A few (not all, mind you) on OEDILF would like their dictionary to be considered for Onelook. Some think that their definitions aren't comprehensive enough for Onelook, while others think they are.

What do you expect in a dictionary definition? For example, would the following, randomly selected OEDILF limerick, be enough for your definitions of "axolotl" and "Ambystoma?"

They had captured the beast in a bottle—
An amphibian called axolotl.
"This Ambystoma, please,"
Warned their teacher, "Don't tease,
Don't mishandle, don't strangle, don't throttle!"
By SheilaB

I fear that for many words you'd just have to back up and start again, if it was a definition you were seeking.

Edit: This post is a rant.

That is in no way an appropriate definition for Axolotl. This is truly a fascinating creature, see Wikipedia, and any attempt to "define" it without mentioning neoteny is patently absurd. This animal is rare enough that anyone looking up the axolotl is almost certainly interested in the neotenic aspects, how it inspired a story by Julian Huxley (brother of Aldous), the evolutionary implications of all of this (particularly the juvenile ape hypothesis). A couple months ago I spent hours reading up on this in Wikipedia and other sources. The limerick should be a gateway into this, not a trite, silly, "look how clever I am to rhyme axolotl", and "cram ambystoma into it" piece of rubbish.

This is one of the difficulties the OEDILF has, in that certain concepts, especially biological, cannot be defined without use of specific words, making any suitable rhyme scheme unreasonable. In the above example, the 1st, 4th, and 5th lines have no information content, and are there only to allow the writer to rhyme with axolotl. Furthermore, it gives me no clue what "Ambystoma" is. Is it a genus, phylum, class, order? Could it an adjective describing the creature, or a verb describing its actions?

It's far from comprehensive as a definition - although it does make it clear that an axolotl is an amphibian.

Although I am more of a stickler for definition than most, even I accept that there are some terms that can't be adequately defined within the confines of the limerick form. Indeed, there are some words that can't easily be defined within the confines of a normal dictionary!

But OEDILF is primarily a fun project and to suggest that it will ever be the reference source of first recourse is wishful thinking.

People sometimes miss the point about the degree of definition in the OEDILF. As with any dictionary the amount of definition is constrained by two factors - the space available and the complexity of the concept.

Collins English Dictionary(CED) is reasonably concise edition containing in a single volume approximately 200,000 words in small type on 1771 pages.
The hugo English Doctionary(HED) is a tiny pocket-sized edition that nonetheless contains 50,000 words in 626 pages.
The New Oxford Illustrated Dictionary(NOID) doesn't, as far as I can see, list on the cover or in the preface how many words but is two large and heavily illustrated, 960 page volumes which has some entries that are more like an encyclopedia.

Let's see what they say for "axolotol".

CED: 1. any of several aquatic salamanders of the north American genus Ambystoma esp. A. mexicanum in which the larval form (includin external gills) is retained throughout life under natural conditions (see neotony): family Ambistomidae.
2. any of various other North American salamanders in which neotony occurs or is induced. [ from Nahuatl, from atl water + xolotl servant. doll]

NOID: Salamander of genus Ambystoma of mountain lakes of Mexixo and SW. US usu. retaining larvel form throughou life.

(Def. is accompanied by a picture)

HED:type of salamander

The COMPLETE returned definiton from the OEDILF is

Ambystoma, axolotl by SheilaB (Sheila B. Blume)

They had captured the beast in a bottle—
An amphibian called axolotl.
"This Ambystoma, please,"
Warned their teacher, "Don't tease,
Don't mishandle, don't strangle, don't throttle!"

(ax-uhl-OT-il, am-BIS-tuh-muh) The axolotl (Ambystoma mexicanum) is an aquatic salamander native to Mexico.

axolotl by kandabongo

All hail the magnificent axolotl!
She's amphibian, dude, to the maxolotl.
She retains every gill
As an adult, but still,
With weak lungs she don't play tenor saxolotl.

(AKS-uh-lah-tuhl) A type of salamander living in the mountain lakes of Mexico and the western U.S., which does not metamorphize into a gill-less land form as most amphibians do.

axolotl by BobHale

You can house your small pet axolotl
In any old jar you have what'll
Remain watertight.
(Though your ocelot might
Find life much too cramped in a bottle.)

