Decline of the Dictionary: A Response, by Dave Wilton
Robert Harwell Fiske’s review of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition (MW11), is a clear illustration of one of the two views that people have about dictionaries. In Mr. Fiske’s view, Noah Webster came down from the mount with his dictionary inscribed by God on stone tablets. The dictionary is sacred scripture and changing it is heresy. It should not even contain mention of usages deemed improper by an anointed priesthood of prescriptivist grammarians.
The other view holds that a dictionary should be a useful reference, not an icon to be worshipped. It should describe how the language is actually used and provide advice, where appropriate, on matters of grammar and usage.
The first view, if adopted by lexicographers, would rapidly render dictionaries useless. The basic task of a dictionary is to facilitate communication by documenting what words mean. If we only admit into the dictionary words and usages deemed to be proper, we will quickly render significant aspects of our culture unintelligible to others. Dictionaries will rapidly become empty shells of formal prescriptions that bear no relevance to the way we actually speak and write.
Decline of the Dictionary, The, by Robert Hartwell Fiske
This article, and the response that follows, originally appeared in the pages of The Vocabula Review and is reprinted here with permission. Fiske is the editor of The Vocabula Review, which can be found at http://www.vocabula.com.
The new slang-filled eleventh edition of “America’s Best-Selling Dictionary,” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (Frederick C. Mish, editor in chief), does as much as, if not more than, the famously derided Webster’s Third International Dictionary to discourage people from taking lexicographers seriously. “Laxicographers” all, the Merriam-Webster staff reminds us that dictionaries merely record how people use the language, not how it ought to be used. Some dictionaries, and certainly this new Merriam-Webster, actually promote illiteracy.
Several years ago, the editors of The American Heritage Dictionary ("America’s Favorite Dictionary") caused a stir by deciding to include four-letter words in their product. Since the marketing strategy of including swear words has now been adopted by all dictionary makers, Merriam-Webster, apparently not knowing how else to distinguish its dictionary from competing ones that erode its marketing share, has decided to include a spate of slang words in its eleventh edition. There’s nothing wrong with trying to distinguish their product, of course, but when it means tampering with the English language — by including idiotic slang and apparently omitting more useful words—it’s reprehensible.
Word of the Month: Nautical
Two weeks ago the movie Master and Commander, starring Russell Crowe, opened in theaters across the United States. The movie, based on the popular series of novels by Patrick O’Brian, is about the fictional adventures of Captain Jack Aubrey and his friend physician and spy Dr. Stephen Maturin. They sail together aboard the HMS Surprise, taking on Napoleon’s Navy and engaging in all sorts of adventures on the high seas.
O’Brian’s books and the movie they inspired are very faithful to details about life, including language, aboard ship in the age of sail. It is swashbuckling adventure to be sure, but pretty good history as well. Because the movie, which took in over $25 million at the US box office during its first weekend, will engender questions and enthusiasm for the language of the sea, our word of the month is:
nautical, adj., relating to sailing, ships, sailors, or the sea, 1552. The English word is adopted from the Middle French nautique, which is from the Latin nauticus, which in turn is from the Greek word for sailor.
Book Review: The Grouchy Grammarian, by Thomas Parrish
Regular readers of A Way With Words know that I have little tolerance for those that arbitrarily declare their own styles and preferences to be grammatically “correct.” As a result, most grammar manuals do not fair well in these pages. But Thomas Parrish has written a grammar book that does not do this. He recognizes that usage trumps personal preference and that there is a difference between quality, aesthetically pleasing prose and prose that is grammatically correct.
Parrish does this with a rather fun conceit. He creates the character of the “Grouchy Grammarian,” supposedly an old friend of Parrish. Parrish plays Boswell to the fictional grouch’s Johnson, recording his observations and opinions. As a result the book is more fun than many sterile grammar manuals and allows Parrish to create a balance between the traditional enmity between descriptivist and prescriptivist positions. The Grouch grudgingly concedes, for example, that the distinction between healthful and healthy has largely disappeared.
The core of the book consists of examples from current media (newspapers and magazines, mostly, with some television quotes included) of questionable or poor usages. Parrish’s Grouch laments such forms as the reason why… (redundant, why is inherent in reason), misuses of between and among (contrary to popular belief, between is not limited to two parties, but expresses a type of relationship), and misuse of subject-verb agreement. The examples are largely negative ones, hence the book’s subtitle of A How-Not-To Guide to the 47 Most Common Mistakes in English Made by Journalists, Broadcasters, and Others Who Should Know Better.
While Parrish’s conceit of the Grouch makes for better reading than most grammar manuals, it does limit the book’s utility. Because it is not organized alphabetically, the book is less useful as a reference. Modeled more on Strunk & White’s classic, it is much longer than that predecessor, making it too unwieldy for reference use. It is not a substitute for a good usage manual.
But still, if one enjoys reading books about grammar and usage (and frankly there are more of us that do than care to admit it), this is a diverting and entertaining read.
Softcover, 186 pp, John Wiley & Sons, 2002, ISBN: 0965730964, $19.95
Dept. of Legal Affairs: Intellectual Property, Part 2: Trademark
In this two-part article, we examine the two types of intellectual property that relate to language, copyright and trademark. There are two other types of intellectual property, patent and trade secrets, that apply to physical inventions and commercial business information.
The point of intellectual property laws is to encourage the advancement of the art, science, and commerce by giving the creators of original works, ideas, and products a limited period within which they can exercise exclusive control over their works and derive profit from them.
In this second of two parts, we examine the concept of trademark and its effect on the language. We often hear of companies trademarking words and phrases, claiming them for their own. But can they do this, either realistically or legally? Can Fox News prevent someone (Al Franken, for instance) from using the phrase fair and balanced? Can Microsoft limit your use of the word windows? If you are named McDonald, can the McDonalds Corporation limit your ability to use your own name in your business? And how do trademark rights differ from copyright? There are many myths and misunderstandings regarding the concept of trademark; we hope to clear some of these up with this article.
Copyright 1997-2015, by David Wilton