Reread what I wrote, then read my responses to other replies in this thread. I am not arguing that dictionaries should not change, or that the archival of the language is not important. I am arguing that the changes to the dictionary are more or less trivial, and that the specific changes are not news. Words go in, words go out. That is how dictionaries have functioned since their creation. Yet, every year, when the new editions are published, people single out a few words that are important to them, and comment on how dictionaries are losing their authority because "yadda-yadda-yadda" has been included; or how they are being caught up in tech fads because "buzzwords" are included (buzzword, by the way, is a buzzword that was first included in many dictionaries rather recently). As to words now being available for people outside of the particular cliques that use them, that is the point of a dictionary. That dictionaries are updated, and kept current, [i]is[/i] important. Not news, really, as that is what dictionaries are designed to do, but important, none the less. What specific words are included and are not included is, in general, not that important.
1) It's not really that big of a deal. This is a summertime Friday on Slashdot. There is a small possibility that there will be an article posted here with less than Earth-shattering consequences.
Indeed, slow news day. The fact remains that slashdot is not the only orgainzation that makes a big deal out of words being added to various dictionaries.
2) When a word appears in the dictionary, it's usage and spelling are defensible. You should no longer be considered illiterate if you write "adware" in a school report or magazine article. And the next edition of your word processor should stop trying to correct "adware" to "aware".
How do you mean "defensible?" Why would someone be considered illiterate for using a word that is not in a dictionary? A word does not make it into any dictionary on a whim -- it is included because it is widely used. In the case of most dictionaries, this means that it is used in writing. By the time a word is considered for inclusion, it has already appeared in many school reports and magazine articles. As for autocorrection, or spell checking, or whatever, that is what custom dictionaries are for. Even without those, there are a lot of words that my word processor recognizes that are not in an "official" English dictionary (such as surnames, Christian names, places names, certain kinds of slang (much slang is ultimately included in the most dictionaries), certain foreign words that are commonly used in English, &c.). I am not claiming that the inclusion of words in dictionaries is not important; only that it is silly to make a big deal out of which words are included, and to have a slashdot story [i]every single year[/i] when the new editions come out with some new words.
3) As you say, the dictionary is a record of how people use words. It has sociological value. I didn't realize that anyone was actually using the terms "cybrarian" or "mouse potato". Apparently somebody is.
Again, the fact that dictionaries stay current is a "Good Thing(TM)" I am not arguing that. That dictionaries are updated is important. However, the content of those updates is hardly newsworthy. In response to another reply below, I used the example of a chemistry book being updated -- by the time the updates are made, the content of those updates is already old news, and not that important. If you are really interested in changes in chemestry, you don't read an intro level text -- you read the academic journals. In much the same way, if you are interested in the language vis a vis sociology, you don't read the dictionary -- you read the anthropological, linguistic, and sociological journals that discuss language. That is where the discoveries and innovations are described.
1) Ain't (with an apostrophe) has been in the dictionary longer than you have been alive. I have seen it in some very early editions of the OED. "They" didn't "just add it."
2) The arguements that everyone is making seem to make it clear that they don't really understand how dictionaries are created. Being in the dictionary only gives it status because a small group of people insists that there is a right way to conduct English conversation, and a wrong way. These people insist that the dictionary is some kind of holy book of language, that defines the way in which people [i]should[/i] speak and write. In fact, dictionaries are compilations of language as it is spoken and written. The inclusion of a word in a dictionary is not a holy blessing that allows people to use the word, and that gives the word legitimacy. It is an indication that a word is widely used. Thus, again, I ask: why is this a big deal? New words are created in the English language every year. Other words are abandoned. This is how language changes. [i]Of course[/i] dictionaries are going to change. Why is it a big deal? Why is it news?
A parallel example: every year or two (or three or four, or whatever), any given publisher that produces an introductory chemistry text will put out a new edition. This new edition will contain some new information. Is it a big deal that the information is included? Is it news worthy? Does it give that information legitimacy that it did not have before? In short, no. New information in a chem text will already have been peer reviewed in the journals, and have existed in the field for quite a while. The same is true of words that are added to the dictionary -- by the time they are added, they are already part of the language. The dictionary is just there to help you learn how they are used, and how you should spell them in formal writing.
