Using Dictionaries

[Nicholas Widdows]

<Bob Whiting wrote:>

> <<Contrary to popular opinion, dictionaries do not define words (Academies
> do that, or try to) but only record usage...>>

<And Steve Jones replied:>

> Time to send an angry letter to Noah Webster.  In the absence of an Academie,
> of course, dictionaries can and have "defined words according to their proper
> usage" or their common usage.  Contrary to non-popular opinion, dictionaries
> have had a powerful effect on usage and definition - as Mr. Webster's did.

> There should be NO question that "usage" overwhelmingly says that the
> "definition" of a word is the "dictionary definition."  And the dictionary
> says that the "definition" of a word is the "meaning of the word."  If you
> think "dictionaries do not define words..." your usage is so uncommon it has
> not been recorded in Webster's.  Being an American, I tend to go by
> Webster's.

<So I say:>

Tsk tsk, these American dictionaries. My British one resolves the confusion,
even if it is Chambers's and (as Larry Trask rightly says) eccentrically
Scottish. Under "define" we have among others "to determine with precision:
to describe accurately: to fix the meaning of". The colons indicate they are
three distinct meanings. Recording the common usage is "describing
accurately", which is what all dictionaries do (well, _dormitat Websterus_);
but "fixing the meaning of" is what _no_ good dictionary these days does,
though most people still think they should. Or think they still should. To
complete the triolet, "determining with precision" is what I'm doing now.

Nicholas Widdows