[sw-l] obscenities, etc.

[dparvaz at MAC.COM]

While I appreciate Jerry's moral sentiments, they have little to do
with editing a general dictionary. Lexicography, at least as I see it,
is not about "developing and defining" language in the prescriptive
sense. If it is a part of the language, it ought to have a place in a
dictionary which strives to be complete. Each entry ought to have
material informing the reader about usage, including register, social
variation, special communities of practice, etc.

And the relationship between language and obscenity isn't always clear.
I know perfectly decent people who, when confronted with the sort of
"family-friendly" material on Jerry's site, have reactions somewhere
between revulsion and outrage. And yet I doubt any of us would turn
away lexical items having to do with theological concepts in protestant
Christianity. On the contrary, I'd argue that they have to be there. It
is also possible -- indeed, it is quite common -- to say the vilest
things using acceptable drawing-room speech.

I do agree that a separate children's dictionary may be a good idea,
though, using definitions written for a younger set (and possibly
illustrations). And yes, I  agree that the responsible thing to do
there would be to adhere to a core vocabulary, leaving more adult
material for a more complete volume. Does anyone have access to a Bi-Bi
educational program in their country for a list of signs representing
minimal vocabularies at various grade levels?

-Dan.