An axolotl is a salamander that retains its larval characteristics throughout its life and reproduces in that state. An ocelot, on the other hand, is a metre-long cat also called a painted leopard.

ambystomid, Ambystomidae, axolotl by Carol June Hooker (Carol June Hooker)

Ambystomids find humid haunts,
Salamanders' terrestrial wonts.
But some never grow up:
One, the "mud" larval "pup,"
Lives in lakes meant for love-making jaunts.

(am-BIS-tuh-mid). Ambystomids ordinarily live most of their adult lives in moist wooded land, returning to water only to breed. The Ambystomidae, a genus of salamanders found in North America, include 31 species from New England to Florida, west to Texas and south to Mexico, which hosts fourteen of the species. Some of the species never leave larval stage, spending their lives in freshwater lakes and ponds. These include the mud puppy, named axolotl in Mexico.

axolotl by SheilaB (Sheila B. Blume)

Ajolote (we say axolotl):
An amphibian that if it's shot'll
Make a very scant feast—
If you're hunting the beast,
You can scoop it right up in a bottle.

Ajolote (ah-ho-LO-tay) is the Spanish name for the axolotl (ak-suh-LOT-uhl), an aquatic salamander native to Mexico (Ambystoma mexicanum). It averages about nine inches in length when mature, and wouldn't make much of a meal.

ajolote, axolotl by turnip (Michael Turniansky)

An adult ajolote has gills
But still enjoys sexual thrills.
"You are so immature,"
Says his mate, "That's for sure.
Don't go play with your friends, pay some bills!"

Ajolote (a-kho-LO-teh) is another name for the axolotl, a salamander that preserves juvenile features throughout its life, like many human males.

-----------------------------------

Of these, off-hand, I'd say by far the most comprehensive is the OEDILF and it has laughs as well.

Remember the brief of the OEDILF iis to provide a) definition and b) humour in a limerick form and almost everyone agrees that you'd be insane to use it as your sole (or even main) reference source.

In the random limerick display any one of those might come up without its accompanying note (though a single click will show it) but a search for the word brings back the lot.

PS - the limerick of mine in that lot was developed from a previous, rather better, nonsense rhyme of mine which went

An axolotl's
A pet what'll
Live content
Inside a bottle
Don't confuse it with the ocelot
What'll not.

Knowing how picky they can get over at that Oedilf place, I'd like to point out that the Nahuatl absolutive (or unpossessed) suffix -tl (after stems ending in a consonant, it is -tli) represents a sound (voiceless alveolar lateral affricate link) which does not occur in English. The t is like ours, but that l is a totally foreign sound to anglophone ears. It does occur in Welsh, where it is written with a ll. The pronunciation of axolotl in Nahuatl is /a:ʃo:lo:tɬ/. (Mind you, I'm not suggesting that it should be pronounced that way, but if you're going to be a pedantic stickler, you should at least be a ware of it; NB, the x is a /ʃ/ and not an /ks/.)

The one thing I think could be usefully changed at the OEDILF is the ad-hoc way of specifying pronunciations using the "sounds-like-this" principle rather than using the IPA. Of course changing it would be a huge task especially as many of the contributers won't be familiar with the IPA.

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
Of these, off-hand, I'd say by far the most comprehensive is the OEDILF and it has laughs as well.

I completely disagree. Kandabongo's is excellent. Carol June Hooker's is good, although it doesn't use axolotl in the limerick. The rest barely define what it is, some of them not even mentioning amphibian. Not a single mention of neotony anywhere in the OEDILF, though. This is the most important piece of information. On the other hand, the CED's definition is concise, informative, and useful.

The point is that looking for axolotol doesn't return ONE of those as the definition, it returns ALL of them and between them and their notes they tell me what it is, what its defining feature is, what kind of habitat it likes and where it is found - not to mention an alternate name for it and its scientific name. To say that ONE of them doesn't define it is like saying that the CED one is no good and quoting as a reason that it says "one of several aquatic salamanders" without quoting the rest of the definition.

Also while the word "neotony" isn't used the concept most certainly is. Even my limerick which I freely admit contains no definition whatsover in the limerick itself certainly has it in the accompanying note.

