G
Guest
Guest
RogueLurker said:Kitten Wars ... Part II
Done.
- Status
Done.
RogueLurker
gone
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Posts
- 2,919
Rub-a-dub-dub ...
G
Guest
Guest
Ahhhh! Too cute!
RogueLurker
gone
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Posts
- 2,919
RogueLurker
gone
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Posts
- 2,919
Last one of the evening ...
G
Guest
Guest
RogueLurker said:Last one of the evening ...
I bow to your grammatical correctness.
RogueLurker
gone
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Posts
- 2,919
sweetsubsarahh said:I bow to your grammatical correctness.
g'nite, sarahh and a
for LadyC (back on vacation with you!)
LadyCibelle
Always magnificient.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2002
- Posts
- 3,042
RogueLurker said:g'nite, sarahh and a
Sorry Ladies to have flaked out on you, I was downloading Encyclopedia Britannica and I wanted to make sure my download would go all the way.
'es back to you, Rogue.Licks and
'es for Sarahh
G
Guest
Guest
Goodnight, ladies.
Sweet dreams.
Sweet dreams.
sr71plt
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Posts
- 51,872
"I have often read about how language evolves. One wonders how this could happen if we always used the form in dictionaries."
That's a good question. The dictionaries evolve too--some taking on current use more quickly than others. And this is why most publishers use Mirriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. Because it's the most forgiving and up to date of the American-idiom English-language dictionaries. It actually updates a couple of times a year and only changes edition numbers when there is a massive overhaul. Thus, if you bought an 11th edition the year it came out (2003) and went into a bookstore and bought a new copy now, you'd find that your new version had some differences from and updates to the 2003 version, even though both are called the 11th edition. And most of the updating is to accommodate in a forgiving way to the evolution of the language.
Mirriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (and not all Mirriam-Webster's dictionaries are from the same company--that's a generic term for an American-idiom-style dictionary) is known as a descriptive dictionary (giving preference to what is in current use); The American Heritage Dictionary is prescriptive (takes a position on what should be used, giving reasons for doing so).
That's a good question. The dictionaries evolve too--some taking on current use more quickly than others. And this is why most publishers use Mirriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. Because it's the most forgiving and up to date of the American-idiom English-language dictionaries. It actually updates a couple of times a year and only changes edition numbers when there is a massive overhaul. Thus, if you bought an 11th edition the year it came out (2003) and went into a bookstore and bought a new copy now, you'd find that your new version had some differences from and updates to the 2003 version, even though both are called the 11th edition. And most of the updating is to accommodate in a forgiving way to the evolution of the language.
Mirriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (and not all Mirriam-Webster's dictionaries are from the same company--that's a generic term for an American-idiom-style dictionary) is known as a descriptive dictionary (giving preference to what is in current use); The American Heritage Dictionary is prescriptive (takes a position on what should be used, giving reasons for doing so).
D
DeeZire
Guest
So how does the dictionary say to abbreviate OK when used in dialogue? As in:
"I'm taking my shower now, 'K?"
I think it's really sexy when a woman drops the 'O' from OK, especially when she's on her way to the shower. But how do I type it without looking like an ad for Kelloggs cereal?
"I'm taking my shower now, 'K?"
I think it's really sexy when a woman drops the 'O' from OK, especially when she's on her way to the shower. But how do I type it without looking like an ad for Kelloggs cereal?
Last edited by a moderator:
G
Guest
Guest
snooper said:
I was heavily into historical research in grad school and one of my professors instilled in me the love for older editions - of everything.
I have many dictionaries, different editions, different publishers, big, small, but I value them all as resources.
Hubby used to laugh when I would find a new treasure at a used book store.
You cannot find everything in just one book, and I find it fascinating to see how word meanings change over time.
sr71plt
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Posts
- 51,872
"So how does the dictionary say to abbreviate OK when used in dialogue? As in:
"I'm taking my shower now, 'K?"
Dictionaries don't deal with dialogue. A publisher would likely leave this the way it was written, as it captures how the line was spoken by the character. Incorrect grammar wouldn't be questioned in dialogue either, if this conveyed the grammar level of the character. Spellings would be looked at closer, because dialogue is spoken, not written, by the character. The dialogue that reflected the sounds the character typically would make wouldn't be questioned, but misspellings that where there simply because the author didn't know how to use a dictionary would be questioned. Also, if the author was inconsistent in a character's speech patterns, this would be questioned.
