Talk:Oxford English Dictionary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 IPA Oddity? 2 Endings 3 Awesomeness (POV) 4 Statistics 5 OED copyright 5.1 Most of the OED 2nd edition (1989) is out of copyright, it seems 6 Wikipedia should use OED English? 7 1 volume edition 8 when did NED become OED? 9 Usenet 10 Fake / easter egg words 11 OED Online 11.1 Wiki included 12 definitive dictionary 13 Most-quoted work 14 Overuse of wikilinks 15 the dictionary is a dictionary? 16 Other versions of "Oxford English Dictionary" 17 Nesh 18 The most accurate? 19 "See also" 20 Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English

[edit] IPA Oddity?

The Dictionary.app program built into OS X 10.4 (along with the widget and the Cmd-Ctrl-D menu) contains the text of the New Oxford American Dictionary. You can set it to show US English pronunciations using IPA rather than the strange diacritical system. I have found it to be very accurate except for with any word containing the same vowel as 'fat'. For this vowel, which is æ in IPA, it uses ø, which is not even used in English. So the pronunciation for 'fat' is given as føt, which sounds more like someone with a thick accent trying to say 'foot'.

Does anyone know if there is a reason why this symbol is used? Is the IPA used in the print edition of either this or the normal OED? If so, can someone check which symbol is used there?

I should mention that the only word I have found whose pronunciation correctly uses æ is 'phat', interestingly enough.

As far as I know no-one has offered an explanation, but this Macosxhints article offers opinions: http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20050823032821731

It would indeed be interesting to see the pronunciation scheme used in the print edition of the NOAD -- the OED does not follow the IPA exactly, but I couldn't tell you offhand what the differences are. That should be in the article.

This should really belong on the talk page for the New_Oxford_American_Dictionary (which needs updating to mention its use in OS X).

Njál 16:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Endings

Quote:

"The OED is generally regarded as the definitive dictionary of Modern English, especially British English."

It is thus strange that some computer spell checkers treat an -ize ending to a word when spell checking for "British English" as an error! --Anonymous

That's because many Brits were/are used to the simple rule that words with a Latin root take -ise, and words with a Greek root take -ize. So the OUP's rule (mostly for the benefit of their copyeditors, one suspects) is not the general rule for British English. --quota

The new language tag en-GB-oed was introduced so that, hopefully, spell checkers which spell check according to OED spelling will become available and so that people who write with OED style and use -ize endings where correct will no longer be told that they are "using an Americanism". --Songwriter 00:22 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No, they aren't. Brits are used to the even simpler rule that words end in -ise and not -ize, basically the oppsite of the American one. They used to use -ise for Latin and -ize for Greek, but no longer bother to make the distinction. For example, organize is of Greek origin, yet usually spelled organise in British English. --Delirium 01:25, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

"The OED lists British spellings for headwords first (for example, labour and centre), followed by other variants (labor, center, etc.). OUP policy also dictates that -ize suffixes be used (instead of -ise) for many words more commonly ending in -ise, even if the root is Latin rather than Greek.

"The sentence "The group analysed labour statistics published by the organization" is an example of OUP practice."

Shouldn't that sentence be "The group analyzed labour statistics published by the organization" or am I missing something here? --Silvestre Zabala 14:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors (2000 edition) says "analyse, not -lyze (US)". I assume that this book states OUP policy. The OED2 is more equivocal, listing both spellings with analyse first. The analyse/analyze issue is distinct from (although linked to) the -ise/-ize one. --Heron 19:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are spellings like 'privatize' and 'organize' Americanisms? - provides a good light on the issue.

