Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: notesfiles
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!hplabs!hp-pcd!uo-vax1!syn
From: syn@uo-vax1.UUCP (syn)
Newsgroups: net.books
Subject: Re: Re: Dictionaries
Message-ID: <81400002@uo-vax1.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 14-Feb-85 17:08:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uo-vax1.81400002
Posted: Thu Feb 14 17:08:00 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Feb-85 10:45:15 EST
References: <74883@sysvis.UUCP>
Organization: Univ of Oregon - Eugene, OR
Lines: 9
Nf-ID: #R:sysvis:-7488349:uo-vax1:81400002:000:595
Nf-From: uo-vax1!syn    Feb 25 14:08:00 1985

The topic certainly arouses passions among my friends--most of them
fiction writers who don't actually "need" nice dictionaries, but
want to have them around to play with.  Considering the way language
works for writers, one dictionary, no matter how authoritative, would
never be enough. The best any dictionary can do is give you an idea
of current usage in its own decade--and they all err on the side of
conservatism.  Where will you find "grok" listed?  Damon Knight once
proposed to write a "Gibberish--English, English-Gibberish" dictionary,
but several sociologists had beaten him to it.