Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ecsvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary From: dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) Newsgroups: net.followup Subject: Re: literacy Message-ID: <802@ecsvax.UUCP> Date: Mon, 25-Nov-85 11:27:19 EST Article-I.D.: ecsvax.802 Posted: Mon Nov 25 11:27:19 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 27-Nov-85 05:41:42 EST References: <747@cyb-eng.UUCP> <9700105@uiucdcs> Reply-To: dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) Organization: Duke U Comp Ctr Lines: 43 Keywords: Webster's Summary: More on recent editions of Merriam Webster dictionaries In article <1227@sdcsvax.UUCP> rose@sdcsvax.UUCP (Dan rose) writes: >In article <732@ecsvax.UUCP> dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) writes: >> >>Minor point: "Webster's dictionary" is a generic name . . . >It's true that anyone can call themselves a Webster's dictionary [but] >The "real" Webster's dictionary IS published by Merriam-Webster. >[Merriam Webster's] Third International, >which came out sometime in the past twenty years (I think), created >a furor by including many new words and spellings because the editors >felt usage warranted it. Language purists predicted the demise of >English As We Know It. It hasn't happened yet, but I worry about it >every nite :-). The most recent Collegiate (9th?) has been criticized >for having "mutually recursive" definitions. For this reason, many >people prefer the American Heritage, though personally I disagree. You're quite right, of course, and I plead guilty to not having said as much in my posting. My point was that saying "Webster's Dictionary" doesn't say much; "Webster's New International" and "Webster's Collegiate" are quite specific. As for the furor over the Third International (sounds like something socialist...), it stems not just from new definitions but from Merriam's retreat from a prescriptive dictionary to a merely descriptive one. There are many other problems with Merriam, including the use of multiple alphabetical lists instead of just one, listing definitions in order of oldest attested use (which means you've got to wade through obsolete meanings to get to the good stuff), and so on. Finally, it is a poor guide to usage, a flaw not shared by the (one, true, original) American Heritage. Funk and Wagnalls is not bad either, and it has the funniest name of any of them. One other myth about dictionaries deserves puncturing: When multiple spellings or pronunciations are given, it is NOT true that the one give first is necessarily "preferred" (if you doubt me, read the frontmatter in any dictionary). The use-the-first rule is a guideline in the Chicago Manual of Style, not a statement about what the dictionary publishers themselves are doing. -- D Gary Grady Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-3695 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary