Merriam-Webster Launches Open Dictionary

sweganeer writes "Merriam-Webster just released Open Dictionary to better take and share the pulse of language through the Web. Of course, Webster's has long celebrated and conveyed language's evolution - unlike linguistic prescriptivists who fail to grasp that's just what language does; and - where I've compared entries - they've certainly done so in a more consistent, professional fashion than online amateurs have in recent years: might Open Dictionary - in conjunction with Webster's standard Online Dictionary - yield the best of authoritative (top-down) and organic (bottom-up), online lexicography?"

Comments

OOoh. How original.

[Seumas]

An "Open dictionary"?

Gee. Where have I heard of that before?

Wiktionary.org

Re:OOoh. How original.

[Alien Venom]

Actually, you are terribly mistaken. Wiktionary is an open dictionary, meaning people can contribute, hence the prefix 'wik' implying 'wiki'. Check out the word cat, a relatively old word that has been defined for quite sometime, has an edit button at the top. This means I can edit it, and change the definition if I see fit. It also means that I can contribute useful knowledge or expand upon the definition.

Personally, I don't think we need another website like this. Urban Dictionary is very closely related, too. It too is open, and free.

You're partially right though. There is a difference between open and free. But, Wictionary is both open and free.

Oh, and by the way. Your link which you provided doesn't apply. Neither Wikipedia or Wiktionary (or M-W's latest creation) are open source. They may be open; but there is a difference between open (content) and open source.

For once - not censored

[tomhudson]

It realy is open - it has definitions for fuck and shit

So, how long before someone says they should be boycotted becasue they don't promote "family values"

Re:For once - not censored

[pnot]

What the hell? Are there really serious, modern dictionaries out there which *don't* have definitions for `fuck' and `shit'?

Re:For once - not censored

[Comatose51]

I once wrote "motherfucker" in one of my emails using Thunderbird (IIRC). I ran the spell check. It caught other mistakes but accepted "motherfucker". I thought that was very avantgarde of them.

In any case, I think this open dictionary (although one already exists) is a brilliant idea and really reflects how languages really behave. We don't speak the same way as the previous generations nor should we expect future generations to follow us. I remember when I was taking cognitive science and the professor was going over linguistics. He mentioned that no human spoken language is more advanced or superior to another. While some people still hold Latin in higher esteem than other languages, he mentioned that another way of looking at Latin is to called it "bastardized, proto-Italian". Languages change and evolve. Dictionaries should also reflect that.

How fast will their storage be filled with crap...

[David Hume]

like this:

pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconios isistic (adjective) : Showing characteristics of pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis.
        The man became pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosisistic after he was exposed to volcanic dust.
        Submitted by: Anonymous on Dec. 02, 2005 14:21

wiki style?

[matr0x_x]

Yes, but does it contain internet slang? Now that would be useful - the average MSN conversation my sister has contains atleast 30 words I don't recognize and I'm only 21 :P

Anti-prescriptivism? Why?

[koreaman]

I'm going to make a few points defending prescriptive teaching of language. Although it's absurd to say that there is one right way to speak English (or any other language), and it's also absurd to set down hard and fast rules like "thou shalt only use 'good' as an adjective", saying that one thing is "correct" and another "incorrect", it is important to know how to accurately convey meaning, speak in a way that will not alienate your audience, and get your point across persuasively and effectively. That is what all good prescriptivists advocate.

Re:Anti-prescriptivism? Why?

[hunterx11]

The problem is that the vast majority of people (intellectuals and academic institutions included) believe in such absurdities as "good" and "bad" language, and prescriptivists are no exception. Dictionaries are often cited as definitive sources of whether or not a word is "real." I agree that prescriptive language ought to be taught, but students should also be taught that while formal language is important, it is not "better" than informal language. Unfortunately I don't foresee this happening any time soon.

Re:Anti-prescriptivism? Why?

[iabervon]

That is what all good prescriptivists advocate.

Unfortunately, good prescriptivists are few and far between. Most prescriptivists primarily advocate rules which aren't actually useful for improving clarity and are generally impossible to follow precisely without writing things that are incomprehensible. This is, of course, because most of the rules which people routinely violate are the ones which aren't intuitively obvious to them as native speakers because they aren't part of the language.

That's not to say there aren't good prescriptivists, except that they tend to be considered simply people with good taste in writing style, and they always hedge their advice, because there's a situation for almost anything that a native speaker would write, read aloud, and not change. Take, for instance George Orwell. About the most important piece of advice I've ever seen about writing, and one many English teachers would do well to understand, is: "Break any of these rules sooner than say anything barbarous."

*NOT* Free as in speech

[lachlan76]

While this is open, I was left somewhat disappointed to find that it isn't actually Free (as in speech). The headline left me expecting it to be possible to download a dump of the list under a CC-like licence.

Restrictivists?

[Rydia]

I like how "language evolves" has turned into "language shouldn't even attempt to stay the same." There's a real problem with both extreme views on the issue, and the idea-- and what is borne out in most all languages-- is that there is a conservative section of the language's population which works as a retentive force and another section that works as a changing force. The changing force is always stronger, but the retentive force is still important... it's why we can still read older materials and understand them (although as they get older it gets more and more difficult). That's really valuable. By removing that retention, we run the risk of rending a lot of important writing incomprehensible to most, and at worst having dialects make the jump to separate languages by way of regional syntax.

So yes, language evolves. But the idea that we should throw whatever retention we have out the window because things eventually change is a really, really stupid view.

Re:attention mr "editor"

[dbIII]

Tip for the day - no sentence should have 70 words in it.

I sentence you to read Moby Dick.

Re:Which language ?

[Guppy06]

"would that be an American English dictionary with all its perversions or a RestOfTheWorld English dictionary ?"

Well, gee, considering the fact that the dictionary in question is named after the guy who invented American English, I'll give you three guesses.

If you're going to be sarcastic, it helps not to put your foot in your mouth. And if you're goint to be snobbish, it helps to know at least the basics about what you're being stuck-up about.