I wasn't sure if I should even comment — as a non-native speaker I'm not in the target audience of Webster's dictionary. Nevertheless, I have a stake in the discourse as modern English-language...
Exemplary
I wasn't sure if I should even comment — as a non-native speaker I'm not in the target audience of Webster's dictionary. Nevertheless, I have a stake in the discourse as modern English-language dictionaries and thesauruses help me in my writing and reading comprehension in a way that Webster's wouldn't. I come to a dictionary to find out the meaning of a word; thus, I am ill-served by a definition that uses words such as “fitful” and “luster” that are even less familiar to me than the one I'm looking up, or a string of words such as “diversion of the field” where each word individually is technically familiar but their combination is effectively word salad to me. And that is to say nothing about the wealth of new words added to the language (or which have changed their meaning) throughout the last century, which I need to deal with just as much as age-old words, but which would be wholly absent from a dictionary published in 1913.
I also can't help but find the article rather stuck-up and condescending. Or I suppose pompous or pretentious. What irony, then, that it teaches me the word “fustian” to describe it — by showing me the simpler, modern definition which the author decries as “tin-eared and uninspired” but which I can understand.
I know what you mean about the article sounding fustian, but to me it feels directed at a particular audience: people who love and appreciate all the subtle intricacies of English and want...
I know what you mean about the article sounding fustian, but to me it feels directed at a particular audience: people who love and appreciate all the subtle intricacies of English and want something much deeper than what popular dictionaries provide (e.g. writers). If you aren't in that audience, then yes there's a lot of utility in modern dictionaries. I think they both have their place. I, for one, as someone who loves English, knows it well, and aspires to write it as well as some of those beautiful examples from Webster, really resonated with the author's points about modern dictionaries being too dry for what I want when I look up a word.
It may be, but it makes broader claims and implications about how "normal" dictionaries are: It doesn't say, "new dictionaries are useful learning tools for finding out how words function, BUT...
It may be, but it makes broader claims and implications about how "normal" dictionaries are:
Worse, the words themselves take on the character of their definitions: they are likewise reduced. A delightful word like "fustian" -- delightful because of what it means, because of the way it looks and sounds, because it is unusual in regular speech but not so effete as to be unusable, is described, efficiently, as "pompous or pretentious speech or writing." Not only is this definition (as we'll see in a minute) simplistic and basically wrong, it's just not in the same class, English-wise, as "fustian." The language is tin-eared and uninspired. It's criminal: This is the place where all the words live and the writing's no good.
I don't want you to conclude that it's just a matter of aesthetics. Yes, Webster's definitions are prettier. But they are also better. In fact they're so much better that to use another dictionary is to keep yourself forever at arm's length from the actual language.
It doesn't say, "new dictionaries are useful learning tools for finding out how words function, BUT there is another form of dictionary more useful as inspiration when writing prose", it says that they're disgusting, reductive garbage that only idiots would find useful.
I don't know if I can even rightfully claim to be a non-native speaker if I speak English better and possibly more often than my "native" Afrikaans, but I wanted to chime in that wholly is a word...
I don't know if I can even rightfully claim to be a non-native speaker if I speak English better and possibly more often than my "native" Afrikaans, but I wanted to chime in that wholly is a word that zi perfectluly understand, but would never use myself.
I have a list of of obscure words that me and my mom try to memorise for the fun of it (like zemblanity for the opposite of serendipity), bu I've barely used any of those words because you don't need them to be even quite proficient
Context: I am a native American English speaker. This is great. I didn't find it condescending or pretentious, but earnest and eager to share something the author is fascinated by. I'll...
Exemplary
Context: I am a native American English speaker.
This is great. I didn't find it condescending or pretentious, but earnest and eager to share something the author is fascinated by. I'll acknowledge that Webster may have had a different idea of a dictionary than we do today, for sure. But maybe we should separate his understanding of it from our own. I find his dictionary so incredibly valuable, for entirely different reasons than I do a modern dictionary.