Oi... indeed, I made a mistake. n_epsilon should be the difference between the calculated solution and the true solution. D'oh. However, the comment was meant as a satrical protest against pedants, so I don't really care that you decided to be pedantic.
Incorrect. The success of an add is equal to (n_epsilon/n)*100; where n_epsilon is the computed value of the add, n is the actual value, and the resulting ratio is multiplied by 100 to create a normalized percentage. In other words, the success of an add, as a percentage, is a measure of the error between the calculated value of the add, and the actual value.
Why, oh why, is this a big deal? Dictionaries are not, by and large, prescriptive. They are not holy tomes to be referenced for authoritative knowledge on how language should be. Rather, they are collections of words, as they are used by people. When the use of a word changes, the dictionary will change to reflect that (rather than insist that people continue to use the old usage). When people start using new words, or stop using old words, the dictionary will change. Why is it that there is such a fuss over words being included in the dictionary? Why do people assume that inclusion gives these words some kind of holy stamp of approval? Some kind of validity? By the time a word makes it into the dictionary, it is already in the lexicon, and has been for a while. Why is it that dictionary inclusion gives these words some kind of super-validity? Why do we care?
Unlikely. The archaeological evidence indicates that the people in power were men, not women. Historians, anthropologists, and archaeolgists don't just "assume" that the leaders were male if there is doubt. That may have occured in the past, but it is not what a modern social scientist would assume. Until there is enough evidence to come to a conclusion, the sex of the ancient ruler would remain indeterminate. Also, a society is patriarchal not because one leader happens to be male, but because the general balance of power is controlled by males. Men make up the priestly class, and the ruling class, and the merchant class, &c. The Greek Oracles were women. These women helped make decisions that affected the course of Greek actions. However, it was men that had the final say. Thus, ancient Greece was a patriarchy, despite the influence of certain women.
Elizabeth I was female. Does that mean that England was a matriarchy during her rule? Catherine the Great was female. Does that mean that Russia was a matriarchy during her reign? A single female leader does not a matriarchy make.
I stand by my statement that matriarchal societies are exceedingly rare. I have studied the topic at some length, and am familier with the two(?) examples that have been raised (the Nair and the Maratha). I am also familier with the Iriqious (strong matrilineal descent, still not matriarchal), the Soiux (American Plains), the Han of China, the archaeological evidence from Minos, and a whole host of other societies, both modern and long dead, that are commonly used as examples of matriarchal societies. The fact is that most of them are not, in fact matriarchal -- political and economic power is still retained by the men. The anthropology backs this up, as does the archaeology. And, one more time, y'all have managed to come up with only two or three examples of societies that might be matriarchal, out of literally thousands of societies throughout history. This does not invalidate my point, even if one of those societies happens to include nearly 100,000,000 people.
You have basically cited one example of a society that has some matriarchal tendencies. I am somewhat familier with the example you cite, and, while there are tendencies towards female power, I would hesitate to call even the Maratha truely matriarchal. However, even if I accept that example, that still does not invalidate my point that matriarchal societies are very rare. Your example is one out of thousands.
Possibly. While I agree that the summary failed to address these isolated groups, it was hinted that the Vikings may have influenced North America, and it also seems possible that, over the last couple of hundred years, there has been enough cross breeding of white folk and American Indians to account for descent. One might assume that something similar has happened in Austrailia. Again, the summary made no note of these things, and, at the moment, it looks like a simple mathematical trick with no real emperical backing, but it is an interesting idea, none the less.
Offtopic, but I feel it is important to point out that there is a great deal of difference between matrilineal organization and matriarchy. Matriarchy is where the women hold political, social, and/or religious power. In a matriarchy, the women are the primary owners of private property, and make the decisions that affect what the group will do. There are almost no examples of matriarchal societies in human history. That is not to say that a few have not popped up, but they are very rare and far between. On the other hand, a matrilineal society is one in which inheritence (of name, property, clan association, moity association, position, &c.) is passed through the female line. Generally, men are still in charge, but relationships are tracked by way of the female line.
