Re: Erin's Wonderful Word--admit

[RonButters at AOL.COM]

In a message dated 7/13/05 9:01:21 AM, wuxxmupp2000 at YAHOO.COM writes:


> If the purpose of this thread is to encourage lexicographical tact, well 
> and good.  But I doubt that the degree of personal bias suggested by Erin's 
> words, written for a daily pop feature, demands this level of attention.  Is 
> something else going on here ?
> 
> JL
> 

My purpose is starting this thread was certainly not to take Erin to task for 
any "personal bias"--I'm not even sure what here personal biases are, but 
rather to voice surprise at what seemed to me to be a definition that, by 
professional standards, could stand some improvement. I do believe that it is a basic 
rule of lexicography that one frame one's definitions as neutrally as 
possible. Erin is, to my mind, an eminent lexicographer. Any public definition with 
her name attached to it is surely worthy of public discussion. What is "going 
on" here, then, to my mind, is a discussion of lexicographical principle and 
practice. The Erin I know is a thorough-going professional and I assume that he 
must welcome any serious discussion of definition writing.