New Merrian-Webster Collegiate Dictionary

Question

According to reviewer Robert Hartwell Fisk in
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/979iutow.a sp
>

Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)
dphillipson(at)trytel.com

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]According to reviewer Robert Hartwell Fisk in[/nq]
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/979iutow.a
[nq:1]sp >[/nq]
I haven't yet read the article in question although I did read enough to know that the author does not believe that dictionaries should describe actual usage, which every modern major dictionary without exception attempts to do but I thought I would compare and contrast the Collegiate definitions referred to above with other American dictionaries, to see if their editors are as guilty of "inexcusably shoddy dictionary-making" as the lexicographers of the Collegiate are alleged to be:
First, let's take a closer look at the Collegiate definitions, using *Merriam-Webster's Collegiate* online (which may still the 10th edition):

accidently. This is given as a secondary variant under the entry for "accidental": " also ac·ci·dent·ly." "Secondary variant" means, although as standard as the primary variant," it is less common. This is additional information which is not present in the other dictionary which lists "accidently" as a variant, the AHD4.
predominate. The Collegiate notes that the adjective "predominate" dates to
1591. It is in none of the dictionaries I refer to below, but it is in TheCentury Dictionary of 1895, and is not labeled as obsolete. The cite given is from Burtons "Anatomy of Melancholy." The Century Dictionary is a prescriptionist dictionary, which means that either "predominate," the adjective, has fallen out of standard usage in only a hundred years or so, as would seem to be the case if the other dictionaries cited here are accurate, or, as the Collegiate entry would seem to indicate, it has hung on in limited standard usage or has returned to standard usage after having been nonstandard.
enormity. the Collegiate shows "immensity" as the oldest meaning of "enormity," and adds a usage note in which it says of the people who would wish to substitute "enormousness": "Those who urge such a limitation may not recognize the subtlety with which enormity is actually used" and goes on to illustrate that subtlety. The Century gave for enormity the sense "2. Enormousness ; immensity : without derogatory implication. (Rare.)"

infer. The Collegiate notes that the distinction between "infer" and "imply" dates to "some time around the end of World War I" (and goes into more detail). It is therefore not surprising that the Century has for "infer" the sense "3. To bear presumption or proof of; imply."

peruse Here are the complete definitions:
(quote)
1 a : to examine or consider with attention and in detail : STUDY b : tolook over or through in a casual or cursory manner
2 : READ; especially : to read over in an attentive or leisurely manner

(end quote)
In the following, I have stated whether the dictionary agrees with the Collegiate by using the words "yes," "no," or "perhaps."
The AHD4:
accidently, yes. It is listed under the entry for "accidental"

predominate, no
enormity, yes. but that meaning is labeled a " 3. Usage Problem Great size; immensity," and a usage note accompanies the word.

" Infer is sometimes confused with imply, but the distinction is a useful one."

peruse, no.
The dictionary at www.infoplease.com :
accidently, no.
predominate, no
enormity, yes, 3. greatness of size, scope, extent, or influence; immensity: The enormity of such an act of generosity is staggering.

infer, yes. Besides "4. to hint; imply; suggest." it also has "3. to guess; speculate; surmise."
peruse, perhaps. It has as one sense "1. a reading: a perusal of the current books. This does not seem to me to be making reference to a close or careful reading.
*Encarta World English Dictionary,* North American Edition:

accidently, no
predominate, no
enormity, no. In a "Word Usage" note, comparing "enormity" and "enormousness,: it says that the latter is "the only word in this pair that refers, in correct usage, to significant size"
infer, yes
peruse, yes, "read something: to read or examine something in a leisurely or careful way."

Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]According to reviewer Robert Hartwell Fisk in http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/979iutow.a sp >[/nq]
I just got around to reading the review. Thanks for the link.

For those unfamiliar with Robert Hartwell Fiske, he edits an online journal "The Vocabula Review". It is stridently prescriptivist, and generally unencumbered by facts. I read it before he started charging a subscription. Since then, however, I stick to "The Onion" for that internet food group. I can't recommend it as being worth the price, but the various bits viewable with a subscription are plenty to get its feel.Two parts of this review caught my attention in addition to the points others have raised. Fiske writes that "Merriam-Webster, apparently not knowing how else to distinguish its dictionary from competing ones, has decided to include slang words in its eleventh edition." Apparently he believes that this is an innovation, which in turn suggests the he is in fact entirely unfamiliar with dictionaries: even older ones such as Webster's Second International.

But upon further reading, the appalling-ignorance theory doesn't hold up. The first example Fiske uses of a slang word in MW11 is "dis", which he correctly notes was also included in MW10. So what, exactly, is the innovation? It may be that MW has decided to include a greater proportion of slang words than previously, but Fiske's prose is so incoherent that we cannot be sure what he thought he was saying.

