, who determines the spelling of new words? Are they derived from common usage also, which, by definition, must be in the written form. or are there 'rules' to be applied to the official spelling of new words?

The best way to think about a dictionary is in comparison to other reference works. Think, for example, about a phone book. It's very useful, because it's close to accurate. If I don't know someone's phone number, the phone book is a good spot to start. Now, some people have ex-directory numbers, some other people have changed numbers recently, and there are simply some typos. But if the phone book says my number is 381-1852, but my phone rings when someone dials 318-1852, is the phone book wrong, or is my phone?

Similarly, road atlases are very useful for finding your way around. But the cartographers model the streets, not the other way around. If it turns out that there is a road on the map that was ripped out five years ago, is the cartographer or the road engineer the one who made a mistake?

Heck, think of birding books. Birds of the American Southwest. Very useful if you want to know what a roadrunner really looks like. But if there happens to be a penguin by the side of the road (perhaps an escaped pet, or perhaps an undocumented subspecies of penguin that biologists don't know about), are you going to go by the book and say that the penguin doesn't exist, or are you going to go by the actual physical bird? Because nature doesn't go put penguins where the book tells her to. The book describes where (as best we can tell) nature put the penguins.

I'm not sure I agree with these analogies. The phone book doesn't offer alternative names for the same phone number, for example. It's not so much what does and doesn't appear in the dictionary, but how it may be reliably used, that matters.

 

[Cuddles]

If it turns out that there is a road on the map that was ripped out five years ago, is the cartographer or the road engineer the one who made a mistake?

Judging by the works going on around here, it was the engineer.

 

[drkitten]

But why is a dictionary accepted as the authority on spelling, as you suggest, but not meaning. What's the difference?

It's not accepted as the authority on spelling, either. Dictionaries have errors in spelling, too. On the other hand, dictionaries tend to be very reliable both for spelling and for meaning. If you genuinely don't know how to spell a word (or what a word means), then a dictionary is a good, quick, reference. But the dictionary is not authoritative; it's merely accurate. For example, if the dictionary tells me that the only acceptable spelling of "utilise" is with an s, then the dictionary is simply wrong. (That's the accepted British spelling, yes. But there is life outside England's green and pleasant lands.)


And, of course, the simple fact is that people are usually much more knowledgable and confident about the meanings of words than they are about the spellings of them.

What's the big aversion to accepting that a dictionary's main purpose is to describe the meanings of words?

It's part of my general aversion to "accepting" statement that are simply wrong.

Of course I do, but I've never seen a regional dictionary (although I can't attest to having looked for any!). I guess you're saying that one purpose of a dictionary is to capture different words that might be used only regionally for the benefit of all. Is that correct?

Or to capture meanings that are used widely for the benefit of those who are unfamiliar with the prestige dialect. Or to capture meanings that are used mainly by specialists. If everyone around me says "chesterfield" while I say "couch," then either I or my neighbors might resort to a dictionary to figure out what the hell the other means.

But on the other hand, if I and my neighbors all agree that the word is "couch," then we won't bother to look the word up at all.

See my comment above re. spelling. Given that dictionary publishers compile them based on common usage, and as such new entries in a dictionary inevitably lag behind their prior usage, who determines the spelling of new words?

The inventors of the new words get first crack at it, and that's usually the basis for acceptance. (Hence "aluminum" vs. "aluminium," which originated in a printer's error.) On the other hand, when a variant spelling becomes sufficiently widespread, it can replace the previous spelling -- see, for example, "lite" beer.

Are they derived from common usage also, which, by definition, must be in the written form. or are there 'rules' to be applied to the official spelling of new words?

Nope. Common usage again. "Kleenex," for example, is spelled with two e's and one n, because that's how the original brand-name product spells it. The word is in the process of genericization and is now used to describe any tissue.... but people still spell it with two e's and one n. If you want to spell the word "kleinnex," you are welcome to, but most people will think you're making a mistake, not striking a blow for editorial independence.

I'm not sure I agree with these analogies. The phone book doesn't offer alternative names for the same phone number, for example.

Actually, it does. (My partner and I have two separate entries, same number). The "standard" phone book doesn't allow lookup by phone number at all, so there wouldn't be much point in offering alternate names. But if you buy the specialist "reverse phone book" (they sell those to businesses, mostly telemarketers), it will indeed list alternative names for the same phone number.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

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.

I know. Cooperation used to be so metal!

 

[Southwind17]

On the other hand, dictionaries tend to be very reliable both for spelling and for meaning. If you genuinely don't know how to spell a word (or what a word means), then a dictionary is a good, quick, reference.

(emphasis added)

It's part of my general aversion to "accepting" statement that are simply wrong.

Is this not a contradiction? What part of what statement is wrong?

 

[Beerina]

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.

I thought punctuation like that was never part of the English language. One might use it in a proper name, but generally one converted it to the xe form, i.e. oe for ö.

 

[drkitten]

What part of what statement is wrong?

Well, here's the statement in question.

[A] a dictionary's main purpose is to describe the meanings of words.

Since the most common use of a dictionary is to describe the spellings, not meanings, it is wrong.

 

[Southwind17]

Well, here's the statement in question.

Since the most common use of a dictionary is to describe the spellings, not meanings, it is wrong.

I would argue that it's just your opinion that the main purpose of a dictionary is to describe the spelling of words (it certainly isn't for me). But more importantly, are you now admitting that one purpose of a dictionary is to describe the meanings of words, as you seem to do above?

 

[drkitten]

But more importantly, are you now admitting that one purpose of a dictionary is to describe the meanings of words, as you seem to do above?

I don't think I've ever denied that. What I have denied is the idea (expressed in your OP) that dictionaries prescribe the meanings of words.

This is the relevant section of the OP:

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.

I have been, and remain, adamant that dictionaries "do not define words" but instead give "common," "current," and/or "popular" usage.

You later emended your position to state that:

some people have, I believe, shown themselves to be wrong in believing that a dictionary does not define the meaning of words,

On the contrary; I hold that position and do not consider myself to have been shown wrong.

I believe that this description accommodates the fact that we need to have a common, accepted reference point for vocabulary in order for language to remain coherent and largely consistent,

This statement is simply wrong. Languages do not need a "common, accepted reference point" to remain coherent and consistent. The fact that language has been around for thousands of years, while dictionaries only a few hundred, shows this statement to be false.

That's not to say that meanings are necessarily lost, but that one meaning might, over time, be promoted over another as regards its frequency of use. The 'relegated' meaning of the word will not be lost,[/QUTOE]

No, the original meaning is often lost. "Awesome" is one such example (which originally meant "inspiring fear") as is "urchin" (which originally meant "hedgehog.") "Nake" originally meant "to peel," as in to nake a nut by removing its shell; today the word exists only as "naked," meaning without clothes. A "nurese" was originally one who cared for children, what today we call a "child-minder" or "baby-sitter," but today is a medical professional. And, of course, "malaria" was any disease caused by breathing unhealthy air, a history you can read in the now-discarded etymology.

A good dictionary will note the original meaning (often with a pejorative "Obs") but often will drop it althogether as being irrelevant to all but specialists.

I believe that debate over the correct hierarchical arrangement of different meanings of words based on frequency of usage could well be a large part of the cause of the problem that both I in the OP, and Jerome above, refer to, and not necessarily the meanings themselves.

I disagree entirely. The pseudo-problem you noted in the OP stems almost entirely from your assumption that the meanings listed in the dictionary are definitive, and that if the propsoed meaning is not in the dictionary, it is not legitimate. This is simply false. No amount of tinkering with the order of the entries will solve the fundamental issue that the dictionary may not list the intended meaning. It doesn't matter how you order a set that doesn't include the item of interest. The simple fact is that the item does not appear in the list at all -- and that's a fundamental problem, not of the item, but of the list.

 

[Southwind17]

This statement is simply wrong. Languages do not need a "common, accepted reference point" to remain coherent and consistent. The fact that language has been around for thousands of years, while dictionaries only a few hundred, shows this statement to be false.

Is it not possible that dictionaries were introduced through perceived necessity, for that very purpose, to harmonise, if you like, all the varying dialects that existed in order that people could better understand each other, hence the introduction also of 'standard English'? I don't purport to know the answer; I'm just asking.

I disagree entirely. The pseudo-problem you noted in the OP stems almost entirely from your assumption that the meanings listed in the dictionary are definitive, and that if the propsoed meaning is not in the dictionary, it is not legitimate. This is simply false.

I'm not sure why you refer to it as a pseudo-problem. Other people have noticed and, indeed, commented on it. Have you not observed it too? Interesting, then, that you believe it stems from my assumption. Perhaps we have some promising candidiates for the MDC here?!

 

[drkitten]

Is it not possible that dictionaries were introduced through perceived necessity, for that very purpose, to harmonise, if you like, all the varying dialects that existed in order that people could better understand each other, hence the introduction also of 'standard English'? I don't purport to know the answer; I'm just asking.

Not really -- "standard English" (London dialect) preceeded the first dictionary by at least four hundred years. Before that, of course, the "standard" language was a variant of Norman French, and if you go back far enough, Latin.

Even saying that the "standard" was London dialect is oversimplifying things a bit. There's a wonderful and probably apocryphal story about the reason that the river running through London is pronounce "Tems." It seems that George, Elector of Hanover, couldn't pronounce "Thaims" properly when he arrived to assume the throne of England, and so people started "aping their betters." There's still a small village called "Thame" (and pronounced "Thaim") near London, but I assume George I didn't talk about it much.

Or, of course, the story is just that.

But it does serve to illustrate the central point about "standard" dialects. They're simply the dialects used by people with power and social position. As such, they've existed for as long as social position and power have -- I'm sure there was an upper-class Sumerian accent and people laughed at you if you sounded like a hick from Babylon. ("Listen to him : he said nukular!" <titter titter>)

So, if you want to be treated as a rich man, talk like a rich man. ("Speak, that I may know thee.") The problem wasn't understanding, but social prestige.

I'm not sure why you refer to it as a pseudo-problem.

Because it's not a problem, any more than it's a "problem" with a hammer that it doesn't drive screws well.

 

[Southwind17]

Because it's not a problem, any more than it's a "problem" with a hammer that it doesn't drive screws well.

Well, in that case I'd simply select the correct tool for the job, but do we have a 'correct tool' to deal with the problem (real, not pseudo) of people not being able fully to understand or appreciate an argument for want of agreeing the meanings of words? It seems that the dictionary affords limited help; its purpose seemingly being ambiguous and/or plain misunderstood.

Some words have very clear meanings when used in certain contexts, and presumably this is what's at the forefront of a judge's mind when he turns to the dictionary for assistance during a court case. But what would be your advice Doc if you were to preside over a debate over the meaning of a word, assuming that it's in everybodies interests to resolve the debate?