The Decline of the Dictionary

[FabFourFan]

------------------
Hello to the list.

As a amateur dictionary collector of sorts (and a software engineer), I
carry an electronic MW11 in my pocket during the day.  So I read the
linked article with great interest.

And found it to be nonsense.  IMHO, it's insulting and inflammatory
nonsense.

And I decided to dash off this response.  (Aren't amateurs foolhardy
sometimes?  :)  )

But then, I realized that the person who posted the link is the person
who _wrote_ the article...

Oh, no!

But, dang him, this is too important to overlook.

So, I've decided to post this before I lose my nerve completely.  Gulp.
;)

---
PART ONE

Most importantly, let me comfort those who have begun to despair about
all the fine, fine words that purportedly had to be 'kicked out' of the
new book by "boneless" MW "laxicographers" who are determined to
"promote illiteracy" through their "inexcusably shoddy
dictionary-making".  (ha ha ha)

Guess what?  Surprise!  IT'S NOT TRUE!  Read on and learn how you, too,
can find this out for yourself, even if you're a dictionary reviewer...

KEY UNMENTIONED FACT ABOUT THE NEW DICTIONARY:  MW11 has 1664 pages, 64
more pages than MW10, a 4% increase, and MW11 uses an even more compact
font than MW10.

Now, let's see, according to the book jacket, MW11 includes 10,000 new
items out of a total of 225,000 items, about 4.5% more.

HEY!!  Guess what?  This means that there is actually enough space in
the new book to include all the new items _without_removing_anything_!!!

Impossible!  Can't be true!!  That's not what the article says!!!

Well, maybe it's time for some "professional" field research?  Please,
dear reader, take just a moment now to compare any part of MW10 to MW11,
entry by entry, and try to find things removed in MW11.  Go ahead.  I'll
wait here.

See.  Was _anything_ removed?  Maybe nothing?  Very little, if anything,
right?  Instead, you find ADDED entries and senses, and earlier datings,
on every page, just as advertised.  :O

So, fellow researchers, why does the reviewer say that MW "omit[ed]
infinitely more useful words" than the ones they added...

I'm just an ignorant amateur, you see.  Otherwise, I might have to
conclude that the reviewer skipped the research part, and/or was simply
_lying_ about the book being reviewed...

---
PART TWO

For some people, a new MW Collegiate is a cause for celebration.
For some people, a new MW Collegiate is just another chance to bitch
about the decline of civilization...

By now, I've realized that the linked article wasn't actually a review
of MW11, was it?  Foolish me.

Was it ever intended to be anything more than a provoking insult to
anyone who might not share the reviewer's preference for extreme
prescription?  Apparently not.  :(

Sure, it's presented as a book review, but it's nothing beyond the
reviewer's laundry list of exaggerated and INVENTED abuses, presented in
the most confusing way possible, and then formatted to DELIBERATELY
MISLEAD the reader.

Dear reviewer, I think you know what 'reprehensible' means, because in
your article you hoped to apply it to the MW lexicographers who
"tamper[] with the English language."

But what is really reprehensible is your tampering with the truth.

Shame on you for deliberately misleading us about this dictionary.


Enough!  Blech!

Blech!!  Blech!!


With the forgiving spirit of an amateur, I suggest that the reviewer
might partially atone by suggesting that they add "D'oh!", next time, to
MW12.  ;)

But with the unforgiving spirit of a dictionary enthusiast, I suggest
that the reviewer drop his old-timey book bashing and learn to stick to
the facts.




Michael Patrick
---------------
Phila Penna USA







On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 09:33:04 EDT, you wrote:

>"Flaming liberal" though I am ...
>
>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/979iutow.asp
>
>
>Robert Hartwell Fiske
>Editor and Publisher
>The Vocabula Review
>www.vocabula.com
>______________________
>
>The Vocabula Review
>A measly $8.95 a year