Functional definitions that supply working knowledge are crucial, but there's a reason we revere great writers: they do things with language that most of us would never conceive of, yet they do so in a way that seems so obvious that it's like "well, yeah, of course that's how you should say that! There's no better way." Technical writing is great for conveying mechanical information, but it's terrible for evoking feeling, helping the reader imagine the world differently. Webster's intention (as I see it) was similar to that of the saying "a picture is worth a thousand words". He wasn't just providing textual explanations of meanings, he was making paintings with language. It's not about capturing meaning in efficient packages of specificity, it's about freeing the reader's mind by being less specific and helping them come to a deeper understanding as a result. A lot of things in life can't be put neatly into boxes, so Webster didn't try. There's something vital lost when we reduce all knowledge to its practical function.
The problem is that art, arguably by definition, is not practical. Art can change my life, but it can't feed my body when I'm hungry. If I go visit Germany and need to prioritize finding my way around the country, Goethe isn't going to help me. We need both art and practicality. Gotta feed the mind and the body.
There's also the fact that because artistic experiences are so heavily influenced by our unique life circumstances, they're incredibly subjective. Webster's definitions are evocative to me because I have context that has primed me to be affected by them in this way. This includes the good fortune to be able to spare the time and mental bandwidth to sit with art that speaks to me and really take it in. Not everyone has that. And even if they do, they're still completely different people than me. A turn of phrase that I find profound might feel mundane to someone else. It's as much about what we bring to the table as what's on it.
I really liked this article, and I'm definitely going to think about dictionaries differently in the future (not a sentence I expected to write this morning). In my non-expert opinion, I think the...
I really liked this article, and I'm definitely going to think about dictionaries differently in the future (not a sentence I expected to write this morning).
In my non-expert opinion, I think the difference between dictionaries like the article author is discussing, and modern, "sterile" dictionaries, is a difference of philosophy. For a dictionary like the 1913 Webster's to be useful, you sorta have to be a fluent (if not native) English speaker. You have to essentially know the definitions of all of those words already, because the definitions for each complex word require you to know a number of other complex words. Modern dictionaries aim to be as simple as possible to ensure that anyone with passable knowledge of the English language can figure out basically any word. And some detail is definitely lost there, since language is never as clear cut as single-sentence definitions, the nuances of any individual word in any language are fractal.
I have two dictionaries in my home: The OED, and some random pocket dictionary made for grade school students that I've just sorta ended up with (think it was in a box of books I bought at a flea market). The grade school dictionary definitions are, well, not very helpful for a grown adult. But I wouldn't expect it to be as detailed as the OED because, well, it's for kids. I think the article of this author is wishing for something like an "author's dictionary", a dictionary made specifically for helping people with prose, rather than everyday understanding of a word. And I think that something like that would be really cool, as someone who likes to read and write a lot, but it's undoubtedly a niche thing. Most people using the dictionary these days are just checking to make sure they're not completely wrong in their understanding of a word, and a simple definition is fine for that.
An intriguing article! I often use thesaurus sites to try to find similar words, but this makes a good argument for how the 1913 Webster's dictionary may be better for that. I've also definitely...
An intriguing article! I often use thesaurus sites to try to find similar words, but this makes a good argument for how the 1913 Webster's dictionary may be better for that. I've also definitely noticed that definitions can be lacking. I recently looked up a new word, and had to look at a couple of different dictionary sites to get a decent understanding of its meaning because they're so reductionist and lacking.
The one downside is that the link for the "online" version is a WBM archived link. I tried looking up "Flash" on it like the writer suggested, and it didn't work because... well, it's archived. The site likely got taken down after the blog post, which is a shame because I'd probably be using it instead of a thesaurus after reading this.
Good shit. Love this. Thanks for posting! I looked up a lot of words from this article on Wiktionary and was pleased to see that most of their pages weren't totally dry and devoid of life, but...
Good shit. Love this. Thanks for posting!
I looked up a lot of words from this article on Wiktionary and was pleased to see that most of their pages weren't totally dry and devoid of life, but there's room for improvement.
