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.

[fredrikj]

Incorrect. Wiktionary is a free dictionary. This one is open. The distinction is important.

Re:OOoh. How original.

[ameyer17]

actually, wikitionary is open in the open-source way like wikipedia is.

Re:OOoh. How original.

[vagabond_gr]

Incorrect. Wiktionary is a free dictionary. This one is open. The distinction is important.

Thanks for the update, Richard.

Seriously, I totally agree. I would mod you up if I had some points.

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

[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.

Re:For once - not censored

[trewornan]

"Cunt" is an old word and if it's not included in old dictionaries this must be because of prudery not because it wasn't in use. In fact it goes way back and originally had a perfectly ordinary meaning - specifically a "cleft". The gap in a rope where two strands lie against one another is still called a "cuntline" by riggers and sailmakers.

Does this mean...

[Elrac]

that now SlashDotters will no longer have an excuse for poor spelling in their posts?

Re:Does this mean...

[gooman]

Sure, but their grammering ain't not going to be no better.

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

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.

Haiku from the "DUH" Department

[Spinlock_1977]

Merriam-Webster?
An on-line dictionary?
Fucking brilliant boys!

Pssssh.

[Ransak]

No one tops the Urban Dictionary!

... at least for a laugh.

Re:Pssssh.

[zaguar]

And the Wikipedia equivalent: http://www.uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page/ - Uncyclopedia.

Check out the Steve Ballmer article. http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Steve_Ballmer

Open Dictionary

[sloths]

I hate it when I leave my dictionary open. I read on Wikipedia it isn't good for the spine.

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.

There ain't no call for spell chequers here

[dbIII]

now SlashDotters will no longer have an excuse for poor spelling in their posts?

"Lat every felawe telle his tale aboute" from Chaucer sums up my view and should show that reading mispelled words and unconventional grammer is really not all of that hard. The language of the net is broken english, but not so broken as to make it too difficult to read, so live with it. If we all take spelling far too seriously things will degenerate into boring flame wars over whether the Oxford dictionary trumps the Webster. Spelling flames on a forum where "IP" has many meanings makes no sense at all.

Let's just talk about the shiny things and let other more formal forums worry about where to put their pronouns.

attention mr "editor"

[Clover_Kicker]

> 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?"

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

The Meaning of Everything

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea for an open dictionary has been around since 1860, and in print since the 1920s (I believe).

Take a gander at "The Meaning of Everything" a book by Simon Winchester. It outlines the fascinating story of the Oxford English Dictionary. The OED is THE dictionary by the way: it is a 30+ volume set that sets out to catalogue every word in the English language and is continuously updated.

How do the updates happen? Readers throughout the world read texts and write out definitions on slips that are returned to the OED offices for compilation and review. Think about the enormity of the undertaking back in the Victorian era. It's really an outstanding achievement.

English has never, ever been a prescriptive language. We've never had a council declaring what stays and what leaves the language.

Anyway, read the book and be duly unimpressed by these half-assed efforts for an on-line dictionary. Go to the nearest university and take a look at the full OED in all its glory.