The Printed Dictionary: An End of an Era?

[exfileme]

The third edition of the Oxford English dictionary may not go to print.

The Printed Dictionary: An End of an Era? : Read more

 

[leo2kp]

I had no idea that many words existed for one language.

 

[joytech22]

[citation][nom]leo2kp[/nom]I had no idea that many words existed for one language.[/citation]

English is WIN! isn't it like one of the most sophisticated languages around? i can't remember which one was..

 

[jomofro39]

Tomorrow's Article:
"Your horse and buggy could be obsolete! Click to read further!"

 

[hellwig]

When I read this title, I thought they were talking about not printing any dictionaries, even those quick-reference ones, or even the slightly thicker ones you see in schools or libraries. I had no idea there was a 20-volume, 750 pound, $1200 dictionary set out there. I agree that the market for such a monstrosity must be extremely small.

I have to think that a great percentage of those words are never used in standard conversation. The only people who use those words are probably pompous writers who try to belittle their audience by using large words they suspect the reader won't know off the top of their head. I hate people like that.

 

[cyprod]

[citation][nom]joytech22[/nom]English is WIN! isn't it like one of the most sophisticated languages around? i can't remember which one was..[/citation]

More like the biggest mess of a language. I seem to recall that most languages have regulatory boards and have between 100K-200K words in them. English on the other hand has no regulatory board and has well over a million words commonly recognized as part of the language. Not only that, but words have different meanings in diffrent regions (biscuit, pants, jelly and boot are just a few that come to mind between american and english).

The language really is a giant bucket of fail, but alas, it's the only language I'm fluent in, so I'll stick with it.

 

[Omniblivion]

They should have seen this coming- it can't play Crysis 2.

 

[dauthus]

[citation][nom]hellwig[/nom] I have to think that a great percentage of those words are never used in standard conversation. The only people who use those words are probably pompous writers who try to belittle their audience by using large words they suspect the reader won't know off the top of their head. I hate people like that.[/citation]

I utterly detest those pompous nitwits who offer credulity to the notion that their selection of confabulation is of prodigious veneration.

But seriously, you're against writers using infrequent words? That is like being against Einstein for using complex math symbols.

Perhaps we should dumb down the rest of society for you as well? Heck, Apple has already started on this endeavor.

 

[kcorp2003]

Yeah my professor told me about this today. It's sad to see this happen but at the same time happy. We are pushing towards the digital age. However i like my physical things. I have 3 dictionary that i don't use anymore, I stop using them since 2005. I am going to take an Exam soon and i'll have to bring my pocket dictionary to help aid me in this Exam just incase i need it. And bringing a dictionary to this exam is permissible.

If Oxford print their 3rd edition ill buy it and keep it as a collection so i can show my grandkids i used to use this.

 

[icepick314]

surprised dictionary survived THIS long...

with advent of Google and Library of Congress going digital, people don't really need physical reference books...

encyclopedia died back in 90's...the memories of watching Encyclopedia Britannica commercials on TV telling people their child can be a doctor with a set....

 

[dalethepcman]

Hence forward we shall use the phrase "Throw the PDF at them!" instead of "Throw the book at them!"

 

[screechy]

What happens when google changes their name to skynet, takes over the world, and deletes the Internet? All kidding aside I think most people like a tangible object compared to just a fee.

 

[lowmpg]

In about fours years I've spent enough money for access to the online version that I could have just bought the hard copy and kept it for life. If it was $10 per year, that would be a different story, but $300?!

And what I hate is looking in a book that calls itself a dictionary and not being able to find the word I'm looking for. As a result of that experience happening repeatedly over the years, I've coveted an OED of my own for most of my life.

 

[bustapr]

I think its better to have the dictionary online and carry one of those small 5 dollar dictionaries around. No way in hell that Im gonna throw away $1,165 on 750 pound set of books.

 

[thechief73]

The change from print to digital makes all the more sence when your talking about a 750lbs, $1165 set of books. Even in a school setting this seems to be more practical, online version can be updated, and dosent need to be taken care of like a physical copy.

+1 for the trees 🙂

 

[hellwig]

[citation][nom]dauthus[/nom]I utterly detest those pompous nitwits who offer credulity to the notion that their selection of confabulation is of prodigious veneration.But seriously, you're against writers using infrequent words? That is like being against Einstein for using complex math symbols. Perhaps we should dumb down the rest of society for you as well? Heck, Apple has already started on this endeavor.[/citation]

That's a rather elitist view. I'm not saying we stop talking about complex ideas, I'm saying we do so in a language every understands, and using words everyone can comprehend.

Do you really think laws need to be written in language only a lawyer can understand? Language YOU and I and everyone else is expected to understand, since we're supposed to follow these laws. How about medical texts, why do doctors use words like neonate instead of newborn or thrombosis instead of blood clot? Using these complex words adds no extra understanding, it only serves to segregate those who understand the words from those who don't, and make the writer feel more important or intelligent. The object of language, speaking, writing, is to spread ideas and convey meaning. You fight directly against that goal when you knowingly use overly-complex terms.

 

[processthis]

The title is misleading. This isn't about no more printed dictionaries. This is about no more "complete collection of the English language" type things. With something that big, it makes MUCH more sense to just put it on disc.

 

[processthis]

[citation][nom]hellwig[/nom]That's a rather elitist view. I'm not saying we stop talking about complex ideas, I'm saying we do so in a language every understands, and using words everyone can comprehend.Do you really think laws need to be written in language only a lawyer can understand? Language YOU and I and everyone else is expected to understand, since we're supposed to follow these laws. How about medical texts, why do doctors use words like neonate instead of newborn or thrombosis instead of blood clot? Using these complex words adds no extra understanding, it only serves to segregate those who understand the words from those who don't, and make the writer feel more important or intelligent. The object of language, speaking, writing, is to spread ideas and convey meaning. You fight directly against that goal when you knowingly use overly-complex terms.[/citation]
I think he's talking more about words that are higher level and deemed "part of a good vocabulary" not technical terms or dead words that no one uses nor has any reason to use.

 

[jeraldjunkmail]

Good for trees, but will have unknown impacts on the language itself. This is so weird. From a linguistic perspective, having an ever changing medium (internet) will have HUGE impacts on the language itself. The words of Marshal McCluhan are becoming more and more relevant as the years pass. "The media is the message." seems absolutely prophetic.

 

[ravewulf]

[citation][nom]leo2kp[/nom]I had no idea that many words existed for one language.[/citation]
The OED is a bit more than just a dictionary. It details how the usages and meanings of words have changed throughout history, with full examples and more.
[citation][nom]Wikipedia[/nom]According to the publishers, it would take a single person 120 years to 'key in' text to convert it to machine readable form which consists a total of 59 million words of the OED second edition, 60 years to proofread it, and 540 megabytes to store it electronically.[3] As of 30 November 2005, the Oxford English Dictionary contained approximately 301,100 main entries. Supplementing the entry headwords, there are 157,000 bold-type combinations and derivatives; 169,000 italicized-bold phrases and combinations; 616,500 word-forms in total, including 137,000 pronunciations; 249,300 etymologies; 577,000 cross-references; and 2,412,400 usage quotations. The dictionary's latest, complete print edition (Second Edition, 1989) was printed in 20 volumes, comprising 291,500 entries in 21,730 pages. The longest entry in the OED2 was for the verb set, which required 60,000 words to describe some 430 senses. As entries began to be revised for the OED3 in sequence starting from M, the longest entry became make in 2000, then put in 2007.[/citation]