I'm tempted to wage the wiki warfare necessary to see those definitions improved.
Explaining the difference between synonyms seems neat, but if I'm being honest all of the quotes they pull feel strictly worse to me. Finding "a soft and fitful luster" wouldn't clarify anything...
Explaining the difference between synonyms seems neat, but if I'm being honest all of the quotes they pull feel strictly worse to me. Finding "a soft and fitful luster" wouldn't clarify anything about the distinction between "glisten" and "flash" if I wasn't already well-familiar with them, I would have absolutely no idea how to understand "a diversion of the field" or "to flash conviction on the mind" if I read them in a book even though I do know the words well, and ironically the definition they give for "fustian" itself feels the way it describes (though that might just be because it's old). I'm glad they find enjoyment in reading it, but I vastly prefer the modern style myself.
I would be interested if anyone knows of any other good reference books that are useful in a similar way. I find etymology interesting and useful, and as I’m sure others are aware etymonline.com...
I would be interested if anyone knows of any other good reference books that are useful in a similar way.
I find etymology interesting and useful, and as I’m sure others are aware etymonline.com is an excellent resource for this, and I think improves understanding of use of words.
Does anyone have anything else they find useful?
It isn't as lyrical or poetic as the dictionary McPhee chose, but when I want to ensure that my language is not-boring, I turn to Better Than Great: A Plenitudinous Compendium of Wallopingly Fresh...
Honestly I get both the author and the critics in this thread. If I was reading an immersive can’t-put-down-book that I felt passionate for and the writer had the same mindset and willingness to...
Honestly I get both the author and the critics in this thread.
If I was reading an immersive can’t-put-down-book that I felt passionate for and the writer had the same mindset and willingness to deep dive as the article writer, I’d probably think “wow pretty writing~”
If I was having a conversation with someone like that in person my eyes would gloss over and I’d walk away thinking “that person’s probably a douche tbh.”
If I was writing an essay for college and only had access to the old dictionary mentioned my head would be pounding and I would quickly jump to the conclusion, “nvm. I’m winging it”
There’s a time and place for exploring intricacy and balancing effort vs gain.
Honestly one of the best indicators of a good writer is whether that person is able to understand their audience and write for that audience. I can expand my vocabulary to include a lot of...
Honestly one of the best indicators of a good writer is whether that person is able to understand their audience and write for that audience. I can expand my vocabulary to include a lot of uncommon but flowery terms, and hone the art of crafting those words into evocative and lyrical sentences — which is absolutely a real skill — but if I’m not discerning whether a situation actually calls for that kind of prose, I’m still a bad writer.
There’s room in this world for both James Joyce and Dan Brown. And Dr. Seuss. And the countless invisible writers of instruction manuals of all kinds. Not everything has to be (or should be) a literary masterpiece.
Only skimmed some of his work myself, but isn't Dan Brown precisely an author who knows more words than he knows how to use? Just a funny pull for your point.
Only skimmed some of his work myself, but isn't Dan Brown precisely an author who knows more words than he knows how to use? Just a funny pull for your point.
Truth! I've only read The Da Vinci Code and that was ages ago. I don't remember much about his voice. I was mainly reaching for the name of a popular writer with mass appeal but little claim to...
Truth! I've only read The Da Vinci Code and that was ages ago. I don't remember much about his voice. I was mainly reaching for the name of a popular writer with mass appeal but little claim to technical mastery (and that's obviously a debatable point for any well-known published author).
Concur, but I do think it's a little unfair for some to hammer the author for having pompous word choice in an article literally about making your word choice fancy with a better dictionary :)
Concur, but I do think it's a little unfair for some to hammer the author for having pompous word choice in an article literally about making your word choice fancy with a better dictionary :)
Agreed. I really appreciate the passion this person has. I may even pick one up myself, because I would love to explore my native language for pleasure. I would absolutely not use it for a school...
Agreed. I really appreciate the passion this person has.
I may even pick one up myself, because I would love to explore my native language for pleasure. I would absolutely not use it for a school or work setting though, that would make it feel like a burden.
