[Lexicog] archaic entries

Tue Feb 14 04:30:06 UTC 2006

The American Heritage Dictionary gives the following in their "Guide to the
Dictionary":

Obsolete. A term labeled 'Obsolete' is no longer used except in quotation or
intentional archaism....

Archaic. The label 'Archaic' is applied to words that once were common but
are currently rare and are readily identifiable as belonging to a style of
language no longer in general use....

I don't believe most of us who work on minority language dictionaries will
need a temporal label that involves a date such as 1755. For most of us the
only relevant date is the birth of the oldest living speaker of the
language. Any word that a speaker today does not know can be labelled
'obsolete' and any word still known but falling out of use can be labelled
'archaic'. If we want to spell out the usage, we could say 'no longer used
or understood by speakers living today' or 'no longer used by younger
speakers but still understood by older speakers'. But if we want short
standardized labels, then I would propose the following, which I have just
drafted as part of the documentation package for the new FieldWorks program
being developed by SIL:

Usage Labels: Obsolete and Archaic
Words change over time. Old words fall out of use and new words are coined.
Words change in their pronunciation and meaning. This process is steady over
time, so that today some words that our ancestors used are no longer used or
understood. Other words are used by old people, but not by younger people.
To indicate these two types of words in the dictionary we use the terms
'obsolete' and 'archaic'.
Obsolete
Use the term 'obsolete' for those words that are no longer used or
understood by people alive today. We might find an obsolete word in an old
book, but no one would use an obsolete word today. A word labeled 'obsolete'
would not be understood by people today except a historian of the language.
For instance the King James Version of the Bible, translated in 1611, used
the word 'knop'. No one today uses this word and no one but a historian
would know that it meant 'a decorative knob'. Some other examples of
obsolete words (and their current equivalents) are 'bruit' (rumor), 'clout'
(patch), 'trow' (think), 'wen' (sore).
If a word has more than one sense, one sense might be obsolete even though
the other sense is still used today. So the term 'obsolete' can be applied
either to an entire entry or just to a sense.
Archaic
Use the term 'archaic' for those words that were used by old people but are
not used by young people. For instance the word 'wireless' used to be used
instead of the word 'radio', but most people today would use 'radio'. Many
people still know what the word 'wireless' means, even though they don't use
it. Since there are still people alive today who used the word 'wireless'
when they were young and since the word is still understood, we label it
'archaic' instead of 'obsolete'. Some other examples of archaic words (and
their current equivalents) are 'thou' (you), 'compass about' (encircle),
'looking glass' (mirror), 'thrice' (three times). Just as with the term
'obsolete', the term 'archaic' can apply either to an entire entry or just
to a single sense.

Any reactions or suggestions?

Ron Moe

-----Original Message-----
From: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Amsler, Robert
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 9:49 AM
To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Lexicog] archaic entries

In Webster's Third the comments are in the- "Explanatory Notes" section
under "Status labels"
In Webster's New World they are in the "Guide to the Dictionary" section
under "What are USAGE LABELS & NOTES and how are they used"

-----Original Message-----
From: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Roberts
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 10:03 AM
To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Lexicog] archaic entries

Robert,

I don't have a copy of Merriam-Webster's Third New International (1961,
1993) dictionary or Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fourth
Edition
(2004) to hand. From your message it looks like the definitions of
"obsolete", "archaic", etc. for Merriam-Webster's are in the A-Z but the

same definitions in Webster's New World College Dictionary are in a
special
section. Is that correct? I also assume 1755 is chosen in
Merriam-Webster's
because that was the year Samuel Johnson published his dictionary.

John Roberts

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lexicographylist-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/