lexicographers (was; Re: Exhibit Coverage Continues!
|From:||And Rosta <and.rosta@...>|
|Date:||Saturday, June 14, 2008, 15:52|
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 place?
> 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