I don’t know much about the inner world of dictionary editorial teams, but I enjoy the Merriam-Webster Word of the Day podcast. It’s been hosted for years by their editor-at-large, Peter...
I don’t know much about the inner world of dictionary editorial teams, but I enjoy the Merriam-Webster Word of the Day podcast. It’s been hosted for years by their editor-at-large, Peter Sokolowski. Occasionally I’ll hear his voice pop up in other podcasts I listen to also, like 99% Invisible. His personality comes through a lot more in those other contexts, since WotD is scripted to be brief and informative.
Anyway he’s the only modern lexicographer I could tell you the name of but I’ve always thought he’d be an interesting figure to have a word-nerd conversation with. I’d be really interested to hear his response to this article.
TLDR: Thesauruses exist and are more suitable for some writing purposes than dictionaries. A long time ago Noah Webster wrote a thesaurus and called it a dictionary. The author John McPhee likes...
TLDR: Thesauruses exist and are more suitable for some writing purposes than dictionaries. A long time ago Noah Webster wrote a thesaurus and called it a dictionary. The author John McPhee likes to use this thesaurus.
I would not call Webster's Dictionary a thesaurus. A thesaurus gives you alternatives for words. Webster's intention was very much to give definitions for words. He did so in a very different way...
I would not call Webster's Dictionary a thesaurus. A thesaurus gives you alternatives for words. Webster's intention was very much to give definitions for words. He did so in a very different way to modern dictionaries, but they were still definitions.
...and that summary -- accurate as it is -- is why some of us enjoy reading the entire piece. Because the entire point is that language can be beautiful when it is carefully chosen.
...and that summary -- accurate as it is -- is why some of us enjoy reading the entire piece. Because the entire point is that language can be beautiful when it is carefully chosen.
I wasn't sure if I should even comment — as a non-native speaker I'm not in the target audience of Webster's dictionary. Nevertheless, I have a stake in the discourse as modern English-language dictionaries and thesauruses help me in my writing and reading comprehension in a way that Webster's wouldn't. I come to a dictionary to find out the meaning of a word; thus, I am ill-served by a definition that uses words such as “fitful” and “luster” that are even less familiar to me than the one I'm looking up, or a string of words such as “diversion of the field” where each word individually is technically familiar but their combination is effectively word salad to me. And that is to say nothing about the wealth of new words added to the language (or which have changed their meaning) throughout the last century, which I need to deal with just as much as age-old words, but which would be wholly absent from a dictionary published in 1913.
I also can't help but find the article rather stuck-up and condescending. Or I suppose pompous or pretentious. What irony, then, that it teaches me the word “fustian” to describe it — by showing me the simpler, modern definition which the author decries as “tin-eared and uninspired” but which I can understand.
I know what you mean about the article sounding fustian, but to me it feels directed at a particular audience: people who love and appreciate all the subtle intricacies of English and want something much deeper than what popular dictionaries provide (e.g. writers). If you aren't in that audience, then yes there's a lot of utility in modern dictionaries. I think they both have their place. I, for one, as someone who loves English, knows it well, and aspires to write it as well as some of those beautiful examples from Webster, really resonated with the author's points about modern dictionaries being too dry for what I want when I look up a word.
It may be, but it makes broader claims and implications about how "normal" dictionaries are:
It doesn't say, "new dictionaries are useful learning tools for finding out how words function, BUT there is another form of dictionary more useful as inspiration when writing prose", it says that they're disgusting, reductive garbage that only idiots would find useful.
I agree with you entirely here. A thesaurus has its place, as does a dictionary.
I don't know if I can even rightfully claim to be a non-native speaker if I speak English better and possibly more often than my "native" Afrikaans, but I wanted to chime in that wholly is a word that zi perfectluly understand, but would never use myself.
I have a list of of obscure words that me and my mom try to memorise for the fun of it (like zemblanity for the opposite of serendipity), bu I've barely used any of those words because you don't need them to be even quite proficient
Context: I am a native American English speaker.
This is great. I didn't find it condescending or pretentious, but earnest and eager to share something the author is fascinated by. I'll acknowledge that Webster may have had a different idea of a dictionary than we do today, for sure. But maybe we should separate his understanding of it from our own. I find his dictionary so incredibly valuable, for entirely different reasons than I do a modern dictionary.
Functional definitions that supply working knowledge are crucial, but there's a reason we revere great writers: they do things with language that most of us would never conceive of, yet they do so in a way that seems so obvious that it's like "well, yeah, of course that's how you should say that! There's no better way." Technical writing is great for conveying mechanical information, but it's terrible for evoking feeling, helping the reader imagine the world differently. Webster's intention (as I see it) was similar to that of the saying "a picture is worth a thousand words". He wasn't just providing textual explanations of meanings, he was making paintings with language. It's not about capturing meaning in efficient packages of specificity, it's about freeing the reader's mind by being less specific and helping them come to a deeper understanding as a result. A lot of things in life can't be put neatly into boxes, so Webster didn't try. There's something vital lost when we reduce all knowledge to its practical function.
The problem is that art, arguably by definition, is not practical. Art can change my life, but it can't feed my body when I'm hungry. If I go visit Germany and need to prioritize finding my way around the country, Goethe isn't going to help me. We need both art and practicality. Gotta feed the mind and the body.
There's also the fact that because artistic experiences are so heavily influenced by our unique life circumstances, they're incredibly subjective. Webster's definitions are evocative to me because I have context that has primed me to be affected by them in this way. This includes the good fortune to be able to spare the time and mental bandwidth to sit with art that speaks to me and really take it in. Not everyone has that. And even if they do, they're still completely different people than me. A turn of phrase that I find profound might feel mundane to someone else. It's as much about what we bring to the table as what's on it.
I really liked this article, and I'm definitely going to think about dictionaries differently in the future (not a sentence I expected to write this morning).
In my non-expert opinion, I think the difference between dictionaries like the article author is discussing, and modern, "sterile" dictionaries, is a difference of philosophy. For a dictionary like the 1913 Webster's to be useful, you sorta have to be a fluent (if not native) English speaker. You have to essentially know the definitions of all of those words already, because the definitions for each complex word require you to know a number of other complex words. Modern dictionaries aim to be as simple as possible to ensure that anyone with passable knowledge of the English language can figure out basically any word. And some detail is definitely lost there, since language is never as clear cut as single-sentence definitions, the nuances of any individual word in any language are fractal.
I have two dictionaries in my home: The OED, and some random pocket dictionary made for grade school students that I've just sorta ended up with (think it was in a box of books I bought at a flea market). The grade school dictionary definitions are, well, not very helpful for a grown adult. But I wouldn't expect it to be as detailed as the OED because, well, it's for kids. I think the article of this author is wishing for something like an "author's dictionary", a dictionary made specifically for helping people with prose, rather than everyday understanding of a word. And I think that something like that would be really cool, as someone who likes to read and write a lot, but it's undoubtedly a niche thing. Most people using the dictionary these days are just checking to make sure they're not completely wrong in their understanding of a word, and a simple definition is fine for that.
An intriguing article! I often use thesaurus sites to try to find similar words, but this makes a good argument for how the 1913 Webster's dictionary may be better for that. I've also definitely noticed that definitions can be lacking. I recently looked up a new word, and had to look at a couple of different dictionary sites to get a decent understanding of its meaning because they're so reductionist and lacking.
The one downside is that the link for the "online" version is a WBM archived link. I tried looking up "Flash" on it like the writer suggested, and it didn't work because... well, it's archived. The site likely got taken down after the blog post, which is a shame because I'd probably be using it instead of a thesaurus after reading this.
Good shit. Love this. Thanks for posting!
I looked up a lot of words from this article on Wiktionary and was pleased to see that most of their pages weren't totally dry and devoid of life, but there's room for improvement.
I'm tempted to wage the wiki warfare necessary to see those definitions improved.