The other interesting bit was this: "A FEW MONTHS AGO (before the new edition of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate was published), I took a poll of Vocabula Review readers and discovered that 68 percent of the respondents rejected the strong descriptivist idea of dictionary-making, and only 4 percent would necessarily bow to the definitions and spellings found in the dictionary. More than that, though, the new Merriam-Webster is a sign that dictionaries, at least as they are now being compiled, have outlived their usefulness. Dictionaries are no longer sacrosanct, no longer sources of unimpeachable information. Dictionaries are, indeed, no longer to be trusted."
What, exactly, was the point of telling us about his internet poll? Internet polls are notoriously worthless, and limiting the poll to those who have self-selected for presciptivist opinions by subscribing to "The Vocabula Review" is like polling Republican Party convention delegates "Who do you like better: George W. Bush or Bill Clinton?" The results tell us nothing that we didn't already know. So is there any point to is other than embarassingly empty rhetoric? In any case, how does it relate logically to the rest of the paragraph? In the sentence "More than that..." what exactly is the antecedent of "that"? The paragraph is sheer babble.
I value writers such as Fiske. They serve as valuable object lessons by showing that the most punctilious compliance with the rules of usage have so little to do with either writing or thinking well.

Richard "not that I have an opinion" Hershberger

Usenet · Answer

(Email Removed) (Richard R. Hershberger) burbled
[nq:2]According to reviewer Robert Hartwell Fisk in http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/ 979iutow.a sp <[nq:1]I value writers such as Fiske. They serve as valuable object lessons by showing that the most punctilious compliance with the rules of usage have so little to do with either writing or thinking well.[/nq]
I agree wholeheartedly with your evaluation of Fiske and his review of the M-W11. He did ask one good question, though: "What words from the M-W 10th were dropped from the 11th in order to make room for the new entries (I doubt that all the new entries are slang on the order of "dis", which is so commonplace everywhere around the world where rap-noise is played that it deserves to be in the dictionary).
Quoth the raver: "More interesting than this new edition would be a book of the words abandoned. Were they sesquipedalian words that few people use or know the meaning of, or even disyllabic words that few people use or know the meaning of? For it's quite true that Americans are increasingly monosyllabic; many people cannot even manage to say "disparage" or "disrespect" or "insult," so enamored are they of the repugnant "dis" (included in the Collegiate tenth and eleventh).
I wonder if they did not dispense with some of the old slang that is no longer used. The question is interesting,. not for the reasons that Fiske asked it but because I wonder how lexicographers decide what words not to include. As it turns out, they are often the ones I can't find when I need them, like, for example, "adlittoral", which *is* in W3NID CD-ROM but not in M-W 11 online or AHD4 online.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I value writers such as Fiske. They serve as valuable object lessons by showing that the most punctilious compliance with the rules of usage have so little to do with either writing or thinking well.[/nq]
After reading his stuff for a while, and that of others of his ilk published at that site, I share your opinion but would never have been able to state it so elegantly.

Michael West
Melbourne, Australia
(In the shadow of the You-Yangs)

Usenet · Answer

Thus spake Michael West:
[nq:2]I value writers such as Fiske. They serve as valuable ... so little to do with either writing or thinking well.[/nq]
[nq:1]After reading his stuff for a while, and that of others of his ilk published at that site, I share your opinion but would never have been able to state it so elegantly.[/nq]
You lot don't recognise the regulatory function of the linguistic liberal/ conservative debate. If everyone agreed that the language should be used as anyone pleased, we would be forever be finding ourselves barbarians to one another.* The problems we already have understanding spoken dialects would multiply, were not English regulated by any means at all. They would also supplant themselves to the written language.
Furthermore, for those Anglo-supremacists out there, English, without any kind of regulation, would not have risen to the position it enjoys in the world today; no one else would have bothered learning such a fickle language.
As I have said before, we should welcome the bickering: it's the only way our language is regulated. (Or should we instead institute a bureaucratic language academy?)
* 1 Corinthians 13: 11 "Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me".

Simon R. Hughes

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]I value writers such as Fiske. They serve as valuable ... so little to do with either writing or thinking well.[/nq]
[nq:1]After reading his stuff for a while, and that of others of his ilk published at that site, I share your opinion but would never have been able to state it so elegantly.[/nq]
Thanks. But upon re-reading my own post in the cold light of day, I must amend it. In the paragraph quoted above, please change "have" to "has".
Richard R. Hershberger

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Thus spake Michael West:[/nq]
[nq:2]After reading his stuff for a while, and that of ... would never have been able to state it so elegantly.[/nq]
[nq:1]You lot don't recognise the regulatory function of the linguistic liberal/ conservative debate. If everyone agreed that the language should ... would multiply, were not English regulated by any means at all. They would also supplant themselves to the written language.[/nq]
You may or may not have missed the point. The weakness I was pointing to wasn't linguistic conservatism, but rather the unimpressive, lacklustre, unconvincing manner in which Fiske and his cohorts dispense it.

Michael West
Melbourne, Australia
(In the shadow of the You-Yangs)

Usenet · Answer

Thus spake Michael West:
[nq:2]Thus spake Michael West: You lot don't recognise the regulatory ... all. They would also supplant themselves to the written language.[/nq]
[nq:1]You may or may not have missed the point. The weakness I was pointing to wasn't linguistic conservatism, but rather the unimpressive, lacklustre, unconvincing manner in which Fiske and his cohorts dispense it.[/nq]
I miss points all the time, but I have an axe to grind.
Simon R. Hughes

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Thus spake Michael West:[/nq]
[nq:2]After reading his stuff for a while, and that of ... would never have been able to state it so elegantly.[/nq]
[nq:1]You lot don't recognise the regulatory function of the linguistic liberal/ conservative debate. If everyone agreed that the language should ... voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me".[/nq]
The connection between your response and the posts you responded to is obscure, but what the heck...You are very close to making the straw-man argument about "anything does" descriptivists. Raymond has made a second career of pointing out that this is a mythical beast, and he is right. I also question that there is any connection between the rise of a standard dialect and the writing of hand-wringing usage manuals. The establishment as standard of one dialect (usually that of the "respectable classes" in and around the capital) happens widely, with or without the help of usage manuals.

Manuals can serve as linguistic etiquette guides, helping provincials and the upwardly mobile to learn the standard dialect. So manuals can hasten the spread of the standard dialect, but they don't create it. Neither are they necessary to prevent the standard dialect from fragmenting. It is a common idea among prescriptivists that without their efforts communication would soon become impossible. Swift three centuries ago thought that an academy was necessary to prevent this.

He never got his academy and yet we somehow still muddle through. How can this be? It is simply because language change doesn't work that way. There are intrinsic conservative forces which have nothing to do with prescriptivist Dutch boys holding their fingers in the linguistic dike.

Which brings us your characterization of the debate as being between conservatives and liberals. I assume that you identify the conservative side with the prescriptivists. Prescriptivists usually imagine that they are linguistically conservative, but they are not. A conservative would not object to the old and established sense of "aggravate" meaning "exasperate". A conservative would welcome the use of "they" as a singular indeterminate personal pronoun as a fine old English usage which elegantly fills the need. A conservative would resist innovations such as the claim that "which" cannot be used to introduce a restrictive relative clause. A conservative would enthusiastically proclaim MWDEU to be the indispensible usage manual, since it stands alone in telling us what the old established usages really are. Yes, prescriptivists often identify themselves as linguistic conservatives. But that is possible merely through carefully studied ignorance.
Richard R. Hershberger

Usenet · Answer

Thus spake Richard R. Hershberger:
[nq:2]Thus spake Michael West: You lot don't recognise the regulatory ... and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me".[/nq]
[nq:1]The connection between your response and the posts you responded to is obscure,[/nq]
Indeed.
[nq:1]but what the heck... You are very close to making the straw-man argument about "anything does" descriptivists. Raymond has made ... that of the "respectable classes" in and around the capital) happens widely, with or without the help of usage manuals.[/nq]
1. I don't think I have mentioned usage manuals in this thread. Thedebate I was talking about has taken place since the beginning of the eighteenth century, and has been carried out in letters, forewords, coffee houses, etc. Usage manuals, I believe, began to appear later.
The regulation I wrote about is an informal one that results from the debate (including Swift's contribution to it), not a formal one attempted by the publication of usage manuals. For example, being aware of the debate over usage X and Y might lead A to use X instead of Y in a letter to B, believing that B would be more likely to understand X than Y. When enough people have voted with their pens, along come the descriptivist lexicographers and place usage X in the latest offering from Microsoft. Y falls by the wayside.

But anyway, the result of your misunderstanding is the following bit hitting wide of your mark. This thread encourages that kind of thing, apparently.
[nq:1]Manuals can serve as linguistic etiquette guides, helping provincials and the upwardly mobile to learn the standard dialect. So manuals ... of the debate as being between conservatives and liberals. I assume that you identify the conservative side with the prescriptivists.[/nq]
2. I chose "conservatives" because I didn't mean "prescriptivists".Likewise, I chose "liberals" because I didn't mean "descriptivist". There are differences. A conservative need not be prescriptivist. A liberal need not be descriptivist.
The result of your misunderstanding is that the next bit, although true in some cases, does not address what I had written.
[nq:1]Prescriptivists usually imagine that they are linguistically conservative, but they are not. A conservative would not object to the old ... usages really are. Yes, prescriptivists often identify themselves as linguistic conservatives. But that is possible merely through carefully studied ignorance.[/nq]
Simon R. Hughes

New Merrian-Webster Collegiate Dictionary

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions