Re: lexicographers (was; Re: Exhibit Coverage Continues!
|From:||Eugene Oh <un.doing@...>|
|Date:||Saturday, June 14, 2008, 17:42|
What does "felch" mean? Sounds jargony enough to me. (: I never thought that
they'd accept words by way of complaints, though!
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 11:52 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@...> wrote:
> Rick Harrison, On 09/06/2008 20:13:
>> On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 03:04:15 EDT, MorphemeAddict@WMCONNECT.COM wrote:
>> When will appearance in print (I mean only hard copy) cease being a
>>> determining factor, and frequency of usage on the internet take its
>> Should lexicographers consider graffiti too? Seriously, if a few dozen
>> people make up a word and spray-paint it on walls and railcars, is that word
>> worthy of induction into the hallowed halls of dictionaridom? The material
>> that appears in mainstream publications is approved by numerous editors and
>> thus has a certain social-conformist "legitimacy" that cannot exist in a
>> medium in which anyone can type whatever crosses their mind.
> Not many dictionaries aspire to comprehensiveness. For English I know only
> of Merriam Webster and the OED. The OED criteria (I am here consulting my
> own imperfect knowledge, not any reputable source) are that the word needs
> to be in a recorded form and to have currency outside of jargons. It doesn't
> have to have appeared in print or been approved by editors. For example, a
> good few years ago I complained to the OED about the absence of the word
> "felch", and IIRC it duly appeared in the current edition with citations
> from online sources. So "conlang" indubitably ought to be in any reasonably
> compendious dictionary.