Slashdot Mirror
Authors Alarmed As Oxford Junior Dictionary Drops Nature Words
Freshly Exhumed writes: Margaret Atwood, Andrew Motion, and Michael Morpurgo are among 28 authors criticizing Oxford University Press's decision to scrap a number of words associated with nature from its junior dictionary. In an open letter (PDF) released on Monday, the acclaimed writers said they are "profoundly alarmed" and urged the publisher to reinstate words cut since 2007 in the next edition of the Oxford Junior Dictionary. Among words to be dropped are acorn, blackberries, and minnows.
What can you expect from a dictionary publisher that picked "selfie" as the word of the year in 2013 and "vape" for 2014
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
They also removed Acorn, whose most lasting impact is probably the spinoff ARM Ltd. that maintains the instruction set used in these mobile computers.
I've got both acorns and blackberries growing in my yard. Not sure what I'm supposed to call them now...
More seriously - there has to be more to it than that, but possibly finding out would involve clicking the link and reading, and that would itself require a higher level of interest in this story than I actually possess.
#DeleteChrome
First off, it's not as though these words have been struck from the English lexicon. Seriously... do kids nowadays rely exclusively on the Oxford Junior Dictionary instead of doing a quick web search or consulting a more complete dictionary? I don't recall ever in my life using a "kid's" dictionary during my school years. We used the big ones right from the start.
It wasn't always perfect, of course. I recall asking my teacher what a word meant, and she correctly told me that I should look it up in the dictionary myself. I did so, found the word, and it was defined by a different word I didn't know. I looked up that word, and it used the first word in it's definition. My teacher then relented and explained the word to me herself. That's why kids have teachers and parents.
All in all, a tempest in a teacup. Kids will learn these words once they graduate to more complete resources. No big deal. Side note: I'll bet "tempest" isn't in the junior dictionary either.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
"Incorrect" in languages is only incorrect until we change the rules. If common language usage becomes inconsistent with the current written rules, at some point it makes more sense to change the rules to reflect the actual usage than to try to correct usage en mass*. This tends to drive language purists insane. They seem to endlessly complain when popular "made up" words get added to the dictionary, without really stopping to consider that every single word in the dictionary was "made up" at some point in history, as was every grammar rule in existence.
Languages continually evolve over time - there's nothing more or less "official" about our modern English language versus the English language of 500 years ago, even though there are significant differences. The point of a language is to communicate with each other, and just as our technology continues to evolve, so does the way in which we communicate.
* For example, since this is Slashdot, consider the attempt to encourage the public to distinguish between "hacker" and "cracker". That distinction never gained any ground, and it's likely it never will. Likewise, almost no one calls the Linux operating system GNU/Linux outside a few die-hard FSF folks.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
They were replaced with: "dildo" "fist" and "transgender"........
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Acorns and minnows though? I'd keep those both because they're stuff kids actually encounter in many parts of the world, and they're common metaphors, which gets really weird if you don't know what the actual thing is.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
When pretty much every English dictionary is in agreement on a revised definition, then we can safely conclude it's more than just a few ignorant kids posting on Facebook and Twitter.
I find it somewhat amusing to be defending the use of the "non-correct" definition of "literally" because honestly, it really irritates me as well. So, you and I can continue being irritated until the day we die, or we can accept that people are going to use the term in a figurative sense (rather ironic, given the original definition), and get on with our lives. If it makes you feel any better, keep in mind that even the new dictionary definition indicates that this is an "informal" use, so it's still not appropriate to use in most written works.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
This tends to drive language purists insane. They seem to endlessly complain when popular "made up" words get added to the dictionary, without really stopping to consider that every single word in the dictionary was "made up" at some point in history, as was every grammar rule in existence.
Most complaints about change in language aren't about the introduction of some new meme-ish neologism or term that's sprung into use. The real (and justified) complaints are about changes that reflect a reduction in clarity, or which make expression surrounding critical thinking or subtlety less fashionable or in real terms more difficult. Changes in language that dumb communication down should indeed be fought against, and loudly. Giving in to the habits of the incurious, the poor communicators, and the lazy is just a way to make more of them.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The problem with the redefinition of the word literally is that it has had its meaning reversed, this is tantamount to redefining the word 'correct' to mean 'incorrect'. Changing dictionary definitions for words due to common usage is bad enough, pulling a complete 180 on the definition serves only to eventually confuse all concerned.