Zach ([info]smilingbeef) wrote,
@ 2008-02-15 00:34:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
A harangue is a steel-toed karate kid crane kick. Harangue!

A dictionary is the world's most complicated circular argument.  The only thing it ever quotes is itself; it is entirely self-contained and has absolutely no bearing on real language.  A dictionary is the kind of thing only an asshole could love, someone obsessed with pedantics and semantics.  Someone who would point out that pedantic doesn't have a plural and isn't really a noun.  The worst part, though, is that it innoculates language against natural evolution.  I want free-range language, words running loose.  If anyone ever asks you to define a word for them, punch them in the mouth and then use it in a way that makes sense enough to you.  

"My hand hurts!  Your face doesn't!  Solipsism!"

That's communication, baby.


(Post a new comment)


[info]smilingbeef
2008-02-15 06:56 am UTC (link)
The one exception to this is irony. You're all using it wrong.

(Reply to this)


[info]radanax
2008-02-15 07:30 am UTC (link)
Dictionaries are created by analysis of the way words are used by speakers of the language, among other things. This makes them not self-contained. Dictionaries do not oppose language evolution, either; people who depend entirely on dictionaries do, however.

Give me language evolution that promotes communication - but don't give me lingual anarchy, or I won't know what to do with myself.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]smilingbeef
2008-02-15 07:36 am UTC (link)
aaaaaaaand you're boring!

Just kidding. Obviously I'm speaking for effect about dictionaries, as I've stuck my nose deep enough into an OED to see what goes into one. I'm reminded of Neal Stephenson's sort-of assertion that writing language down is what causes it to lose all of its power. Of course, he made this assertion in a book that ended with a heartfelt samurai motorcycle chase in cyberspace, so I don't know how seriously we should take it.

And we're already living in lingual anarchy; this is the internet.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]radanax
2008-02-15 07:42 am UTC (link)
it's true, I am.

Language loses its power when no new elements are written down and nothing changes - when it dies, and is a 'dead language'. But even then, with the right person to help it back up, it's only mostly dead.

I don't live in that part of the internet.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]smilingbeef
2008-02-15 07:44 am UTC (link)
But it's there, looming ever closer. lulz.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]radanax
2008-02-15 07:48 am UTC (link)
OH NO

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]pfcottontail
2008-02-15 07:39 pm UTC (link)
You two have nearly the same user icon!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]smilingbeef
2008-02-15 10:42 pm UTC (link)
It's so true!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]radanax
2008-02-16 09:14 am UTC (link)
I didn't steal it from you... so you must have stolen it from me!

filthy icon expression stealer!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]smilingbeef
2008-02-16 08:25 pm UTC (link)
whatever, sharkface!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]kalmakka
2008-02-15 06:59 pm UTC (link)
When I was 10 I found a dictionary that was not self-contained. I don't remember the undefined word, but I think it was something with zombies.

Dictionaries are good when you need an objective oracle. Most such cases are when you are playing scrabble.

(Reply to this)


[info]rakellakat
2008-02-16 05:41 am UTC (link)
Try reading The Meaning of Everything. It's about how the OED was originally made. The makers of the thing both obsessed and rejoiced over how changing and fluid language is- they were the sort of full-time academes that seem to crop up in 19th century England all the time- and at the time, English as an exportable culture was the new Roman road. It was necessary, they felt, for the greatest language in the world to be catalogued, and the British saw it as a source of nationalistic pride. The story is actually incredibly fascinating, and the extent to which the original compilers of the OED labored (actually, they laboured) over every word and definition is a truly beautiful thing. Please, read that book- it will definitely challenge your current dictionary-hatin'-on. [Reading Rainbow segment wrap-up riff]

I would lend you my copy, but I've already lent it out. (And no, you don't know me, and yes, I would lend a book to a stranger.)

Seriously! Read it!

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]smilingbeef
2008-02-16 08:09 pm UTC (link)
That sounds really interesting, so I'm putting it on my big list. I could actually write an equally heated post about how awesome dictionaries are, but that particular day I was grading a bunch of freshman comp. papers, and so many kids found it perfectly okay and necessary to quote Webster's at me. Thanks, I know what logos, ethos, and pathos mean, I assigned the paper.

I still think dictionaries are the most reductive way to place a word in context, but I understand the need for them.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Deleted post)

(Anonymous)
2008-03-21 02:57 am UTC (link)
The only time i've seen this used well was in Demetri Martin's If I performance.
(it's on youtube if anyone wants to check it)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]scorchthefourth
2008-02-16 08:29 am UTC (link)
I learned just the other day about how, when the original french dictionaries were made, they laboured over who to cite. To take examples from everyday speech? To cite only the 'great authors'? But what made one a 'great author'? How to reasonably (and REASON was the word of the epoch) define a word?
We also had an assignment based on different editions of the dictionary. It was interesting to see the one from the fifties that didn't include most of the vulgar-ish words on our list, where the one from way earlier did. Also how far behind the first inclusion of a word in a dictionary was to the first attestation of it in use.

In conclusion, dictionaries are cool times, when not relied on too heavily.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]smilingbeef
2008-02-16 08:25 pm UTC (link)
That's the danger of the dictionary; it places language too neatly and can quickly devolve into word facism. Someone like Nabokov, who treated the English language like the best toy he ever found, works in opposition to the catalog of individual words, creating whole new meanings and implications for the language. If we all lived and died by our dictionaries, we'd be stagnant.

I do think that the OED is neat, though, and I really want one of those huge ones that needs its own bookshelf and comes with a magnifying glass.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]jasenka
2008-02-20 03:54 am UTC (link)
also the bible. god wrote it, and it clearly states that he exists.
now what bitches?
:)

i have in fact quoted websters in a freshman english paper, but i swear it was relevant. plus my teacher wore flood pants. i had no respect for the man. i'm also pretty sure he didn't find me clever - what the hell? clearly i'm clever. websters defines "clever" as...

in any case, i came here to tell you that i greatly enjoyed "animals have problems too" and that it will be missed.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]smilingbeef
2008-02-20 04:11 am UTC (link)
I bet you would have respected him if you were standing in three inches of water.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]jasenka
2008-02-20 05:53 pm UTC (link)
alas, it was in arizona.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…