|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
>I found several sites that gave... as the definition.
this is potentially too germane a topic to leave lying doggo in an obscure word thread, in that it speaks to the whole issue of what makes it into the English lexicon as delimited by OED, W3, et al.
OED2 is loaded with obsolete words, nonce-words, and even words for which there is no other extant recorded evidence other than inclusion in some other old, obscure dictionary. In light of this historical (in the extreme) nature of OED, I asked the current U.S. editor if we should expect to see (for instance) Menckenisms such as 'bootician' and 'ombibulous' in the forthcoming OED3.
Jesse Sheidlower's reply:
In general, for a word to be included, we'd need some indication of wider use. For Menckenisms, _ecdysiast_ and _booboisie_ are both coinages that successfully made it into broader currency and will be included. The two you mention seem not to have done so, though we do have some examples from Mencken.
not content to let the matter drop, I pushed on:
Okay, this puzzles me a bit. I have had it pounded into my head that the OED is (or was) descriptivist and historical in nature. OED2 is loaded with nonce words from all sorts of obscure writers (Lytton leaps to mind)--so either things have changed, or Mencken is chopped liver, which?
Jesse's reply:
Well, a few things, including that Lytton was not an obscure writer when the OED was first being edited, and that our standards have changed so that we'd be much less likely to include a nonce-word now. But there can be a lot of reasons why one would include one--for example, the word is the sole example of a particular part of speech, but other parts of speech exist and the nonce example supports or sheds light on it in an interesting way.
[E.A.]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
as things now stand, inclusion in the important lexicons depends upon evidence in print. surely this will change with the proliferation of the WoaML. I should ask Jesse about this..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
What is their policy on words that are trade-marked but are in common usage anyway, words such as xerox, scotch tape and google?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
trademarks, when they are commonly used as if they were ordinary, generic terms, exist in a kind of never-never-land. to the lexicographer, the word has become generic and should be included in the dictionary and defined.
here's the OED2 entry for Xerox
[Invented word f. XERO(GRAPHY.]
n. A proprietary name for photocopiers (see quots. 1952, 1953); also used loosely (attrib. and absol.) to denote any photocopy.
v. [f. prec.] trans. To reproduce by xerography; to photocopy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
that is interesting, as former xeroid (what we called our self, but corporate hated the name), i remember being told the word came from xero (greek for dry) graphy (writing) -- since xerox machine were replacing 'wet' copiers. Xerox was made up, with xerography in mind...
never really looked up xero to see if it did mean dry i am surprized OED didn't have a comment.. (but maybe it does under the word xerography.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
well yeah, if you track back >xerography>xero-
before a vowel xer-, repr. Gr. combining form of xeros dry, occurring in several scientific and technical terms.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Yes; the water company in Austin, TX, gives you a break on your bill if you xeriscape your yard.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296 |
We need google as a verb because that's what millions of people do: They google. Google is straight and to-the-point. It would take a lot more words and letters to describe what we do when we google than the simple word "google." And, besides, once google began to appear in dictionaries and most especially on vocabulary tests, mebbe more kids would be encouraged to google topics themselves. Well, maybe not. Whenever I tell my elementary school kids that I've googled some topic of interest, they know exactly what I'm talking about because they google.
I'd like to see somebody come up with a pithier verb than "google" that would cover as much territory in describing the same action. Tell that OED guy to take that challenge in his pipe and smoke it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
Consider this. Nonce words are frequently generated, used for a while by a particular community, amd are then dropped from usage. To that extent, the attitude of the OED editors makes sense. "Google" as a verb is (a) very new and (b) not yet in "general" usage. Therefore, it wouldn't be considered for inclusion by the OED until some undetermined time in the future when it has stood their test of time (however long that may be).
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
used for a while by a particular community, amd are then dropped from usage.
Google will become a dictionary word not before Google™ ceases to be the search engine of choice and even then only if google remains the word of choice.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,318
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
775
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
