Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Oxford Dictionary Does Science Fiction

Posted by timothy on from the narfle-the-garthag dept.

Embedded Geek writes: "The News Log for Locus has an item about the Oxford English Dictionary's attempt to capture unique words and phrases used in various fields. It has begun with a pilot site for science fiction. Specifically, they are looking for published uses of specific words in Science Fiction, SF Criticism, and SF Fandom. The goal is not to create a glossary of terms but rather find the earliest (antedating), latest (postdating), and intermediate (interdating) uses of these words already in the dictionary in books, magazines, etc. They are soliciting help from the public in this effort. Presumably, if this effort is a success, they will begin working on other fields: other literature, programming, open source... who knows?"

16 of 144 comments (clear)

  1. Re:What? by Nick+Number · · Score: 5, Informative

    No "grok"?

    From the OED page:
    This list is not meant to be a glossary of SF terminology: it is only a list of those terms that the OED has a particular need to have researched. Certain terms have been excluded from this list because we know beyond doubt that we have the earliest possible example, the circumstances of the coinage being known. These include dalek, robot, and grok. There is no need to point out the absence of these words.

    --
    Promote proofreading. Don't mod up sloppy posts.
  2. How timely by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Funny

    Does this has anything to do with the current /. poll ? If so, should we expected to find CowboyNeal in the Oxford dictionary anytime soon ?

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  3. Open source dictionary by T-Lex · · Score: 4, Informative

    Read the professor and the madman, it's a great read and will explain to you that this is the same process they used to collect all of the original words...

    It was a joint collaboration very much like open-source software!

  4. Oh no .... by reaper20 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I see cyberpunk made the list ...... great.

    No if you don't mind, I think I'll continue webifying my infostructure, in order to monetize your desktop.

  5. Stanislaw Lem by S.+E.+James · · Score: 4, Funny

    I bet this turns out like The Futurological Congress.
    "Onefoot, twofoot. Threefooter, fourfooted. Footing, footingly, footling. Footage, befootery. Footment. And footloose gets you footless, unfooted, defeeted. Ah, defeetism. Feetish, feetus. . .feetback? Infoot and outfoot! I think we're getting somewhere. Feetality, twofootalitarianism."
    "But these words have no meaning!"
    "At the moment, no, but they will. . ."

  6. Do you really want to work on this? by befletch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm torn. The OED is an extremely important resource for the English language, and having more people contribute can only be a good thing. Actually, the Oxford has a history of community contributions so the concept is not entirely new. Just the medium.

    On the other hand, online access costs something like US$550/year for a private individual, which just seems a little excessive. It seems a little like getting open source coders to work on your closed source commercial project.

    Yes, it is expensive to build and maintain something like the OED and they claim that they're not actually trying to make money, just cover their costs. Here's some numbers in an old Salon article:

    http://www.salon.com/books/log/1999/09/08/oed/

    I guess it just saddens me that access is so unaffordable, when the resource itself is so rich. Am I being unreasonable?

    --
    If you say, "now I'll be modded down because of X", I'll happily oblige.
    1. Re:Do you really want to work on this? by Debillitatus · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I guess it just saddens me that access is so unaffordable, when the resource itself is so rich. Am I being unreasonable?

      Maybe you are, maybe you're not. But let me put it in a context for you.

      I think it's a bad idea to compare it to coding, open/closed-source, etc. This is not the right paradigm. I think this is more like an academic work. For example, if you write a scholarly article, you submit it to some journal or another. They don't pay you anything, and they even take the copyright. Then they turn around and sell these journals for tons of money. For example, it is common for mathematics journals to cost an institution US$1000 or more a year. The authors of the papers get nothing from this.

      Of course, if you're associated with a reasonable university, you'll be able to gain access to these journals as a scholar. So it seems to me that contributing to the OED is completely analogous to scholarly publication.

      --

      Come on, give it up, that's

    2. Re:Do you really want to work on this? by jafuser · · Score: 3, Informative
      Ok, so who's up for creating a perl-driven database site where we can all go and type in OUR favorite words and their definitions.

      Do you mean like this?

      --
      Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
  7. Yeah, but.... by heyetv · · Score: 3, Informative



    It only costs us $550/year per person to use the Oxford English Dictionary online...

  8. How about ... by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Redundant

    "being slashdotted" or "karma whore" ? after all, /. is science-fiction, even it's a lot more fiction than science.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  9. Proper credit? by thebigbadme · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To me this seems to be a good case of an attempt to give credit where credit is due. Nothing like having the satisfaction that thousands, if not millions (or i guess billions) of people will now understand the origins of some of our vernacular.

    This could come in handy for future generations as well...
    An interesting insight to add to analyze within the context of the "Whorfian Hypothesis"
    Having to do with studying how a language evolves, and becomes structured, even words that were 'made-up' have a bit of relevance to them. When a new word is formed it must have a base (to allow for proper edict realizations) or more specifically a history. That's sort-of how the Klingon Language got it's gears going; taking the words that were used (in context - disecting sentences) and applying the rules to form the rest of what has become Klingon. English (even bastardized American English [the sort I use]) follows the same sort of process.

    I would guess that this new attempt of Oxford's will be even more revolutionary than many percieve at this time.

    --
    "It's the Law of the Universe, and I'm the sheriff." Slash-cott 2/10-2/17
  10. I call AI for John McCarthy by wdavies · · Score: 4, Informative

    Copy of a message I sent the editor :) I can't believe they couldn't predate 1971 for AI (see Sci Fi Word List)

    Hi Mike,

    Science predates Science Fiction :) Next time I see him [JM], I'll mention it :)
    Winton

    AI or Artificial Intelligence

    Coined by John McCarthy [in a SCIENCE setting, not SCI-FI!], 1956. Seems to be fairly unanimous.... concept goes way back.
    " He [JM] invited them to Vermont for "The Dartmouth summer research project on artificial intelligence." (reference)

    1956 John McCarthy coined the term "artificial intelligence" as the topic of the Dartmouth Conference, the first conference devoted to the subject. (reference)

  11. Oxford dictionary definition: The Slashdot Effect by Nathdot · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let's just hope their none too vindictive

    The Slashdot Effect: (phrase, colloq.) The process by which a server is brought down causing hardworking Oxford dictionary staff to lose many, many invaluable hours of work and research. (see: assholes)

    :)

  12. A good idea. by Apuleius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The one area where science fiction has influence on Anglophone society at large (i.e. not just geeks) is the constant introduction of idioms into general usage. People who make their living tracking the evolution of the English language do need to keep an eye on science fiction.

  13. Inexpensive access to the OED by Bill+Evans · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's the real thing, too!

    Grit your teeth and (gag) join the Quality Paperback Book Club (http://www.qpb.com). Once the dust settles, you get free online access to the OED, as long as you buy a book every six months.

    I hate book clubs, but this works for me.

    --
    Oh, this Beta, it is not so good.
  14. Junk English by cfeagans · · Score: 3, Informative
    I just listened to an interview on NPR last night with Ken Smith, the author of a book called Junk English, in which he compiles a list of crap that we speak. The book sounded fascinating and funny... I've ordered a copy already.

    He discussed his research, which involved review countless junk mail, spam, advertisements, corporate memos, etc. The book is broken down into type of language like Distraction Modifiers, Self-Help Jargon, Second Hand English, and Invisible Diminishers. For the latter, he cited an example being "only $99.95!" as if this is a low amount.

    He also has some excerpts listed on the site above that are very intersting.

    The thesis of his book seems to be that we are slowly degrading the English language, especially with our culture of hype. But I look at it from the Open Source perspective! If it doesn't work for you, add something to it or change some meaning... if others accept the change, then you've made a valuable contribution. If not, then you still have your own little version, only not every one will understand what you're saying. Now that's crunk!

    I look forward to seeing the "end result" of new Oxford Dictionary! I really want a definitive definition for hydrospanner (isn't it a bridge?).

    Cheers!
    Carl