Fowler's Modern English Usage says: <quote> -ize, -ise, in verbs. In the vast majority of the verbs that end in -ize or -ise and are pronounced 'iz', the ultimate source of the ending is the Greek 'izo', whether the particular verb was an actual Greek one or a Latin or French or English imitation, and whether such imitation was made by adding the termination to a Greek or other stem. Most English printers, taking their cue from Kent in 'King Lear', 'Thou whoreson zed! Thou unnecessary letter!', follow the French practice of changing -ize to ise. But the Oxford University Press, the Cambridge University Press, The Times, and American usage, in all of which -ize is the accepted form, carry authority enough to outweigh superior numbers. The OED's judgement may be quoted: 'In modern French the suffix has become -iser, alike in words from Greek, as 'baptiser', 'évangéliser', 'organiser', and those formed after them from Latin, as 'civiliser', 'cicatriser', 'humaniser'. Hence, some have used the spelling -ise in English, as in French, for all these words, and some prefer -ise in words formed in French or English from Latin elements, retaining -ize for those of Greek composition. But the suffix itself, whatever the element to which it is added, is in its origin the Greek -izein, Latin -izare; and, as the pronunciation is also with 'z', there is no reason why in English the special French spelling should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic. It must be noticed, however, that a small number of verbs, some of them in very frequent use, like 'advertise', 'devise', and 'surprise', do not get their -ise even remotely from the Greek -izo, and must be spelt with -s-. The difficulty of remembering which these -ise verbs are is in fact the only reason for making -ise universal, and the sacrifice of significance to ease does not seem justified. The more important of these exceptions are here given: advertise, advise, apprise, chastise, circumcise, comprise, compromise, demise, despise, devise, disfranchise, enfranchise, enterprise, excise, exercise, improvise, incise, premise, revise, supervise, surmise, surprise, televise. </unquote> Quod erat demonstrandum. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.131.215.35 (talk • contribs) , at 14:43, 1 February 2006.

[edit] Awesomeness (POV)

The OED is the best dictionary in the world at the moment; I think it worth underlining that this is the case.

I agree, and, as I judge it, it's not POV to say so. No other dictionary for any language is as complete and as careful; it is a monument of human scholarship, nothing else comes close to it. (Aidan Kehoe, aidan at parhasard.net)

To preserve NPOV, I suggest you confine yourself to a summation of objective facts (most comprehensive, most definitions, oldest, most trusted &etc.) instead of a subjective feeling like that. --Maru 13:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Most definitions, most historical citations, most comprehensive, most trusted, by a wide margin on each. It's not "best" when measured on some index like "portability," but on every index that you can reasonably judge a comprehensive dictionary on, it wins. I would love to see an informed objection to this, but this is my area, I've been looking for one for years, and I haven't found one. But, ech, I don't care enough about the Wikipedia to hunt down quotes. Enjoy yourselves!

When you think about it, the idea of "the best dictionary" is slightly meaningless. Best for what? For who? In what way best? As for "best dictionary in the world", is there there anyone alive who can reasonably make that statement? Even if we're talking only about large monolingual historical dictionaries like OED, how many people can there be who have an intimate knowledge of them all and are in a position to offer an informed judgment? Possibly none. People who come out with this kind of wild and unconsidered statement, adducing no evidence, have probably just read one of Simon Winchester's books and been wowed by some statistics. What's the best car in the world? The best piece of software? The best map? Flapdragon 12:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I have some sort of an Oxford Dictionary and I think it said on the removable cover (which I had to throw away because those are just annoying) that it had 300,000+ words while the Merrium-Webster only has 140,000+ words. I think that says that M-W is too conservative. I have to wonder because the unabridged version has just under 500,000; what gets left out and put into the unabridged dictionary? I'm almost done reading the one I got, so I know I can handle a few more entries.

- Adam H. June 19, 2006

[edit] Statistics

I have two objections to the changes made to the Miscellanea section. First, why was Shakespeare removed as the most-quoted author, which is verified by the O.E.D. web site? Second, why was the most frequently quoted work changed from the Bible to Cursor Mundi? When I searched for Cursor Mundi, I only found 524 quotations in the New Edition and 16 in the Second Edition. But I might have been searching incorrectly—the source below found more than 12,000:

• However Brewer's figures also show that the privileging of major literary authors can be overstated. For instance it is often claimed that for the Middle English period Chaucer's works were plundered for quotations to a much greater extent than other texts, and this has led to overstated claims concerning Chaucer's contribution to English vocabulary (see Mersand 1937 and Cannon 1998). However while Chaucer's works did yield a massive 11,902 quotations, other Middle English texts, such as the anonymous Cursor Mundi and the Wycliffite translation of the Bible provided greater numbers: 12,772 and 11,971 quotations respectively. As Brewer rightly points out, studies of this kind tell us more about lexicographical practice than the importance of such authors for the development of the language [[1]].