In any event, it would all be going back to the author for review and so that she/he could explain why he/she did something that was outside the norm.
In her/his review of all of this, the publisher's editor would be looking for whether what the author did conveyed to the reader as the author intended and was coherent and consistent. The publisher's first concern is for the comfort/comprehension of the reader--the buyer of the product. That's why they normally stick close to standardizations and are conservative in their punctuation and grammar styles.
"I'm taking my shower now, 'K?"
Dictionaries don't deal with dialogue. A publisher would likely leave this the way it was written, as it captures how the line was spoken by the character. Incorrect grammar wouldn't be questioned in dialogue either, if this conveyed the grammar level of the character. Spellings would be looked at closer, because dialogue is spoken, not written, by the character. The dialogue that reflected the sounds the character typically would make wouldn't be questioned, but misspellings that where there simply because the author didn't know how to use a dictionary would be questioned. Also, if the author was inconsistent in a character's speech patterns, this would be questioned.
In any event, it would all be going back to the author for review and so that she/he could explain why he/she did something that was outside the norm.
In her/his review of all of this, the publisher's editor would be looking for whether what the author did conveyed to the reader as the author intended and was coherent and consistent. The publisher's first concern is for the comfort/comprehension of the reader--the buyer of the product. That's why they normally stick close to standardizations and are conservative in their punctuation and grammar styles.
Whisky7up
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2002
- Posts
- 247
sr71plt said:
But why are the dictionaries evolving? I thought you were saying we should be taking the options only offered by them. If we're all doing that as you suggest, then 'current use' is only that of the dictionary in the first place and there would be nothing to change.
RogueLurker
gone
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Posts
- 2,919
Another potential issue that may come up with relying exclusively on published dictionaries is errors that have been missed in whatever quality control is in place and the retractions/corrections are not published until the next edition is released.
Case in Point:
The following definition was discovered in the 1999 edition of the Random House dictionary. The crafting of the definition was the final assignment of Mr. Del Delhuey, who had been dismissed after thirty-two years with the company.
mut·ton (mut’n), n. [Middle English, from Old French mouton, moton, from Medieval Latin multo, multon-, of Celtic origin.]
1. The flesh of fully grown sheep.
2. A glove with four fingers.
3. Two discharged muons.
4. Seven English tons.
5. One who mutinies.
6. To wear a dog.
7. A fastening device on a mshirt or a mblouse.
8. Fuzzy underwear for ladies.
9. A bacteria-resistant amoeba with an attractive do.
10. To throw a boomerang weakly.
11. Any kind of lump in the pants. (Slang.)
12. A hundred mittens.
13. An earthling who has been taken over by an alien.
14. The smallest whole particle in the universe, so small you can hardly see it.
15. A big, nasty cut on the hand.
16. The rantings of a flibbertigibbet.
17. My wife never supported me.
18. It was as though I worked my whole life and it wasn't enough for her.
19. My children think I'm a nerd.
20. In architecture, a bad idea.
21. Define this, you nitwits.
22. To blubber one's finger over the lips while saying "bluh."
23. I would like to take a trip to the seaside, where no one knows me.
24. I would like to be walking along the beach when a beautiful woman passes by.
25. She would stop me and ask me what I did for a living.
26. I would tell her I am a lexicographer.
27. She would say, "Oh, you wild boy." Exactly that, not one word different.
28. Then she would ask me to define our relationship, which at that point would be one minute old. I would demur. But she would say, "Oh, please define this second for me right now."
29. I would look at her and say, "Mutton."
30. She would swoon. Because I would say it with a slight Spanish accent, at which I am very good.
31. I would take her hand and she would notice me feeling her wedding ring. I would ask her whom she is married to. She would say, "A big cheese at Random House."
32. I would take her to my hotel room, and teach her the meaning of love.
33. I would use the American Heritage, out of spite, and read all the definitions.
34. Then I would read from the Random House some of my favorites among those that I worked on: "the" (just try it); "blue" (give it a shot, and don't use the word "nanometer").