With ANY dictionary you read the whole definition.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

BTW mine, as I mentioned above, was adapted from a little nonsense rhyme and was never intended to be a definition. That was why the note was included.

Bob, you obviously misunderstood my point since you posted all the other limericks with those words (including one of yours), trying to show that, indeed, there are some that are better definitional limericks on those words. I wasn't trying to find a definition for axolotl or Ambystoma. I randomly selected one limerick for us to review. Perhaps I should have selected one of my own. I selected Sheila's (and I find her to be a good author, generally) from the random limericks on top of the site, and I copied it directly from there.

I have been thinking about this. Normally I like a bit of etymology in a definition and something more comprehensive than could be done in 5 lines, with perfect meter, rhymes, grammar and punctuation, etc. However, when I think about Onelook, I do know that it includes some not-so-comprehensive dictionaries, such as the Grandiloquent. Many of the specialty dictionaries often have one-word definitions, (with the exception of WWFTD, which has recently added some etymology). Because of that, I don't much like Onelook. However, if Onelook can include the likes of the Grandioloquent Dictionary, why not the OEDILF?

I suspect the biggest problem will be their not getting to the "C"s yet.

Getting beyond the OEDILF, what do you expect from a dictionary definition? For me, I like to see how the word has evolved, including its etymology. I almost think there should be two words for dictionary. One would be a source that simply defines, with only a few words, the word. Quick and simple. The other would be like the OED that goes through the evolution of the word, the etymology, quotes, etc.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

Let's ignore the OEDILF (to start with) then. My point can be perfectly well made using the CED definition.

quote:

CED: 1. any of several aquatic salamanders of the north American genus Ambystoma esp. A. mexicanum in which the larval form (including external gills) is retained throughout life under natural conditions (see neotony): family Ambistomidae.
2. any of various other North American salamanders in which neotony occurs or is induced. [ from Nahuatl, from atl water + xolotl servant. doll]

Of a dictionary definition I require a number of things.
First and foremost accuracy. This IS NOT the same as completeness. If "dog" is described in my pocket dictionary as "animal with four legs" this may not be a very good definition but it passes the test of accuracy. A dog is, indeed, an animal with four legs.
If it is described as "an aquatic mammal" this fails the accuracy test because it isn't true.

Second I require that the definition gives me an idea of the meaning of the word. Picking a word at random from the tiny HED sitting next to me I find that "parquet" is a noun meaning "flooring made of inlaid wooden blocks". OK, I now have an idea of what it is. I don't know if ALL flooring made of inlaid wooden blocks is "parquet" or if there are other requirements omitted because this dictionary is limited to definitions of about ten words or less. It doesn't matter I have an idea.

If I go to a heftier dictionary I expect a heftier definition. If I had OED access I'd expect a very comprehensive definition.

In a large dictionary (AHD, ME3, OED) I'd expect examples of a words usage and usage notes where appropriate.

-------

What I would not expect in even the best of dictionaries is completeness. I'm willing to bet whole books have been written on the axolotl for example, learned papers, abstruse scientific studies. There's a lot to know about the little fellow and if I need more than a dictionary I'll go to an encyclopedia. If I need more than an encyclopedia I'll go and buy a specialist book on amphibia. More than that I'll get one devoted to the axolotl.

Completeness in a dictionary is both inappropriate and impossible.

----------

My point in previous posts though is just this. Whatever I want, and whichever book I go to to find it, I will read the whole thing. In the quoted CED entry I wouldn't read

quote:

CED: 1. any of several aquatic salamanders

and stop, which is what reading only one of the OEDILF limericks and none of the Author's notes is doing.

Rather than pick apart SheilaB's let me take mine on the same word.

quote:

axolotl by BobHale

You can house your small pet axolotl
In any old jar you have what'll
Remain watertight.
(Though your ocelot might
Find life much too cramped in a bottle.)

An axolotl is a salamander that retains its larval characteristics throughout its life and reproduces in that state. An ocelot, on the other hand, is a metre-long cat also called a painted leopard.

Definitionally this limerick - minus its note - is rubbish. You could infer that an axolotl is a) something alive and b) something quite small but that's about it. It is about as non-definitional as its possible to get because it wasn't intended as a definition it was intended as a joke. FWIW the information in it is reasonably accurate there just isn't much of it. Add the note and it's better. It gives a one line note adding the info that it's c)a salamander that d) retains larval characteristics throughout its life and e) reproduces while still in a larval state.

This is, I think, now an OKish definition. Will it make anyone reading it an axolotol expert? No, but neither will ANY dictionary definition.

So to sum up my requirements.

accuracy YES
an idea of the meaning of the word YES
usage examples YES, if space permits
usage notes YES, if space permits
completeness NO as this is impossible

I think that of the definitions I quoted in my first post the CED is pretty darned good. The NOID is OK and includes a picture but is light on detail. The HED is rather poor but still gives me some information and the OEDILF when read in its entirety gives me much more information than any of the others.

Oh yes, I forgot, etymology is nice if there is space but it's inevitably very sparse and there are specialist dictionaries available for it so that I'd say it's OK to include it but NOT part of the primary function of a normal everyday dictionary.

I will chime in and say that I think OEDILF has sufficient information to be included in Onelook . . . for the words it has already covered. Onelook has all kinds of dictionary references that have less information about words. There are many times when all I find are the scantiest of definitions. Seeing as OEDILF only goes into the C's, though, I think inclusion might be premature.

quote:

Completeness in a dictionary is both inappropriate and impossible.

I would agree with that. If I had implied that (I think my word was "comprehensive"), I certainly didn't mean everything there is to know about a word or concept. However, I do expect any dictionary to give me, as you say, an idea of the meaning. I agree that the comprehensiveness depends on the publication itself; the OED will differ from the Collegiate MW, for example. Herein lies the place of the OEDILF, I suppose. I also require, as you do, Bob, accuracy. That's essential. It's okay, for example, to say the etymology is unknown.

Yes, CW, I agree with you. When you look at all the other dictionaries listed in Onelook, you could hardly turn down OEDILF. I also agree that it's a problem that they aren't even done with the Cs yet.

Say what you must about the inconsistency of the comprehensiveness of WWFTD entries (which I'm slowly working away at), but in *random sampling of OneLook hits over the past three weeks I've found that wwftd is the sole source for nearly 100 obscure words (even that a fairly high %age out of the 3694 currently indexed).

and there are many more that are covered additionally only by such pathetic posers as Wiktionary or Grandiloquent. (Wiktionary currently has more than half a million entries; and talk about inconsistent!)

having said that, I'm always open to constructive criticism.

Out of curiosity, I looked up axolotl on WWFTD and it's not listed. Is it your policy not to include names of animals, etc., tsuwm, or is it just that you haven't go round to it yet? I'd have thought it is a pretty worthless word otherwise! An interesting word, yes, for various reasons, but it's not the sort of word I use often in conversation.

I've not got around to it, but I'll add it to my short list of animals...

quote:

Say what you must about the inconsistency of the comprehensiveness of WWFTD entries

I don't think anyone mentioned the WWFTD not being comprehensive; I had purposely excluded WWFTD from my comments about the specialty dictionaries because I really appreciate the etymology discussions. I think those have added a lot to your dictionary, and I suspect that's why people prefer your dictionary to others with obscure words.

quote:

with the exception of WWFTD, which has recently added some etymology

[EA]

I guess I'm being over-sensitive, again.

How's this: LOTS of etymology!

Well, apparently I was wrong. Apparently most of the OEDILF limericks do define their words. See here for the evidence. 49 out of 50 randomly selected limericks isn't bad.

a day late & a dollar short as usual-- I'm agreed with most here that I'd look to OEDILF for a general sense of the definition (glad they're managing 49 out of 50, good score!), but mainly, for entertainment value...

Kalleh, I'm with you on etymology! Even in the most abbreviated, one-word-definitions Scrabble dictionary, I want to see a brief statement, defining, e.g., the prefix meaning in Latin, & word root from OE...

I would have thought a dictionary partially fails its mission if it doesn't give one enough information on which to base word usage-- & you need the etymology for that.

quote:

Originally posted by bethree5:
I would have thought a dictionary partially fails its mission if it doesn't give one enough information on which to base word usage-- & you need the etymology for that.

