The Printed Dictionary: An End of an Era?

[enewmen]

Will there still be a paper based "backup" in case of the global computer dark-age?

 

[eddieroolz]

Wise observation by Oxford. I think it would be much better to focus on the electronic product.

 

[tommysch]

[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]

So you expect a writer to lower himself so a texting tween can understand? lol

 

[g00fysmiley]

makes sense. though I wouldn't necessarily stop print, schools, libraries and private collectors may still want copies. perhaps it would be best to produce very limited supplies to fill orders unless the cost of mainaining the facilaty and staff has outweighed money you would get back from such an endeavor. will be sad though , ironically thoguh it will make the value of existing copies go up and in a few years may make it so that when they rerelease a limited run print edition cause more market intrest resulting in more sales... could be brilliant

 

[hamstamps]

It would be best if they still had the paper and people knew how to use it. It would be best because if Oxford's power goes or or something crazy like that happens, Students could still use a the paper books to help them with there studying.

 

[zak_mckraken]

Has anybody seen an introduction to contract work institution statutes from 1865 to 1923?

(Silence)

Anybody seen a big-ass book?

 

[shmiah]

People actually read better from books and the eye actually picks up words slower on screen.

Books are great things and it is a shame that this edition may not go to print - as I love books and have a lovely library where I go and muse there and read.

 

[quantum mask]

When Archaeologists do their digs, they find something tangible, most times with script that they can even read. What will they find 1000 years from now if everything goes digital? I can see how our whole society could be lost.

 

[hellwig]

[citation][nom]processthis[/nom]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.[/citation]
That's what I am talking about. Christ, maybe I need to use smaller words to get this point across. Here, let me quote my original post:

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.

See. This is what I was talking about. I never said scientists need to use Ebonics or that every thought needs to be expressible within 144 characters. I said I hate it when people unnecessarily do so for the sole reason of belittling the reader or to make them selves feel more intelligent (neonate vs. newborn). My point was that many of these words have lost their meaning in modern society and their existence in this dictionary only serves the elitist who laughs when you don't know the meaning of "dram" or "beek" (todays words of the day from Merriam Webster and Dictionary.com).

[citation][nom]TommySch[/nom]So you expect a writer to lower himself so a texting tween can understand? lol[/citation]
Oh God no. We are definitely getting stupider, no question about it.

 

[beachbod]

[citation][nom]cyprod[/nom]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.[/citation]


I grew up learning both english and german and I always felt the american language was easier. In the german language as well as others every word is either male, female or gender neutral. Consider this, in german the word star is male, sun is female and moon is gender neutral. How much sense does that make? I might just be biased though since I've always liked america better than germany.

 

[danny69t]

wow!!! i didn't knew there were 37.5 lbs dictionaries around