This seems to show that Cursor Mundi is the most-quoted Middle English work. Still, this doesn't compare with the estimate of 25,000 quotations as given on the O.E.D. web site [2], an estimate which includes the "various full and partial versions, and translations". --Lesgles 17:52 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

According to "The Meaning of Everything", a book by Simon Winchester about the history of the OED, Cursor Mundi is the most quoted English work in the entire dictionary. Winchester is pretty meticulous about that sort of thing. I don't know why Shakespeare was removed as the most oft-quoted author though. -- – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 20:16, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

The OED website ([3]) says the Bible is the most-quoted work, Shakespeare is the most-quoted author, and Hamlet is the most-quoted work of Shakespeare. — Dan | Talk 22:07, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, I added Shakespeare. I agree with you that WInchester is a reliable source, but it's funny that the web site contradicts him. It's possible that Winchester didn't count all the versions of the Bible as a single work. It's also true that the word "Bible" is often either omitted or put in the place of the author; e.g., "1382 WYCLIF Rev. xxii. 15 Houndes, and venym doers..." "1611 BIBLE 1 Sam. xvii. 6 And he had..a target of brasse..." --Lesgles 1:57 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] OED copyright

So is any of the OED out of copyright yet? If so it would be great for wiktionary. --The bellman 11:55, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

I was wondering about the copyright of the OED myself recently. What I found was not encouraging; basically it's not out of copyright, and not even a portion of it is going to be out of copyright for a long time. I think I got this from a discussion on the Project Gutenberg website.... You may want to check yourself more thoroughly, but I wouldn't get your hopes up. --NoahB 19:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could you link to that discussion? A search of the Gutenberg site for "oxford english dictionary copyright" shows up only newsletters and unrelated miscellany like that. --maru 02:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My belief (IANAL) is that the first 10 (out of 12) volumes of the 1st edition OED are public domain in the US (those volumes reproduce the fasciles that were published before 1923) and the last two volumes are still in copyright. The last fascicle came out in 1928. Phr 00:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Most of the OED 2nd edition (1989) is out of copyright, it seems

The following are page scans from A New English Dictionary, volumes 2, 4, and 5--published in 1893, 1901, and 1919, respectively. If you check, you will note that Oxford University Press copied them straight into it's Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. (1989).

Title page from volume 4, (1901) of the NED	p. 182 from vol. 4 of the NED	Title page from A New English Dictionary, vol. 2, (1893)	p. 1 from vol. 2 of the NED
Title page from vol. 5 of the NED, 1919.	"J," p. 531 from A New English Dictionary, vol. 5. (1919) p. 531

I noticed that the definitions are copied almost word-for-word, as well, with the exception of new quotes and senses. This must be why Marion Sader and Amy Lewis in Encyclopedias, atlases & dictionaries (1995) p. 344, claim that certain parts of the OED2 are not accurate due to the outdated scholarship. One is given the impression that the OED was "expanded" to 20 volumes from the previous 12. However, those original volumes were huge. They each vary in size, but one of them was the largest book I've ever seen. They looked much larger than the present volumes. Further, as one can see from the page scans above, the columns are given much more spacing in the second edition, increasing the number of pages further.--Ftym67 01:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

With regard to '89 being Public Domain: Even if it is almost word-for-word, unless you can show that the changes are de minimis and thus confer no new copyright- rather difficult and unlikely since adding "new quotes and senses" is almost certainly greater than de minimis. --maru (talk) contribs 01:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What I meant by "new quotes" was more-recent ones pasted at the end of some quotation paragraphs. The same seems to be the case with senses. I'm not sure that correcting spelling errors, though, would result in a new copyright since that does not result in a creative work. I guess it's true, however, that it's impossible to prove that all of the copied portions do not contain any new embedded phrases--although I didn't notice any and I understand that small copyrighted excerpts are fair use. I also understand that all residents of the UK now have access to the online version. It seems to me that they could copy etymologies and definitions for long-used senses without fear of copyright violation.--Ftym67 01:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In a dictionary, it is arguable that correcting spelling errors is a creative work. In any other work which wasn't concerned with the spelling of words, you in theory might have a point. But given modern courts, unless one can use the Corel case, such attempts are futile. Small excerpts used under fair use are useless for Wikimedia projects such as Wiktionary and Wikipedia, simply because fair use is very much conditional and subject to change, and of course, the license is still proprietary. --maru (talk) contribs 18:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: Ftym67 (talk • contribs) is almost certainly a sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked Primetime (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), aka Rickyboy (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) aka Richardr443 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). See here and here for the full and gory details. Note the continued rationalizations for plagiarism. --Calton | Talk 13:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia should use OED English?

