July 09, 2009, 10:34
zmježdtell me it ain't so
Language Log discusses (
link) an article by Skinner
link).
quote:
The dictionary was called “permissive” and details of its perfidy were aired, mocked, and distorted until the publisher was put on notice that it might be bought out to prevent further circulation of this insidious thirteen-and-a-half–pound, four-inch–thick doorstop of a book. Webster’s Third New International (Unabridged) wasn’t just any dictionary, of course, but the most up-to-date and complete offering from America’s oldest and most respected name in lexicography. (So respected, in fact, that for more than a hundred years other publishers have adopted the Webster’s name as their own. Webster’s Third, published by G. & C. Merriam & Co., today called Merriam-Webster, is the most direct descendant, however, of Noah Webster’s pioneering American Dictionary of the English Language, first published in 1828.)
The blog entry, amongst other things discusses David Foster Wallace's fussy rant against descriptivism
per se (
link) and Languagehat's demolishing response to it (
link).
July 09, 2009, 20:56
KallehVery nice links, z. I particularly liked the Skinner article and was irritated to read that my own Chicago Tribune called the Webster's Third edition too permissive.
quote:
In 1961 a new edition of an old and esteemed dictionary was released. The publisher courted publicity, noting the great expense ($3.5 million) and amount of work (757 editor years) that went into its making. But the book was ill-received. It was judged “subversive” and denounced in the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Atlantic, the New Yorker, Life, and dozens of other newspapers, magazines, and professional journals.