Indeed. I remember playing Sonic the Hedgehog on an old black and white television in high school -- about 10 years ago. We kept that old thing until the magic smoke finally escaped.
Sabre is still really, really fast. The right-of-way rules exist, but most sabre touches consist of the two fencers advancing upon eachother, hitting, and turning to the referee whilst screaming loudly. Most referees will give the touch to the louder screamer. This is a bit of an exageration, as there are some good referees running around, but not many for sabre. Hell, I'm not comfortable reffing sabre, though I am pretty good in foil. In foil, they made two changes to the timing:
First, in order to get rid of the flick, they changed the contact time. Now, the tip must be down for a longer period of time, which makes flicks very hard to pull off. It can still be done, but it is difficult. This, I think, is a good change. It really doesn't alter the game that much, and gets rid of a maneouver that has questionable right-of-way (the way many of the Californians pull it off, anyway).
Second, they decreased the lockout time. This means that, even if a fencer is parried, he can often get a remise in fast enough to lock out his opponent. This change was made to make refereeing easier, and was, in my opinion, a bad idea. It encourages fast remises, discourages compound ripostes, and makes the sport sloppy, at best. Furthermore, because the faster fencer can almost always get the light, everyone is a lot more cautious, leading to long bouts of inactivity. Foil is the new epee.
Foil. Sabre is too fast, epee is too slow. Though, with the changes in the timing of the boxes, foil has slowed down a lot, too. I have been refereeing a lot more, recently, and will probably go in that direction in the future.:)
Look through those definitions. Almost all of the ones that discuss the "sport" that we are talking about (as opposed to a kind of person, or a summer cottage in Maine) emphasize physical excertion. Of course, you can find other defintions that would (maybe) include video games, but many of those are rather vauge (one states that sport == recreation -- maybe recreational sex should be an olympic event?)
That definition is less than convincing. An active pasttime implies that you, ya know, do something other than sit on your ass in front of a keyboard. While I would generally criticize you for assuming that the dictionary is authoritative in all matters, even that in not necessary -- it is quite easy to argue that video games are not active, thus do not meet that definition of sport.
I was not commenting at all upon TicketMaster -- I honestly couldn't care less, as most of the events that I go to ask for a "cover charge" rather than tickets. I was commenting on your analogy, which is flawed. You stated that groceries comprise a monopoly, though you have now backed down on that a bit, and stated that the entine industrial-grocery complex uses the same business model, thus it comprises a monopoly. Let me offer several different models that are implemented in the examples I listed, as well as one or two more (though perhaps these are not distince enough for you...):
Albertson's / Raley's / Smith's / &c.: These stores generally buy from middle-men, and pay whatever the middle-men ask, then mark it up a bit to make a profit.
Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart tends to use its huge mass of capital and retail power as leverage against suppliers -- "sell it too us cheap, or we won't buy from you." Given the size of Wal-Mart, this is a big threat, especially if Wal-Mart has been buying from the supplier in question long enough for that supplier to hire on enough people to deal with Wal-Mart. Thus, Wal-Mart is using a slightly different model, and can provide lower prices for similar products.
Trader Joe's: Much of what Trader Joe's sells is direct from the producers. They package it up under their own brand, and sell it in their stores.
farmer's markets: This represents direct sale from the producer to the consumer. Farmer's markets tend not to run in the winter, and you have to live in a town that can support one, but they certainly represent an alternative to the grocery store monopoly that you outline above.
ethnic foods: If it is your thing, there are several Asian, Russian, and Mexican grocery stores where I live. These kinds of stores tend to be found only in regions with some population density, though it would seem that even that is a relative term, as there are fewer than 125,000 people in our area, and the next major population center is 120 miles away. Much of what they sell is imported. It come directly from the country of origin, or direct from the country of origin to a distributer to the grocery. It really depends upon the store. I would argue that those items that are being directly imported fall outside of the grocery monopoly that you outline above.
So, to get back to my original argument, your analogy is flawed. Not only are there multiple retailers in the field of groceries, they opperate under differing business plans (only a few of which are listed above, in only very sketchy details). I honestly don't understand how that can be considered a monopoly, especially compared to a single organization like TicketMaster. So, while I really don't care if TicketMaster is a monopoly or not, and while I really don't care about auctioning of tickets, your analogy is absurd.
Slashdot Mirror
Steve Jobs: Ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to announce the smallest iPod ever, the iPod Flea.
Reread what I wrote, then read my responses to other replies in this thread. I am not arguing that dictionaries should not change, or that the archival of the language is not important. I am arguing that the changes to the dictionary are more or less trivial, and that the specific changes are not news. Words go in, words go out. That is how dictionaries have functioned since their creation. Yet, every year, when the new editions are published, people single out a few words that are important to them, and comment on how dictionaries are losing their authority because "yadda-yadda-yadda" has been included; or how they are being caught up in tech fads because "buzzwords" are included (buzzword, by the way, is a buzzword that was first included in many dictionaries rather recently). As to words now being available for people outside of the particular cliques that use them, that is the point of a dictionary. That dictionaries are updated, and kept current, [i]is[/i] important. Not news, really, as that is what dictionaries are designed to do, but important, none the less. What specific words are included and are not included is, in general, not that important.
How do you mean "defensible?" Why would someone be considered illiterate for using a word that is not in a dictionary? A word does not make it into any dictionary on a whim -- it is included because it is widely used. In the case of most dictionaries, this means that it is used in writing. By the time a word is considered for inclusion, it has already appeared in many school reports and magazine articles. As for autocorrection, or spell checking, or whatever, that is what custom dictionaries are for. Even without those, there are a lot of words that my word processor recognizes that are not in an "official" English dictionary (such as surnames, Christian names, places names, certain kinds of slang (much slang is ultimately included in the most dictionaries), certain foreign words that are commonly used in English, &c.). I am not claiming that the inclusion of words in dictionaries is not important; only that it is silly to make a big deal out of which words are included, and to have a slashdot story [i]every single year[/i] when the new editions come out with some new words. Again, the fact that dictionaries stay current is a "Good Thing(TM)" I am not arguing that. That dictionaries are updated is important. However, the content of those updates is hardly newsworthy. In response to another reply below, I used the example of a chemistry book being updated -- by the time the updates are made, the content of those updates is already old news, and not that important. If you are really interested in changes in chemestry, you don't read an intro level text -- you read the academic journals. In much the same way, if you are interested in the language vis a vis sociology, you don't read the dictionary -- you read the anthropological, linguistic, and sociological journals that discuss language. That is where the discoveries and innovations are described.
That, sir, is the first good argument that I have seen.
1) Ain't (with an apostrophe) has been in the dictionary longer than you have been alive. I have seen it in some very early editions of the OED. "They" didn't "just add it."
2) The arguements that everyone is making seem to make it clear that they don't really understand how dictionaries are created. Being in the dictionary only gives it status because a small group of people insists that there is a right way to conduct English conversation, and a wrong way. These people insist that the dictionary is some kind of holy book of language, that defines the way in which people [i]should[/i] speak and write. In fact, dictionaries are compilations of language as it is spoken and written. The inclusion of a word in a dictionary is not a holy blessing that allows people to use the word, and that gives the word legitimacy. It is an indication that a word is widely used. Thus, again, I ask: why is this a big deal? New words are created in the English language every year. Other words are abandoned. This is how language changes. [i]Of course[/i] dictionaries are going to change. Why is it a big deal? Why is it news?
A parallel example: every year or two (or three or four, or whatever), any given publisher that produces an introductory chemistry text will put out a new edition. This new edition will contain some new information. Is it a big deal that the information is included? Is it news worthy? Does it give that information legitimacy that it did not have before? In short, no. New information in a chem text will already have been peer reviewed in the journals, and have existed in the field for quite a while. The same is true of words that are added to the dictionary -- by the time they are added, they are already part of the language. The dictionary is just there to help you learn how they are used, and how you should spell them in formal writing.
Oi... indeed, I made a mistake. n_epsilon should be the difference between the calculated solution and the true solution. D'oh. However, the comment was meant as a satrical protest against pedants, so I don't really care that you decided to be pedantic.
Incorrect. The success of an add is equal to (n_epsilon/n)*100; where n_epsilon is the computed value of the add, n is the actual value, and the resulting ratio is multiplied by 100 to create a normalized percentage. In other words, the success of an add, as a percentage, is a measure of the error between the calculated value of the add, and the actual value.
Why, oh why, is this a big deal? Dictionaries are not, by and large, prescriptive. They are not holy tomes to be referenced for authoritative knowledge on how language should be. Rather, they are collections of words, as they are used by people. When the use of a word changes, the dictionary will change to reflect that (rather than insist that people continue to use the old usage). When people start using new words, or stop using old words, the dictionary will change. Why is it that there is such a fuss over words being included in the dictionary? Why do people assume that inclusion gives these words some kind of holy stamp of approval? Some kind of validity? By the time a word makes it into the dictionary, it is already in the lexicon, and has been for a while. Why is it that dictionary inclusion gives these words some kind of super-validity? Why do we care?
Unlikely. The archaeological evidence indicates that the people in power were men, not women. Historians, anthropologists, and archaeolgists don't just "assume" that the leaders were male if there is doubt. That may have occured in the past, but it is not what a modern social scientist would assume. Until there is enough evidence to come to a conclusion, the sex of the ancient ruler would remain indeterminate. Also, a society is patriarchal not because one leader happens to be male, but because the general balance of power is controlled by males. Men make up the priestly class, and the ruling class, and the merchant class, &c. The Greek Oracles were women. These women helped make decisions that affected the course of Greek actions. However, it was men that had the final say. Thus, ancient Greece was a patriarchy, despite the influence of certain women.
Elizabeth I was female. Does that mean that England was a matriarchy during her rule? Catherine the Great was female. Does that mean that Russia was a matriarchy during her reign? A single female leader does not a matriarchy make.
To those that have replied, in disagreement:
I stand by my statement that matriarchal societies are exceedingly rare. I have studied the topic at some length, and am familier with the two(?) examples that have been raised (the Nair and the Maratha). I am also familier with the Iriqious (strong matrilineal descent, still not matriarchal), the Soiux (American Plains), the Han of China, the archaeological evidence from Minos, and a whole host of other societies, both modern and long dead, that are commonly used as examples of matriarchal societies. The fact is that most of them are not, in fact matriarchal -- political and economic power is still retained by the men. The anthropology backs this up, as does the archaeology. And, one more time, y'all have managed to come up with only two or three examples of societies that might be matriarchal, out of literally thousands of societies throughout history. This does not invalidate my point, even if one of those societies happens to include nearly 100,000,000 people.
You have basically cited one example of a society that has some matriarchal tendencies. I am somewhat familier with the example you cite, and, while there are tendencies towards female power, I would hesitate to call even the Maratha truely matriarchal. However, even if I accept that example, that still does not invalidate my point that matriarchal societies are very rare. Your example is one out of thousands.
Possibly. While I agree that the summary failed to address these isolated groups, it was hinted that the Vikings may have influenced North America, and it also seems possible that, over the last couple of hundred years, there has been enough cross breeding of white folk and American Indians to account for descent. One might assume that something similar has happened in Austrailia. Again, the summary made no note of these things, and, at the moment, it looks like a simple mathematical trick with no real emperical backing, but it is an interesting idea, none the less.
Offtopic, but I feel it is important to point out that there is a great deal of difference between matrilineal organization and matriarchy. Matriarchy is where the women hold political, social, and/or religious power. In a matriarchy, the women are the primary owners of private property, and make the decisions that affect what the group will do. There are almost no examples of matriarchal societies in human history. That is not to say that a few have not popped up, but they are very rare and far between. On the other hand, a matrilineal society is one in which inheritence (of name, property, clan association, moity association, position, &c.) is passed through the female line. Generally, men are still in charge, but relationships are tracked by way of the female line.
The U2 iPod does not come bundled with any music. It comes with a coupon for $50 off the $200 pricetag of the Complete U2.
Indeed. I remember playing Sonic the Hedgehog on an old black and white television in high school -- about 10 years ago. We kept that old thing until the magic smoke finally escaped.
Tetris.
That can't be Celtic -- too many vowels.
Someone once said that it only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea.
Sabre is still really, really fast. The right-of-way rules exist, but most sabre touches consist of the two fencers advancing upon eachother, hitting, and turning to the referee whilst screaming loudly. Most referees will give the touch to the louder screamer. This is a bit of an exageration, as there are some good referees running around, but not many for sabre. Hell, I'm not comfortable reffing sabre, though I am pretty good in foil. In foil, they made two changes to the timing:
First, in order to get rid of the flick, they changed the contact time. Now, the tip must be down for a longer period of time, which makes flicks very hard to pull off. It can still be done, but it is difficult. This, I think, is a good change. It really doesn't alter the game that much, and gets rid of a maneouver that has questionable right-of-way (the way many of the Californians pull it off, anyway).
Second, they decreased the lockout time. This means that, even if a fencer is parried, he can often get a remise in fast enough to lock out his opponent. This change was made to make refereeing easier, and was, in my opinion, a bad idea. It encourages fast remises, discourages compound ripostes, and makes the sport sloppy, at best. Furthermore, because the faster fencer can almost always get the light, everyone is a lot more cautious, leading to long bouts of inactivity. Foil is the new epee.
Foil. Sabre is too fast, epee is too slow. Though, with the changes in the timing of the boxes, foil has slowed down a lot, too. I have been refereeing a lot more, recently, and will probably go in that direction in the future. :)
http://onelook.com/?w=sport&ls=a
Look through those definitions. Almost all of the ones that discuss the "sport" that we are talking about (as opposed to a kind of person, or a summer cottage in Maine) emphasize physical excertion. Of course, you can find other defintions that would (maybe) include video games, but many of those are rather vauge (one states that sport == recreation -- maybe recreational sex should be an olympic event?)
That definition is less than convincing. An active pasttime implies that you, ya know, do something other than sit on your ass in front of a keyboard. While I would generally criticize you for assuming that the dictionary is authoritative in all matters, even that in not necessary -- it is quite easy to argue that video games are not active, thus do not meet that definition of sport.
So, what's your weapon? :)
I was not commenting at all upon TicketMaster -- I honestly couldn't care less, as most of the events that I go to ask for a "cover charge" rather than tickets. I was commenting on your analogy, which is flawed. You stated that groceries comprise a monopoly, though you have now backed down on that a bit, and stated that the entine industrial-grocery complex uses the same business model, thus it comprises a monopoly. Let me offer several different models that are implemented in the examples I listed, as well as one or two more (though perhaps these are not distince enough for you...):
Albertson's / Raley's / Smith's / &c.: These stores generally buy from middle-men, and pay whatever the middle-men ask, then mark it up a bit to make a profit.
Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart tends to use its huge mass of capital and retail power as leverage against suppliers -- "sell it too us cheap, or we won't buy from you." Given the size of Wal-Mart, this is a big threat, especially if Wal-Mart has been buying from the supplier in question long enough for that supplier to hire on enough people to deal with Wal-Mart. Thus, Wal-Mart is using a slightly different model, and can provide lower prices for similar products.
Trader Joe's: Much of what Trader Joe's sells is direct from the producers. They package it up under their own brand, and sell it in their stores.
farmer's markets: This represents direct sale from the producer to the consumer. Farmer's markets tend not to run in the winter, and you have to live in a town that can support one, but they certainly represent an alternative to the grocery store monopoly that you outline above.
ethnic foods: If it is your thing, there are several Asian, Russian, and Mexican grocery stores where I live. These kinds of stores tend to be found only in regions with some population density, though it would seem that even that is a relative term, as there are fewer than 125,000 people in our area, and the next major population center is 120 miles away. Much of what they sell is imported. It come directly from the country of origin, or direct from the country of origin to a distributer to the grocery. It really depends upon the store. I would argue that those items that are being directly imported fall outside of the grocery monopoly that you outline above.
So, to get back to my original argument, your analogy is flawed. Not only are there multiple retailers in the field of groceries, they opperate under differing business plans (only a few of which are listed above, in only very sketchy details). I honestly don't understand how that can be considered a monopoly, especially compared to a single organization like TicketMaster. So, while I really don't care if TicketMaster is a monopoly or not, and while I really don't care about auctioning of tickets, your analogy is absurd.