Why should language be controlled by central, and private organizations like Merriam-Webster, Oxford English Dictionary, etc.? Language is organic and should evolve with people. What better to reflect that than a crowd sourced dictionary?
Language is not controlled by dictionary writers. Dictionaries are descriptive only, they just list what words people are already using. In some countries, central organizations do try to be prescriptive and decide how the languages should be spoken, but that doesn’t usually work.
/me laughs in French
I reckon nobody takes the Academy seriously anyway so we’re safe 😏
Try not to fall into any pièges à clics while you listen to your audio à la demande…
Perhaps “controlled” was too strong of a word. Such central dictionaries do possess some level of authority, though. I think such authority should be spread over the many who contribute to an open dictionary, rather than a select few who curate a private one.
Eh, that’s got flaws too.
It isn’t like you don’t end up with some degree of centralized organization, or at least with a central core of contributors. That in itself isn’t a nice I obstacle, but if that core group ends up being core because they’re willing, rather than capable and good at the job, that becomes a giant problem.
At least the OED can be said to be handled by people that know language, and English in specific.
Besides, as soon as any dictionary becomes used by enough people, it becomes an authority. That’s unavoidable. Open sourcing doesn’t prevent that, and then you’ll still have people treating it like the dictionary is the authority rather than being a repository of language as it exists and changes.
English doesn’t have regulatory body proscribing what is and isn’t allowed. Every major document dictionary, including the ones mentioned here, follow the changes, they don’t force them. The reason they’re authorities is the long time they’ve followed language successfully and in timely fashion.
The real importance of a dictionary isn’t private vs open, it’s the skill involved in writing the definitions. That takes a good bit of work to develop.
It isn’t like you don’t end up with some degree of centralized organization, or at least with a central core of contributors. That in itself isn’t a nice I obstacle, but if that core group ends up being core because they’re willing, rather than capable and good at the job, that becomes a giant problem.
Oh, for sure. It isn’t perfect, but it begs the question of what the end-goal is that one desires. A similar argument could be made for open source software. One could argue that it is less efficient, and you potentially get people that don’t know what they are doing contributing. But, to me, the end goal is about ensuring openness rather than perfection. The openness, itself, is the end to the means.
At least the OED can be said to be handled by people that know language, and English in specific.
To be fair, though, nothing is stopping such types of people from also contributing to something like Wikitionary.
Besides, as soon as any dictionary becomes used by enough people, it becomes an authority. That’s unavoidable. Open sourcing doesn’t prevent that, and then you’ll still have people treating it like the dictionary is the authority rather than being a repository of language as it exists and changes.
That’s a fair point, but I would ask if one would prefer an oligarchy, or a democracy.
Every major document dictionary, including the ones mentioned here, follow the changes, they don’t force them. The reason they’re authorities is the long time they’ve followed language successfully and in timely fashion.
That’s a fair point.
The real importance of a dictionary isn’t private vs open, it’s the skill involved in writing the definitions. That takes a good bit of work to develop.
Technologically, it is also worth mentioning that, often, open services come with the added benefit of an open API. This allows people to make their own dictionary apps and services rather than having to pay for private API access to some proprietary dictionary service.
Language is organic and should evolve with people. What better to reflect that than a crowd sourced dictionary?
- Go to crowd sourced dictionary and enter new word with a new meaning you just made up!
- Go outside and loudly proclaim “Big Dictionary can’t control language! I’ve made up a new word!”
- No one uses your word, ever.
Success? Is that what you think dictionaries should be?
If a bunch of people start using a new word, whether it’s because a prominent author makes it up, or a foreigner teaches it to some people, or it evolved as slang among teens, if a diverse cross section of the popluace start using the word, then guess what? Lexicographers put it in their dictionary!
They don’t make up the new words. Lexicographers document language usage. They don’t dictate it. A dictionary isn’t the Bible.
Go look up “fake” words like irregardless. You’ll find it with it’s definition showing the way many people use it, despite it being a double negative word with an illogical usage. And the only hint of prescriptivism will be the note “nonstandard” next to it because the vast majority of people recognize it as a wrong word.
If you want a dictionary full of made up slang and memes go to Urban Dictionary. Meanwhile, Wiktionary is a standard dictionary edited by professional and amateur word enthusiasts who document word usage.
If a bunch of people start using a new word, whether it’s because a prominent author makes it up, or a foreigner teaches it to some people, or it evolved as slang among teens, if a diverse cross section of the popluace start using the word, then guess what? Lexicographers put it in their dictionary!
They don’t make up the new words. Lexicographers document language usage. They don’t dictate it. A dictionary isn’t the Bible.
Go look up “fake” words like irregardless. You’ll find it with it’s definition showing the way many people use it, despite it being a double negative word with an illogical usage. And the only hint of prescriptivism will be the note “nonstandard” next to it because the vast majority of people recognize it as a wrong word.
Fair points!
Wiktionary is a standard dictionary edited by professional and amateur word enthusiasts who document word usage.
I think this is still something worth pursuing, and supporting — regardless of the innacuracies that supported my initial post. There are many potential benefits that come with an openly supported service (e.g. more exensive, and, generally, free APIs, mirroring/archival capabilities, neat things like viewing edit/development history, community support for better front-ends, etc.).
This is why I only use urban dictionary.
I guess what would seem like an important question to me then is how do you maintain a proper standard with an open concept like that?
Never underestimate the internet’s ability to correct mistakes
It depends what you mean by a “proper standard”. Anyone can reference a dictionary. A dictionary is an extension of language, and, by that extension, it should evolve organically as language does.
