data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d52d1/d52d1250752017780b982982ab4fc4a39292e22e" alt=""
Ben Zimmer, a guest author featured in
Far from the Madding Gerund, writes
a piece in today's New York Times that reminds us dictionary making is slow, methodical, scholarly work, and not produced by "cloak-and-dagger cabals full of deep, dark secrets." Ben tells us:
As an informal (and unpaid) consultant for the O.E.D. for the past
several years, I had to chuckle at the breathless reporting. The O.E.D.
has long kept filing cabinets full of citation slips for words under
consideration, though nowadays the work is mostly done online. There is
nothing surreptitious about it — it’s all part of the mundane work that
lexicographers do to keep track of how words and phrases develop over
time, in order to shape and revise their entries. If you saw how
dictionary editors actually went about their day, you’d quickly
understand why Samuel Johnson famously defined “lexicographer” as “a
harmless drudge.”
Ben's piece is great (as usual for him), but something I originally learned from
Nathan Bierma is actually pretty scandalous: There is a tradition of making up entries while producing encyclopedias and dictionaries. The reason for it is to trap would-be copyright thieves; that is, you know someone stole from you if the information they are passing off as their own has only one single (false) source, and that source is your encyclopedia or your dictionary. You can learn all about it by searching on the word
esquivalience.
The New Yorker wrote up one famous example of the fountain designer
Lillian Virginia Mountweazel.
No comments:
Post a Comment