The Wikipedia is very inconsistent in use of spellings. With some articles hopping back and forth between variant spellings of the same word. Has there ever been, or should there be, a push by Wikipedia to use only en-gb-oed for the English Wikipedia?

Many people edit this wikipedia edition. They use the English they know. They are trying to do their very best. So please don't complain! ----

Yes, that's right! Americans use American spelling, British use British spelling, Australians use Australian spelling... if you wish to obtain Wikipedia editions for one English spelling you would have to spread en.wikipedia.org apart into the various versions of English spoken (and written) on this globe. There's not only British English! And that is what makes English so colo(u)rful! --85.74.158.186 22:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you missed his point. As an encyclopedia Wikipedia should demostrate a level of continuity. Its very hard for someone using it if the articles vary between all dialects and forms of spoken English. Imagine if one article is in South African English (which varies greatly in many ways to American English or English English), the next is in Australian style, the next in....etc etc. I think its a good idea, as Wikipedia requires some level of continuity in its style of writing.

This question is dealt with thoroughly in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English —Caesura^(t) 15:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

If we were forced to use only one, I suppose that Oxford Spelling would be the best choice, based on the fact that it is semi-Commonwealth and semi-American. I submitted a proposal to [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Spelling] that was a compromise, but noöne seems to like it. I don't think anybody is going to willingly compromise or accept total rule of one version. Sigh...Cameron Nedland 21:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Which variety of English uses "noöne"? Is that a Nedlandism? "No one" is the usual spelling. — Paul G 15:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1 volume edition

An editor here doubted that there's an one volume edition of the Oxford English dictionary. However, it exists. It was first published in 1948. I own a copy printed in 1981 which I was supposed to use in school and which I DID use in school and which I still own, and cherish, as of today. The current edition contains 1920 pages and is available on Amazon: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0194316513/qid=1121898751/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/202-0123068-2287067

Please check this information. ;) --85.74.131.62 22:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

There is (or was) definitely a 1-volume edition of OED2. It's photo-reduced and has 9 page images on each printed page. It's mentioned in the article. (preceding unsigned comment by 71.141.251.153 at 02:51 on 21 January 2006)

And below in this very thread if you care to read down a few lines. ;-] Flapdragon 02:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I must say I was wrong here. The 1 volume dictionary is found at Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. That's the one I used in school 25 years ago and which I still own. --85.74.158.186 21:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I wonder why you didn't bother to revert the mistake? OALD is completely different item and not easy to confuse with something running to 20 vols! It's a mistake that's often made, however. Many people just don't understand that not every book with the words "Oxford", "English" and "Dictionary" on it is the Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press (who probably have little enough reason to dispel the misconception) publish many dictionaries of English, but there is only one OED. It's not a school dictionary, it's not for checking your spelling, it's a specialist tool for researchers and word-enthusiasts; most people have never seen a copy, let alone owned one. Then again, many people think there is something called "The Dictionary", rather like saying "The Bible", so what can you do... Flapdragon 22:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I DID make some changes, and I posted a link to the Oxford Advanced Leaner's Dictionary. I'm sorry to see that my reference in the compact edition segment was deleted. It should have remained there. It was a reference to another edition of the Oxford Dictionary. --85.74.172.150 22:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, let's try again...

(1) There is no such thing as "the Oxford dictionary", any more than there is such a thing as "the Ford car". Oxford University Press publishes a range of English dictionaries which do not necessarily have any shared parentage. (2) This article is about a particular publication called the Oxford English Dictionary. It has nothing in common with your dictionary except the name of the publisher. Everyday one-volume dictionaries of English published by OUP are not cut-down versions of this publication. You would hardly make a small everyday one-volume dictionary by cutting down twenty volumes of specialist scholarship; you don't design a rowing-boat by scaling down the QE2. (3) The only thing that could be described as a one-volume edition of OED is the "compact" edition, a monster tome printed on very thin paper with no fewer than nine pages photo-reduced onto each page; you need a powerful magnifying glass to read it. This is most definitely not what you had at school. Most schoolchildren probably couldn't even lift it.

I urge you to read the article and understand what it's about before editing it. If you have information to contribute about the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, please add it at the relevant article, not here. --Flapdragon 23:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] when did NED become OED?

Under 'Fascicles' the writer of this (most illuminating and informed) article says 'A second change in 1895 was the adoption of the title Oxford English Dictionary (OED) but only on the outer covers of the fascicles'. Can I ask what the evidence for this is - have you seen (or do you possess) copies of the original fascicles, with outer wrappers/covers intact, which have 'Oxford English Dictionary' on them from 1895 onwards but not before? C.T.Onions in 1928 ('Report on the Society's Dictionary', Transactions of the Philological Society (1925-30), 1-5) refers to the initial change from NED to OED (on covers only, not title page) but doesn't give a date. (I've partially quoted what he says in the glossary on my Examining OED site, at <http://oed.hertford.ox.ac.uk/main/content/view/73/183/>, under 'New English Dictionary). I'm planning to visit the OED archives and look at an original set of fascicles, but if anyone knows of a reliable authority (other than Onions) giving chapter and verse on the date at which the covers started saying 'New English Dictionary',I should be very grateful for the information. (Is there something on this tucked away somewhere in Caught in the Web of Words? Haven't been able to find it). Charlotte Brewer.Charlottebrewer 09:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I can now answer this question, thanks to the OED archivist Beverley Hunt at Oxford University Press, who tells me that the first fascicle cover to bear the title 'Oxford English Dictionary' alongside that of 'New English Dictionary' was Part 8, Section 2: D-Depravation, published 1895. Every fascicle published subsequent to that date included both titles - though fascicles were not necessarily published in alphabetical order.Charlotte BrewerCharlottebrewer 12:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The information in the article perhaps came from Winchester's The Meaning of Everything (p217), which says of the fascicle published on 1 January 1895 (he says it covers Deceit to Deject):

printed on the outer cover -- not on the inside title page, 
but only on the slip cover -- were, for the first time, the words 
Oxford English Dictionary. 

Good to have this confirmed from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Flapdragon 01:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I am concerned, however, if that really 'counts'. I just dragged Volume IV of 'A New Oxford Dictionary on Historical Principles' off my shelf. That has letters F and G, dated 1901. I may have missed it, but I have not found the sequence "Oxford English Dictionary" in the front matter. If the term were in use in 1895, would it not appear in the volume published six years later? --mfc

I am the OED archivist at OUP. As Charlotte Brewer mentions above, I have checked our set of fascicles and the first fascicle to be labelled as the Oxford English Dictionary (alongside the title of New English Dictionary) is for D-Depravation, Part 8, Section 2 (1895). I see that Simon Winchester claims the first fascicle is Deceit-Deject. This could also be correct – it depends how the fascicles were grouped together. See below for an extract from Jenny McMorris’ appendix to ‘Lexicography and the OED’ by Lynda Muggelstone:

"Publication of the dictionary began with the appearance of parts at intervals of between one and two years. After eight of these had been published…general dissatisfaction with the rate of publication persuaded the Press to issue more frequent portions in smaller instalments. This became the pattern of future publication: small sections, called at first ‘fasciculi’, each 64 pages in length, were issued quarterly and were then grouped in parts of about five sections and reissued."

So the section for Deceit-Deject would have later been grouped together with the sections for D-Deceit and Deject-Depravation to form the part D-Depravation. Therefore both can claim to be the first to gain the title Oxford English Dictionary. Now to the later comment about Volume 4 for F and G. The title Oxford English Dictionary is only given on the outer cover of the fascicles, not on the inner title page. Those fascicles in my set which were published after 1895 do contain the title Oxford English Dictionary on the outer cover, but when these were bound into the larger volumes the outer cover would have been discarded and only the inner title page maintained, which contains no evidence of the change of title. Therefore while the fascicles possess the title of Oxford English Dictionary, the volumes do not. I hope this helps to explain the issue.

• I was the anonymous contributor who added this bit to the article, and I did get it from Winchester's book. However, it is also stated in the Historical Introduction to the OED1 itself. In the Compact Edition see the fourth sub-page on page viii:

At the time this change [i.e. to smaller fascicles] was made, a new name for the Dictionary was also introduced, though no change was made on the title-page. On the cover of the section containing Deceit to Deject, published on 1 Jan. 1895, above the title, appeared for the first time the designation 'The Oxford English Dictionary', which was repeated on every section and part issued after 1 July of that year. The new name being more distinctive than the old has steadily come more and more into use, and the abbreviation O.E.D. tends to supplant N.E.D., although the latter is still frequently employed. A third abbreviation, H.E.D. (with H. for Historical), though employed for a number of years in Notes and Queries, never attained general currency. Popularly the work is often referred to as Murray's, and the Philological Society by natural tradition has continued to call it 'the Society's Dictionary'.

Incidentally, while confirming that Deceit–Deject was 64 pages, I was interested to see that the preceding section, D–Deceit, had the unusual length of 88 pages. Perhaps when they started with the smaller fascicles they wanted to publish everything they had ready at that point. Deject–Depravation is 64 pages again, making 216 for the combined fascicle mentioned above. 66.96.28.244 10:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usenet

"Despite the attempts at copy-protection, one can still download the newest CD-ROM dictionary from Usenet for free."

I'm not sure this is relevant? --R4p70r 07:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I've removed it. It also seems to imply that the copy protection is unusually poor, despite the fact that the same thing can be said about most popular software. EldKatt (Talk) 15:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fake / easter egg words

Are there any known fake / phony / fictitious / easter egg words in the OED? I mean words which never occurred before and were entirely invented by the editors either as a joke or as an attempt to trace who copies the OED corpus. See [4] for a similar story in another Oxford dictionary (the New Oxford American Dictionary, which includes the fake word "esquivalience": I wonder whether it will now appear in future editions of the OED as "rare^0" like "palumbine"). It would be interesting to automate comparing the OED corpus with those of other huge dictionaries and Google/DNS requests to see whether that reveals a few culprits. --Gro-Tsen 21:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I know there is one or two; but the specific one I cannot recall. I think the "Professor and the Madman" recounts'em. Sorry I can't be of further help. --Maru 23:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OED Online

The OED is imensely useful, but how can I access the OED online? Does anyone have a username and a password? --Tavilis 16:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

My understanding was that the OED charged for online access; thusly, you would be asking us to aid you in financial fraud. --Maru (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Many universities and libraries have online access to the OED, so if you want to access the OED online, try a university library with public computing facilities. But of course, if you're at a university library, you can access the print edition of the OED anyway. —Caesura^(t) 15:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Many UK Public Libraries give their members access to Oxford OED online Vernon White 16:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Some U.S. libraries do too, but I simply downloaded the CD-ROM from bittorrent. They just pirated a 2002 copy, so it's pretty up to date: [5].--67.165.207.21 19:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki included

FLASH--THIS JUST IN--"Wiki Now an English Word"--Reuters 25 minutes ago:

If you think “wiki” doesn’t sound like English, you are right. But it’s English now. This word, born on the Pacific Island of Hawaii, finally got an entry into the online Oxford English Dictionary along with 287 other words. It has earned it.

Words are included in the dictionary on the basis of the documentary evidence that we have collected about them. A while ago this evidenced suggested that wiki was starting to make a name for itself, “OED Chief Editor John Simpson said in a statement. “We tracked it for several years, researched its origins and finally decided it was time to include it in the dictionary.”

But “wiki wiki”, meaning “quick” in Hawaiian, has a very different meaning in its new host language: a type of web page designed so that its contents can be edited by anyone who accesses it. That the word acquired a new meaning is attributed to the fact that commenting and editing on Internet Web sites became faster, the OED’s principle editor of new words, Graeme Diamond said. “There was no delay in submitting a comment,” Diamond said. The most famous example is the popular Internet encyclopædia wikipedia. Diamond said new Internet-age concept of “wiki” fits well with the 120-year-old dictionary’s own methods.

User:W8IMP17:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

My last entry should have included the following:

Copyright© 2007 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

Since it is copywrited, does this mean I should not have included it?

--W8IMP 19:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] definitive dictionary

Generally regarded as the definitive dictionary of the English language...

Whether we say "generally" or (as before this edit) "often", just what does this statement actually mean? Unless it can be shown to have some real meaning and rephrased to make sense it should be deleted. We should be careful to avoid any implication that OED is the official arbiter of what counts as a "real word", or what's "correct English" or any such nonsense -- something OED does not claim to do and which no informed person would expect it to do. Flapdragon 02:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It's hard to prove it means anything. I think that people are more likely to accept something if you quote it at them from the OED than some less famous/less well-researched dictionary. The OED has a good reputation for accuracy, but that's self-reinforcing. Can you design a study to measure people's opinions of different dictionaries? Njál 21:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Most-quoted work

On July 5, 2004, User:Quadell changed the earlier statement that the Bible was the most-quoted work to say that it was Cursor Mundi, without citing a source for this. Yet the askoxford.com page of statistics cited in the article says "Most-quoted work: the Bible", and the oed.com page of statistics is more specific:

Most frequently quoted work (in various full and partial version, and translations): Bible (est. 25,000 quotations)

I have seen the same statement in another source too, but I can't remember where. In any case, this seems like sufficient reason to restore this item; I've adjustd the wording to refer to the multiple forms of the Bible. Perhaps someone with OED Online access can determine how many quotations from Cursor Mundi there are?

66.96.28.244 10:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

A full text New Edition quotation search for 'Cursor Mundi' comes up with 1424 results. A search of the Second Edition comes up with 17. It appears to have been abbreviated to 'Cursor M,' which produces many more results — 11059 in the Second Edition and 9764 in the New Edition (which includes the SE). It looks like what's happening is that the abbreviation is being expanded in the NE — someone could contact the AskOxford team about this. That Cursor Mundi article needs rewriting. Njál 21:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overuse of wikilinks

This page badly overuses wikilinks. According to MOS: Wikilinks, it's best not to link terms that are of little importance or commonly understood. Accordingly, I'm going to be brutal in de-linking. If you read through afterwords and think that the link to decimalisation, for instance, needs to be there, by all means put it back in. I just want to clear everything out so we can see what's valuable. Zabieru 01:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you in general. Thanks for doing this. I did restore three, however. Full dates have to be linked, unfortunately, to make date preferences work. I also restore links to shillings and pence, and computer markup, because I wasn't sure these would be familiar to all readers. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

i had done some de-overwikification before your doing, nice to see that i'm not the only one to do so! indeed the problem of overwikification can be found on most pages and most wikis ... any bot can help?--K.C. Tang 04:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the dictionary is a dictionary?

it seems somehow odd to read, in a reference work (such as wikipedia):

"the oxford english dictionary... is a dictionary yada yada"

yet that is just how this article begins

(the loch ness monster is a monster yada yada...)

would it not be more academic to change that to:

"the oxford english (oed) is a dictionary yada yada"

?

or perhaps "the oxford english dictionary (oed)

is [what it is, without including "dictionary"]

can someone take care of this redundance, please?

(i tried but it was edited out!)

• While it is customary for entries in dictionaries not to use a word in its own definition, that doesn't make any sense for encyclopedias, where entries can be made up of multiple words. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-1 08:40
• The word 'dictionary' here is not simply a word, but also a link to another page about dictionaries in general. If one person removes all info that he sees as redundant, that works if that person is an idiot. If that person is very knowledgable, he may be removing very useful info that he thinks is common knowledge/redundant, yet other people have never heard of. Anyway...--Hraefen 01:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Just because what something is in its name doesn't make it redundant. Central Park is a park, the Empire State Building is a building, and the Oxford English Dictionary is a dictionary. It is important to state these things because sometimes a thing in something's name is not what it is: The Second City is not a city, American Idol is not an idol, and The Shaggy Dog is not a dog. By clearly stating that that the Oxford English Dictionary is a dictionary we eliminate any possibility of confusion. Nohat 10:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other versions of "Oxford English Dictionary"

I realise that this article is about the "full" OED, but I'm trying to find information about all the various Oxford english dictionaries (note lower case), and I don't know where to look. Specifically I want to know how "Concise", "Compact", "Pocket", etc., relate to each other. It seems like this article, or at least its "See Also" list, should help, but doesn't.

For example, this article says that "the full content of the 13-volume OED1 from 1933 was reprinted as a Compact Edition of just two volumes.". But Ask Oxford.com says "The Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English contains 145,000 words, phrases, and definitions." So I guess the "OED Compact Edition" is different from the "Compact OED". Basically, I think this article should eather contain or link to a list and comparison (basic, like number of definitions) of Oxford dictionaries, like this one. — Johan the Ghost _seance 10:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nesh

I am developing an article called Nesh. I wonder if any editor has access to either the full or shorter version and can post here, please, the entry for nesh so I can include it in the article? TerriersFan 10:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The most accurate?

I removed this statement from the introduction: "It is also known as the de facto regulator of the English language." I also removed the word accurate from the second sentence in the intro. For one thing, the OED was compiled by volunteers. Many of these people were amateurs who selected poor quotations that didn't convey a word's meaning very well. Another problem is the fact that older parts of the dictionary just haven't been updated. Older senses of words read almost exactly as they did in the first edition and even in the NED. Etymologies, although very detailed, have to be double-checked. As an historical dictionary, the OED is peerless. It provides a very good record of words and senses no longer commonly used in English. But, editors do not rely on it as much as other dictionaries. There are many other large dictionaries that provide the same depth of coverage for words currently in use. Examples include Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary and the Random House Unabridged Dictionary. Keep in mind that, although the OED is very large, it still lacks many modern slang, regional, and technical terms. It is baffling to me that OUP hasn't integrated terms found in its specialized dictionaries (e.g., The Oxford Dictionary of Computing) into the OED.--Words32 07:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Retaining older meanings of words, as well as including new meanings is surely a deliberate policy of the OED and is a facet of accuracy. If I encounter an apparently strange usage of a word when reading, for example, a Jane Austen novel, the OED is the most likely, out of the 3 dictionaries that you mention, to give the accurate distinction between the historic and modern meanings. Another facet of accuracy is illustrated by the fact that, if you look up a word which has different shades of meaning, or variant spellings, in different parts of the English-speaking world, the OED is the most likely of the 3 dictionaries to provide an accurate definition of those distinctions. I have not compared the 3 in terms of coverage of slang usages but have certainly used the OED as a reference for exactly that purpose and have always been pleasantly surprised by its coverage, even of slang terms from Usenet culture, for example. So I am surprised that it is less accurate than the others. Certainly the OED editors go to a lot of trouble continually to seek out new meanings of words. I agree that it is not the regulator of the English language and I would personally seek to burn every copy of a dictionary that had such an aim. Bluewave 08:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

What I meant to say about updating older parts of the dictionary was that older senses of certain words have not been checked against newly-discovered historical documents. I agree that the OED is still useful. I also have a burned copy on my hard drive. But, I also have a burned copy of Merriam-Webster's Third (W3). The Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (RHD) is available for free on <Infoplease.com>. The W3 defines words in use from 1700 on. So, if you're reading Shakespeare, the OED is still the best choice. However, even with such a narrow purview, the W3 still has 475,000 entries (and many embedded head words within these). The RHD contains 375,000 entries. The W3 contains many shades of meaning for each term, as well. Sometimes, it has more shades than the OED. Unlike the OED, both include international names of chemicals and living things. The OED excludes these as they are not unique to English (e.g., Homo sapiens). Further, unlike almost all other dictionaries, the OED does not include illustrations. It's still a wonderful dictionary, but I prefer to look up most words in other dictionaries.--Words32 09:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much no flagship British English dictionary has pictures. Those aimed at children or EFL do, and a few specifically called "illustrated dictionary". It's not an OED/others distinction, it's a British/American distinction. Personally I think British dictionaries are being a bit snobbish a la Bourbaki about it, but there you are. jnestorius^(talk) 11:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have never read or seen an adult dictionary with illustrations. Seems a bit childish. 81.157.123.242 00:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you think better defines an ulna: this or this? Also compare these birch definitions here and here. I have always viewed a lack of illustrations as a sign of cheapness, as if the publisher was attempting to save money.--Words32 06:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "See also"

What's the point of all these "see also" links? What exactly is the relevance of the Century Dictionary, Fowler's Modern English Usage etc? Even the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, which is just an unconnected work from the same publishing house? Flapdragon 03:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. They seem merely to be "advertising" for other Wikipedia articles. Those which are true "Oxford" dictionaries are listed in the Oxford Dictionary category, which is accessible from this page. — Grstain | Talk 13:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Removed the irrelevant ones. Flapdragon 14:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English

The Wikipedia page for the above redirects to the Oxford English Dictionary page. They're completely different books - The Compact OED of Current English is just over 1200 pages long, a little squirt compared to the full OED. And it's based on the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, not the Oxford English Dictionary. I'm not wikipedia-literate enough to break this redirect. Could someone else do this? It's really misleading! Accaber 13:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. See Compact Oxford English Dictionary and links. Thanks, jnestorius^(talk) 14:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

These OUP titles are so misleading. As if there wasn't enough confusion with Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford Dictionary of English, Compact Oxford English Dictionary or is it Compact edition of OED, can you believe they call this one Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English and then refer to it as the Compact Oxford English Dictionary which is alsi what's on the cover? And what kind of title is Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English anyway? You'd almost believe they wanted to foster the misapprehension so many people have that they own "The Oxford English Dictionary". Flapdragon 14:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)