[bct] Re: Dictionaries

  • From: Curtis Delzer <curtis@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: blindcooltech@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 09:07:36 -0800

Well whoever that was with all the posts made a point by making a point, crashing all of us who use elloquence. so I guess any effect is better than none, eh? I mean there is such a thing as good taste and all of that, which he had none whatever, but that's another topic. I dig dictionaries and podcasts about them!

Curtis Delzer

At 04:28 AM 3/30/2006, you wrote:
Sam is correct about the Webster line of dictionaries. They began with Noah Webster, an evangelical minister who felt that the language needed a godly direction, so he gave it one.

There are two basic philosophies for dictionary construction. One is the Webster formula, to try and force the language to take a certain direction. The second approach is typified by the American Heritage and Oxford English dictionaries which simply report usage without laying an agenda on said usage.

Being a pagan, I have taken serious exception to the definitions of witch, witchcraft, pagan, paganism and other words in Webster dictionaries. For my money, they are not worth the paper they are printed upon.


Other related posts: