actually words and definitions are removed from the dictionary, or at least relegated to "archaic" status, to eventually be removed from most, if not all, print editions.Originally Posted by Tony Williams
True as far as it goes, but the point is that once a new usage of a word gains ground the dictionary will reflect that (or fail at its task), the point I was responding to was the implication that as a word (or two words) currently had clear definitions in the dictionary, new usage could not, and should not, gain ground. If that argument were to hold water we would be using the dictionary to determine the use of words, not using the dictionary to record the usage of words.If people start using this work wrongly, that won't be reflected in the Dictionary unless the mistake becomes so widespread that it becomes an accepted alternative meaning. Exactly when that happens is a matter for the judgment of the editorial staff.
Using a dictionary to determine the meaning of words is both a nonsense and an impossibility, ask Gödel.
A lot of dictionary users do exactly that - they look up a word to see what it means.
A dictionary is an iterative process: established uses get recorded, and this provides an authoritative reference for people to consult. The content is constantly changing (although only a tiny percentage of words at any time) but the contemporary edition of the dictionary is regarded as authoritative at the time of publication, and can legitimately be used to determine what is "right" and "wrong" use at that time.
Interestingly, dictionaries are beng revised far more often than they used to be (helped by the fact that many are on-line these days, of course) as we seem to be in a particularly inventive period for new words, driven in part by new technologies.
not quite, they look up a word to see what it's intended meaning was likely to have been (or the understanding that the sue of that word is likely to give), and then try to apply the knowledge in context. there is only one person i know of who takes a dictionary definition as absolutely authoritative with no regard to context, and he claims that humans walk around on drumsticks, as it is “allowed by the dictionary”.
Except that a dictionary, by definition, must lag behind common usage- and it is that usage with it seeks to reflect, not to direct- a dictionary may be a good guide to usage, but it cannot be absolutely authoritative.The content is constantly changing (although only a tiny percentage of words at any time) but the contemporary edition of the dictionary is regarded as authoritative at the time of publication, and can legitimately be used to determine what is "right" and "wrong" use at that time.
There we must disagree. The standard reference for the English language is the Oxford English Dictionary and the current edition is authoritative - until replaced by the next edition. I don't have access to the on-line version, so I don't know how often a new edition comes out. But whatever is currently on it is authoritative.
If you don't accept that, consider the alternative. If I decided to refer to "carrots" as "bananas", and published lots of material to that effect and managed to get some friends to do the same, I presume that according to you that would become an entirely legitimate alternate meaning of ""bananas"? If not, why not? Therein lies chaos...
on the contrary, the OED is a guide to usage that tries to reflect usage not dictate it. If your understanding were correct every new OED in its draft form, would contain mistaken usage.
You seem to think that the lexicographers go out, and collect “non-words” and common mistakes, and by some alchemy give them legitimacy. You have this quite backwards, words gain “legitimacy” by their common accepted meanings and are then recorded by the dictionary, not the other way around. You are putting the cart before the horse.
Yes it would, because it relies on common understating, remember words do change in meaning words split and branch off, and merge, or reverse themselves in meaning all the time, they gain connotations, and lose connotations, and gain and lose meanings, and the dictionary tries- imperfectly- to reflect this.If you don't accept that, consider the alternative. If I decided to refer to "carrots" as "bananas", and published lots of material to that effect and managed to get some friends to do the same, I presume that according to you that would become an entirely legitimate alternate meaning of ""bananas"?
If you could do such a thing, and relay your meaning in an adequate way, why would this be wrong? Please explain how a word when effectively used to convey the intended meaning of its author to their intended audience is being used in an "illegitimate" way?
Is there a reason why “bananas”, in context, cannot be used to mean carrots?
Would you argue that "boy" should not be used to mean "male child"? or never should have gained that meaning?
Or that "nice" should not mean “pleasant”? Or that "massive" should not mean “large”? Some people still argue about that last one.
How about a very current one, should we not use the words epidemic or pandemic when referring to non-humans?
If you answer “no” to any of these, what would change your mind? What do you think would change the mind of a lexicographer?
All these words have come to mean different things over time, is their usage illegitimate? Was their usage illegitimate until the very second of the publication of the OED which contained their current definition, at which point they all became perfectly fine? In which case, what the hell are the publishers of the OED playing at, including such illegitimate usage in their supposedly authoritative guide to the English language?
Language (especially English) flows and changes, it evolves- it is not the subject of intelligent design no matter how much some people want it to be.
You seem to be misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I am saying.
Yes, I know that language evolves - I have said so already.
Yes, I know that the OED collects existing usage and incorporates that - I have said so already.
The key to the inclusion of a new word, or an alternative meaning for an existing one, is your phrase "common accepted meanings". At what point does a meaning become "common" and "accepted" enough to be incorporated in the OED? How much usage is required? Above all, who decides this? The answer is the editorial staff of the OED, who spend their working lives doing exactly that, using their professional judgment to determine what goes in the dictionary, and which usages are simple mistakes or just mischievous (such my using "bananas" for "carrots") and therefore to be ignored.
Whether you like it or not, if there is any dispute about the legitimacy or meaning of a word the OED is consulted as the highest available authority.
Fledrog gomble satring olegs.
I still think Humpty Dumpty (or rather Lewis Carroll), in that rather humerous way he had - upsetting to some I know - got the ridiculousness of this debate about right.words gain “legitimacy” by their common accepted meanings and are then recorded by the dictionary, not the other way around. You are putting the cart before the horse.
I thought a nice orange colour this time...' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
that would be a question which you should put to the OED, as it is not relevant to my case at all.
