Erin's Wonderful Word--admit

[Erin McKean]

RonButters at AOL.COM wrote:

>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.
>
>
>
I do! I'm enjoying this immensely.

I did want to point out that these entries aren't for a "real"
dictionary but were instead taken from Weird and Wonderful Words, where
I was as facetious as possible as often as possible. If this were a word
I was drafting for NOAD3, that last sentence could not even appear.

I do not, myself, posit or grant or admit of the necessity for design in
nature. Just to put that out there ... :-)

Erin