I would disagree... we don't need to know etymologies of words in order to use them. In fact knowing the etymologies can often cause unnecessary confusion, for instance believing that "decimate" means "remove one in ten", or that "educate" means "lead out", etc.

Etymologies are useful, and can be interesting, even fascinating. However, as Bob has said, I wouldn't expect to see them in one of the smaller dictionaries, simply for reasons of space.

They can also be useful in remembering how to spell words; for instance, knowing that necessary comes from the Latin necesse via ne- and cedere prevents me from spelling the word with two Cs: "neccessary", which seems to be a common mistake.

quote:

etymologies can often cause unnecessary confusion, for instance believing that ... "educate" means "lead out", etc.

Socratic learning, then? The notion that the concept to be taught is already latent in the pupil's mind, waiting only to be "brought out"?

That's what I find fascinating about etymologies. They can be a "time machine," giving a unique insight into the minds of the folks who originally used the word, centuries ago.

quote:

Originally posted by shufitz:
That's what I find fascinating about etymologies. They can be a "time machine," giving a unique insight into the minds of the folks who originally used the word, centuries ago.

Sure. I love etymology. But no one needs to know the etymology of words in order to use them. If it was necessary to know etymologies in order to use words, then most speakers of English and indeed all languages are using their words wrong. Etymologies are not definitions.

quote:

Originally posted by shufitz:

That's what I find fascinating about etymologies. They can be a "time machine," giving a unique insight into the minds of the folks who originally used the word, centuries ago.

To you, me and everyone here but we represent quite a small subset of the English speaking world - the subset of people who have an interest in language for its own sake. For most people they want two things only from a dictionary - some guidance on how to spell a word and some guidance on what it means. That's it, full stop. Etymology, fascinating to us, is an irrelevance to them. Detailed usage panel discussions that we can debate for hours are just so much boring wasted paper to them. And who are we to say that they are wrong? Our interests are minority interests. Our requirements from a dictionary are therefore not the same as the requirements of the public at large.

Truth is, the majority of languages dead and alive lack a dictionary.

quote:

Truth is, the majority of languages dead and alive lack a dictionary

Is that really the case? I could imagine that the majority of people don't own, or even know how to use, a dictionary - but I would have thought that the majority of languages would have had some kind of dictionary, albeit it a fairly basic one.

lumped together, dead AND alive, I can well believe this. but perhaps jim meant each, separately?

Well, it was a bit of hyperbole, but many languages like a writing system or a written literature. I don't doubt the dead ones outnumber the living ones. Dictionaries are rather modern inventions, which usually started off as a list of difficult or rare words. I'm sure if you go back languages with most number of speakers, almost all of the top couple of hundred have writing systems, literature, and dictionaries. I'll think about the lower 3 to 5 K and get back to you.

quote:

To you, me and everyone here but we represent quite a small subset of the English speaking world - the subset of people who have an interest in language for its own sake. For most people they want two things only from a dictionary - some guidance on how to spell a word and some guidance on what it means. That's it, full stop.

Well, first off, I was being facetious when I said the evidence proves that it's a dictionary. If anyone checked those limericks, you will see that some of those words don't have a hint of definition.

But secondly, Bob, the original question was about the few of us who like words. It wasn't about the rest of the world. I, personally, like a dictionary with some etymology. That's why I don't own one of those small dictionaries that Bob and Arnie refer to. However, that's just my very isolated opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by goofy:
...But no one needs to know the etymology of words in order to use them. If it was necessary to know etymologies in order to use words, then most speakers of English and indeed all languages are using their words wrong...

Well, yes & no. Words are used in many ways (including, probably, 'right' and 'wrong' among others). I suspect that those whose early grammar classes included drilling on the more common Latin- & Greek-derived prefixes, suffixes, & word roots probably use words with more precision. And if one has learned the language that way, one is likely to want to refresh or refine that sort of information via the dictionary.

quote:

Originally posted by bethree5:
I suspect that those whose early grammar classes included drilling on the more common Latin- & Greek-derived prefixes, suffixes, & word roots probably use words with more precision.

If by "precision" you mean "closer to the meaning in Latin or Greek", then maybe. But etymologies are not definitions. To believe that the etymology of a form gives us an insight into its meaning is the etymological fallacy.

As well as the example of 'dilapidated' given, another prime example is 'decimated'.