A word is used correctly when it conveys the indented meaning of the author to its intended audience the OED collects common (or uncommon but “prestigious”) ways of achieving this goal.
As an aside the words used in Mulder’s post above fail to achieve this goal, as although the intended meaning of his words may be clear to him, he can have no reasonable expectation that the intended meaning of his words will be understood by his intended audience. Ironically enough the intended meaning of his post is quite clear in the context of his thread and his point, however erroneous it may be, has been clearly communicated. Of course the accurate communication of his point rather undermines his point, doesn’t it?
simple mistakes have gained legitimacy as words (look at “comptroller”, which became a variant spelling and then a new word in its own right), as have words or definitions formed from mischievous and playful usage, the standard is use (or repeated use) in a “respected” sources which happens to pass the judgement of the lexicographer and respected sources do not tend to slavishly follow the OED, even though they may reference itare simple mistakes or just mischievous (such my using "bananas" for "carrots") and therefore to be ignored.
really? In all cases? I would like to see some evidence for this, indeed there have been many scholarly works specifically disputing the authority of the OED. It is an interesting and useful guide, however language will always move faster than a dictionary can keep up with, and in ways which certain dictionaries will not record.Whether you like it or not, if there is any dispute about the legitimacy or meaning of a word the OED is consulted as the highest available authority.
Furthermore in many (all?) cases where there is dispute about eth intended meaning of a word context is a much, much more important guide than the dictionary.
Oh and as a side note, although I regularly receive legal advice which often concerns semantic arguments over the prescience intended meaning of words used in legislation* I have yet to see any lawyers cite the OED as their source. From memory I have seen chambers, Webster’s and Collins, but not the OED
*of course only the courts can decide the real meaning of words used in legislation…
And you are still missing half of the equation, no matter which font colour you use.I still think Humpty Dumpty (or rather Lewis Carroll), in that rather humerous way he had - upsetting to some I know - got the ridiculousness of this debate about right.
I thought a nice orange colour this time...
So if an author writes a book incorporating a new word or meaning for an existing one, and much of his audience misunderstands it, he has not used the word "correctly"?
You are really dodging this issue: what percentage of a book's audience needs to understand this new usage to change the use from "incorrect" to "correct"?
Of course - but only after they have been picked up and used so much that they achieve legitimacy through common usage.simple mistakes have gained legitimacy as words (look at “comptroller”, which became a variant spelling and then a new word in its own right), as have words or definitions formed from mischievous and playful usage...
It would be astonishing if scholars ever agreed unanimously about anything......there have been many scholarly works specifically disputing the authority of the OED.
Lawyers will check all of the dictionaries to find the definition which best supports their case.Oh and as a side note, although I regularly receive legal advice which often concerns semantic arguments over the prescience intended meaning of words used in legislation* I have yet to see any lawyers cite the OED as their source. From memory I have seen chambers, Webster’s and Collins, but not the OED
"prescience"? ???
Oh you mean precise...you really had me guessing for a while there...clearly, not an example of a successful communication...
Which if you read Humpty Dumpty's comments is the whole point - Alice didn't understand Humpty's explanation of the Jaberwocky (not surprisingly given its nonsense nature and the obtuse response from said egg). Thus Humpty Dumpty's arrogant observation was exposed as false -not through some logical process but because Alice didn't understand.
What Carroll was saying (and this IS impotant) is that we cannot assume that our words (however grand and self-important) have meaning to the person hearing those words. And if that meaning isn't there, then the words are merely sounds and not communication. Humpty Dumpty went on to give a nonsensical recitation full of linguistic canards - this is wholly meaningless unless you appreciate that the 'meaninglessness' is a comment on the importance of clear communication.
And clear communication - at least in written form - requires agreed 'rules'. Or should I say accepted? One of the dangers with justifying consistent communication is that we end up with a relativistic and contradictory set of rules - hence Humpty Dumpty's warning: '...it means just what I want it to mean, nothing more and nothing less." This is wrong because we have to communicate...which is why it's funny?!
Correct, but a good lawyer will always rely on a dictionary which would be most persuasive/authorative to the court. The OED is usually used in English courts and tribunals. I have seen it used a number of times.
if the word has not had the effect which he intended it to have- communicate his meaning- then his use of the word has failed at its intended task. I cannot see a much better definition of incorrect usage.
that would depend on the standards the author set, it is you who insist on correct and incorrect usage, I am talking about effective and ineffective communication, a much more nebulous- but also much more useful- idea.You are really dodging this issue: what percentage of a book's audience needs to understand this new usage to change the use from "incorrect" to "correct"?
if you accept that words can achieve legitimacy prior to their inclusion in a dictionary, how can you claim that the dictionary is absolutely authoritative until it is revised?Of course - but only after they have been picked up and used so much that they achieve legitimacy through common usage.
surely such a thing would be neither possible nor necessary if the OED was the authoritative source, it clerly as an authrotitive source but it is not an absolute authority.Lawyers will check all of the dictionaries to find the definition which best supports their case.
absolutely, a careless spellcheck, much like your regalement of the word "word" with the word" work" earlier in this thread, no doubt there have been other errors on both sides, what was your point?"prescience"? ???
Oh you mean precise...you really had me guessing for a while there...clearly, not an example of a successful communication...
See your previous post: "A word is used correctly when it conveys the indented meaning of the author to its intended audience"
Because the act of inclusion in the dictionary recognises and formalises its legitimacy, of course.if you accept that words can achieve legitimacy prior to their inclusion in a dictionary, how can you claim that the dictionary is absolutely authoritative until it is revised?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks