We've been discussing on OEDILF about whether all words there should have in an author's note a superficial definition. Philosophically, I am strongly against it because I think it takes a lot to write a dictionary. These writers are quite talented in limerick writing, rhyming, meter, plays on words, and in knowing many different words and fields. They do a wonderful job of discussing the meaning of words or using them accurately in limericks. However, they are now talking about this as being a dictionary and that people will use it as a resource for words. That would be a mistake. it is not comprehensive enough for that, and I think it would cheapen the project and make something that was unique and clever, mediocre.

While I don't want to make this into an OEDILF discussion, it did make me think about what a dictionary is. Then, at the bookstore we visited in Columbus today, there was a definition of "lexicographer" which precisely captured my thoughts on what a good dictionary should be about:

"A writer of dictionaries, a harmless drudge, that busies himself in tracing the original, and detailing the significance of words." Tongue in cheek, yes. But I love the "tracing the original and detailing the significance of words." That's what I think a good dictionary does, and it's why I don't always like those specialty dictionaries that have one word definitions. Am I being too anal?

[edited for clarity]

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

First off - one would have to define whether you meant "anal retentive" or "anal expulsive", those being at opposite ends of that particular Freudian spectrum.... :-)

Although I dare say most of us knew what you meant, I just couldn't pass up on the opportunity.

As for superficial definitions, I've found most author's notes in in dictionaries (at least the few I've read) to be weighty - and that's being kind. But then, I'm not a lexicographer.

On another note entirely, does "expensive" mean that you are no longer pensive?

Bob

Sorry - got carried away with myself.

One would have to specify (not define). I much prefer catching my own excesses to having them pointed out.

The only problem with dictionaries is that they tell you what any given word meant as a snapshot in time. My Dad (82 and going strong), who has dozens of dictionaries, can show for a given word how the meaning has changed over a good portion of the last century.

Bob

There are plenty of dictionaries already, made by experts. I wonder why the OEDILF people think they need to create another one.

quote:

There are plenty of dictionaries already, made by experts. I wonder why the OEDILF people think they need to create another one.

How many other dictionaries do you know where the definition is in limerick form?

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:

quote:

There are plenty of dictionaries already, made by experts. I wonder why the OEDILF people think they need to create another one.

How many other dictionaries do you know where the definition is in limerick form?

Oh! I didn't realize that's what they wanted to do.

quote:

Oh! I didn't realize that's what they wanted to do.

Not only wanted to do but are presently doing with such success that over 38,000 words have already been defined in limerick form - and they are still only halfway through the Cs.

In spite of some criticism (not necessarily undeserved) the project is very successful and could lay claim to being the most eccentric in lexicographical history.

Why not go there and look? You don't even need to register simply to view the definitions - http://www.oedilf.com

It was never intended to be a dictionary, Goofy. It was intended to be a limerictionary, which meant that the meaning of words are presented in the 5-line limerick, whenever possible. However, often the words are merely used in the limerick or one definition is presented, and certainly there is no depth. After all, how much more can one do any more in a 5 line limerick? Yet, more recently there is a movement to put a one-word definition in all author notes since so that, indeed, they can call it a dictionary. What balderdash.

Richard, as I said above, I hadn't intended this to be an OEDILF thread. Obviously I shouldn't have mentioned the project at all. I really wanted to discuss what our board thinks dictionaries should contain. For example, is the online Grandiloquent Dictionary sufficient? It surely has no discussion of the roots or significance of words, as Samauel Johnson defines it above. I look for that in a dictionary. When I think about it, I am probably being too anal (retentive, not explosive, BobK ). What do Wordcrafters want in a good dictionary?

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

quote:

What do Wordcrafters want in a good dictionary?

It's generally not simply a case of a good or bad dictionary; it's a case of an appropriate or inappropriate dictionary.

Black's Medical Dictionary is probably fine in its field, but it won't be much good as a substitute for OED. And vice versa.

OEDILF is fine as a light-hearted work that is informative about meaning; there are other dictionaries that will be more appropriate for the serious researcher of particular topics.

As I said, I didn't want to debate the OEDILF in this thread. I don't consider it a dictionary anyway.

In a dictionary, I want nuances of the definitions. I also love usage notes, such as AHD has. I have learned a lot from those. I also like dictionaries that have a reliable discusson of the etymology of words.

Dictionaries withstanding the most,
of abuse with survival of host,
Are worthy of their salt,
for withstanding assault,
That would leave other efforts as toast.

Bob

quote:

As I said, I didn't want to debate the OEDILF in this thread. I don't consider it a dictionary anyway.

Dictionary n A book that lists (usu. in alphabetical order) and explains the words of a language or gives equivalant words in another language. (COED)

I reckon it's a dictionary by that definition. Whether it's a good dictionary is a different matter, and a matter about which there will be many opinions.

Alright, I will give you that.

My main question was to find out what others here value in a dictionary. I shouldn't have linked this question to the OEDILF because that wasn't the point of the question; it was merely the background.

Dictionaries with one- or two-word definitions are pretty well useless. It is rare for the true flavour and meaning of a word to be able to be summed up in a couple of words. To me, a useful dictionary gives definitions in complete sentences, and includes all the different ways in which a word can be used. It should also include examples of use from relevant texts. Etymological information is useful, but not essential, as is a guide to pronunciation.

There are lots of dictionaries available and not all of them have the same purpose.
arnie says that ones with one or two word definitions are useless but it depends on what you need. Obviously if you are looking for a reference work that will tell you all you need to know about the language then, depending where you live, you will go for the complete OED or Webster but those are completely useless unless you happen to have immediate access to a library. Any dictionary that is too heavy to carry around is useless as a reference outside your study.
A thesaurus is a kind of dictionary which doesn't give any definitions at all, just lists of near synonyms and it relies on your existing knowledge to pick out which words are appropriate to your need.
A spelling dictionary (I have one to hand) gives only the words with appropriate syllabification and (in the case of the one I'm looking at) word stems where appropriate.
The Official Scrabble Word Dictionary gives a straight list of permissible words sorted first by word length and then alphabetically with nothing else.
I have somewhere a crossword companion dictionary which again gives only lists of words alphabetised in section one starting with the first letter, in section two starting with the second and so on.
These are all dictionaries, all for specific purposes and all quite useless in other circumstances.

Let me give a bilingual example.

I own four German Dictionaries.

The first is the bilingual Langenscheidt New Concise German Dictionary. It's not massive but it does weigh in at a little over 2kg and is therefore rather too large to conveniently carry around. It's a desk reference.
The second is also a Langenscheidt bilingual dictionary, this time a pocket edition. This is tiny by comparison but handy to carry around when I'm visiting German speaking countries as I frequently cannot remember the meanings of quite common words that I see.
The third is Wahrigs dtv-Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache, a pocket sized (for a largish pocket) German only dictionary which I find useful to give me a more nuanced idea of what a word means than a simple bilingual translation manages. The forth is subject classified German dictionary (which I can't locate at the moment to give the specific reference) which was useful when I was first learning but which I haven't consulted in ages, though now that I am so out of practice I expect it might be useful again.

My point is that I use all of these dictionaries for different things and they are all useful for different things.

I can't resist a brief mention, in context, of the OEDILF.
I have said on many occasions, as has CJ, that anyone would be insane if they chose the OEDILF as their primary reference in finding out the meaning of a word. That doesn't invalidate it as a dictionary. People would be insane if they chose Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary as their primary reference source. The OEDILF is primarily a fun project presenting definitions (sometimes rather thin and weak ones) and illustrations of word use in an entertaining and often humourous manner. If some people occasionally forget that then more fool them.