Explaining the difference between synonyms seems neat, but if I'm being honest all of the quotes they pull feel strictly worse to me. Finding "a soft and fitful luster" wouldn't clarify anything about the distinction between "glisten" and "flash" if I wasn't already well-familiar with them, I would have absolutely no idea how to understand "a diversion of the field" or "to flash conviction on the mind" if I read them in a book even though I do know the words well, and ironically the definition they give for "fustian" itself feels the way it describes (though that might just be because it's old). I'm glad they find enjoyment in reading it, but I vastly prefer the modern style myself.
I would be interested if anyone knows of any other good reference books that are useful in a similar way.
I find etymology interesting and useful, and as I’m sure others are aware etymonline.com is an excellent resource for this, and I think improves understanding of use of words.
Does anyone have anything else they find useful?
It isn't as lyrical or poetic as the dictionary McPhee chose, but when I want to ensure that my language is not-boring, I turn to Better Than Great: A Plenitudinous Compendium of Wallopingly Fresh Superlatives.
Honestly I get both the author and the critics in this thread.
If I was reading an immersive can’t-put-down-book that I felt passionate for and the writer had the same mindset and willingness to deep dive as the article writer, I’d probably think “wow pretty writing~”
If I was having a conversation with someone like that in person my eyes would gloss over and I’d walk away thinking “that person’s probably a douche tbh.”
If I was writing an essay for college and only had access to the old dictionary mentioned my head would be pounding and I would quickly jump to the conclusion, “nvm. I’m winging it”
There’s a time and place for exploring intricacy and balancing effort vs gain.
Honestly one of the best indicators of a good writer is whether that person is able to understand their audience and write for that audience. I can expand my vocabulary to include a lot of uncommon but flowery terms, and hone the art of crafting those words into evocative and lyrical sentences — which is absolutely a real skill — but if I’m not discerning whether a situation actually calls for that kind of prose, I’m still a bad writer.
There’s room in this world for both James Joyce and Dan Brown. And Dr. Seuss. And the countless invisible writers of instruction manuals of all kinds. Not everything has to be (or should be) a literary masterpiece.
Well said. This is some of the best writing advice that you can give to someone, and a lot of people do not understand that.
Only skimmed some of his work myself, but isn't Dan Brown precisely an author who knows more words than he knows how to use? Just a funny pull for your point.
Truth! I've only read The Da Vinci Code and that was ages ago. I don't remember much about his voice. I was mainly reaching for the name of a popular writer with mass appeal but little claim to technical mastery (and that's obviously a debatable point for any well-known published author).
Concur, but I do think it's a little unfair for some to hammer the author for having pompous word choice in an article literally about making your word choice fancy with a better dictionary :)
Agreed. I really appreciate the passion this person has.
I may even pick one up myself, because I would love to explore my native language for pleasure. I would absolutely not use it for a school or work setting though, that would make it feel like a burden.
I don’t know much about the inner world of dictionary editorial teams, but I enjoy the Merriam-Webster Word of the Day podcast. It’s been hosted for years by their editor-at-large, Peter Sokolowski. Occasionally I’ll hear his voice pop up in other podcasts I listen to also, like 99% Invisible. His personality comes through a lot more in those other contexts, since WotD is scripted to be brief and informative.
Anyway he’s the only modern lexicographer I could tell you the name of but I’ve always thought he’d be an interesting figure to have a word-nerd conversation with. I’d be really interested to hear his response to this article.
TLDR: Thesauruses exist and are more suitable for some writing purposes than dictionaries. A long time ago Noah Webster wrote a thesaurus and called it a dictionary. The author John McPhee likes to use this thesaurus.
I would not call Webster's Dictionary a thesaurus. A thesaurus gives you alternatives for words. Webster's intention was very much to give definitions for words. He did so in a very different way to modern dictionaries, but they were still definitions.
...and that summary -- accurate as it is -- is why some of us enjoy reading the entire piece. Because the entire point is that language can be beautiful when it is carefully chosen.