35. I would make love to her according to the O.E.D., sixth definition.
36. We would call room service and order tagliolini without looking it up.
37. I would return her to the beach, and we would say goodbye.
38. Gibberish in E-mail.
39. A reading lamp with a lousy fifteen-watt bulb, like they have in Europe .
Also: a. muttonchops: slicing sheep meat with the face. b. muttsam: sheep floating in the sea. c. muttonheads: the Random House people.
Please Note:
This is actually satirical essay.
Disgruntled Former Lexicographer
by Steve Martin
The New Yorker
October 11, 1999
Case in Point:
The following definition was discovered in the 1999 edition of the Random House dictionary. The crafting of the definition was the final assignment of Mr. Del Delhuey, who had been dismissed after thirty-two years with the company.
mut·ton (mut’n), n. [Middle English, from Old French mouton, moton, from Medieval Latin multo, multon-, of Celtic origin.]
1. The flesh of fully grown sheep.
2. A glove with four fingers.
3. Two discharged muons.
4. Seven English tons.
5. One who mutinies.
6. To wear a dog.
7. A fastening device on a mshirt or a mblouse.
8. Fuzzy underwear for ladies.
9. A bacteria-resistant amoeba with an attractive do.
10. To throw a boomerang weakly.
11. Any kind of lump in the pants. (Slang.)
12. A hundred mittens.
13. An earthling who has been taken over by an alien.
14. The smallest whole particle in the universe, so small you can hardly see it.
15. A big, nasty cut on the hand.
16. The rantings of a flibbertigibbet.
17. My wife never supported me.
18. It was as though I worked my whole life and it wasn't enough for her.
19. My children think I'm a nerd.
20. In architecture, a bad idea.
21. Define this, you nitwits.
22. To blubber one's finger over the lips while saying "bluh."
23. I would like to take a trip to the seaside, where no one knows me.
24. I would like to be walking along the beach when a beautiful woman passes by.
25. She would stop me and ask me what I did for a living.
26. I would tell her I am a lexicographer.
27. She would say, "Oh, you wild boy." Exactly that, not one word different.
28. Then she would ask me to define our relationship, which at that point would be one minute old. I would demur. But she would say, "Oh, please define this second for me right now."
29. I would look at her and say, "Mutton."
30. She would swoon. Because I would say it with a slight Spanish accent, at which I am very good.
31. I would take her hand and she would notice me feeling her wedding ring. I would ask her whom she is married to. She would say, "A big cheese at Random House."
32. I would take her to my hotel room, and teach her the meaning of love.
33. I would use the American Heritage, out of spite, and read all the definitions.
34. Then I would read from the Random House some of my favorites among those that I worked on: "the" (just try it); "blue" (give it a shot, and don't use the word "nanometer").
35. I would make love to her according to the O.E.D., sixth definition.
36. We would call room service and order tagliolini without looking it up.
37. I would return her to the beach, and we would say goodbye.
38. Gibberish in E-mail.
39. A reading lamp with a lousy fifteen-watt bulb, like they have in Europe .
Also: a. muttonchops: slicing sheep meat with the face. b. muttsam: sheep floating in the sea. c. muttonheads: the Random House people.
Please Note:
This is actually satirical essay.
Disgruntled Former Lexicographer
by Steve Martin
The New Yorker
October 11, 1999
G
Guest
Guest
I love it.
sr71plt
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Posts
- 51,872
"But why are the dictionaries evolving? I thought you were saying we should be taking the options only offered by them. If we're all doing that as you suggest, then 'current use' is only that of the dictionary in the first place and there would be nothing to change."
Besides not understanding what you are trying to say concerning dictionaries evolving, you thought wrongly on what I posted, I'm afraid. I said the safest source to use for rendering of words in writing in the humanities was specifically the latest edition of the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, the dictionary of choice by most in the U.S. publishing industry.
AsylumSeeker started this thread by asking a question about what was the best rendering of OK to use. It seemed a serious question (or why would AsylumSeeker ask it?), and I thought AsylumSeeker deserved to have a answer that would serve the best in writing for the U.S. publishing industry--and I cited the sources of my response so that AsylumSeeker could check on what I was advising. Again, why ask a question like AsylumSeeker asked here if what you want is the opinion of someone who knows some one who remembers sort of what their 10th grade English teacher might have said about some other topic altogether?
Besides not understanding what you are trying to say concerning dictionaries evolving, you thought wrongly on what I posted, I'm afraid. I said the safest source to use for rendering of words in writing in the humanities was specifically the latest edition of the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, the dictionary of choice by most in the U.S. publishing industry.
AsylumSeeker started this thread by asking a question about what was the best rendering of OK to use. It seemed a serious question (or why would AsylumSeeker ask it?), and I thought AsylumSeeker deserved to have a answer that would serve the best in writing for the U.S. publishing industry--and I cited the sources of my response so that AsylumSeeker could check on what I was advising. Again, why ask a question like AsylumSeeker asked here if what you want is the opinion of someone who knows some one who remembers sort of what their 10th grade English teacher might have said about some other topic altogether?
sr71plt
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Posts
- 51,872
"With the advent of a Wikipedia mindset, it's harder to prove you're right."
Wikipedia isn't a good source for anything--it's just like this chat forum: anyone who can make up an answer can post it. They can even claim they've been an editor or 20 years and have edited 12 books in that time (which, at less than a book a year, is hardly an endorsement as a good editor. lol.) This has nothing to do about "proving" what's right, though. "What is right" in the publishing industry is what actually happens while chat room yakkers are taking opinion polls and fooling themselves that their "votes" have any effect on what actually happens.
Writers will see the "proof" of what happens in the editing of their work for publication when/if they ever reach the stage of having a publisher contract their work for publication. If they want to hamper their development by not doing proper study and research into how to write and present their work for submission, that's certainly their privilege. There are a whole bunch of serious writers out there who won't mind getting a step up on the "competition" by not being so hardheaded and dumb about it. (And one of the dumbest things you can do is to claim Wikipedia as a research source.)
Wikipedia isn't a good source for anything--it's just like this chat forum: anyone who can make up an answer can post it. They can even claim they've been an editor or 20 years and have edited 12 books in that time (which, at less than a book a year, is hardly an endorsement as a good editor. lol.) This has nothing to do about "proving" what's right, though. "What is right" in the publishing industry is what actually happens while chat room yakkers are taking opinion polls and fooling themselves that their "votes" have any effect on what actually happens.
Writers will see the "proof" of what happens in the editing of their work for publication when/if they ever reach the stage of having a publisher contract their work for publication. If they want to hamper their development by not doing proper study and research into how to write and present their work for submission, that's certainly their privilege. There are a whole bunch of serious writers out there who won't mind getting a step up on the "competition" by not being so hardheaded and dumb about it. (And one of the dumbest things you can do is to claim Wikipedia as a research source.)
RogueLurker
gone
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Posts
- 2,919
I'm begining to suspect that you may be a contributing editor for the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary or the CSM.sr71plt said:
A question was asked and it recieved a number of answers - both you and Rumple cited CSM as your source. Others gave their opinions and recollections and a generally friendly chatty manner as is the nature of a forum. Anyone who reads this forum is an adult (or should be) and can read the responses and decide which one they feel is the most valuable. You can't force people to use the style manuals or dictionaries - but those who are serious probably will if they know that they are out there.
There are likely a number of people reading this board who don't know about either of the sources that you keep citing, and in reading this thread, they may start using them as references. That is a valuable contribution and thank you for pointing them out. But at the same time, I wonder how many people who may not know how to start researching or where reputable sources can be found will be cautious about posting questions or even opinions here for fear of being ridiculed.
BTW- if you use the quote button (to the right, below the post you want to respond to) it makes it easier to discern the material you are responding to from your actual response.
G
Guest
Guest
But Rogue, please don't quote him.
(I am loving that ignore button. Eliminates all sorts of unnecessary clatter.)
(I am loving that ignore button. Eliminates all sorts of unnecessary clatter.)
RogueLurker
gone
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Posts
- 2,919
sweetsubsarahh said:But Rogue, please don't quote him.
(I am loving that ignore button. Eliminates all sorts of unnecessary clatter.)
I'll try to remember to put in a ****SPOILER ALERT**** next time.
- Status
Similar threads
