The Lexicographer's Rules

A fairly ordinary article in New Scientist about online dictionaries and word-hunting has been published. Ben Zimmer has some critical comments about the article.

It’s the usual stuff: it has a gee-whiz tone, it has wacky words littered throughout, it barely scratches the surface, and it makes light of “geeks” and “nerds.” The last two paragraphs are rewrites or direct quotes from my long post, Language Evolution in the Digital Age, which is fine, I guess, but since the article fails to include any URLs, nobody but you, me, and the writer will ever know. That’s old media for you.

Also, it says I “help” run Double-Tongued Dictionary. I don’t “help,” I do run it. It is 100% my show. I have a few people on the “about” page who are contributors, but only one contributes regularly.

…in your first paragraph then you disqualify your dictionary review from being taken seriously. The review is not overly critical of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, but the review is unremarkable, forgettable, and largely valueless.

I’m sorry to say that I’ve been made to look like a bit of a spoiler in this article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. I do not think “all this effort to identify the key word of the year is worth very little.” I do think “it’s just folks having fun.”

It’s important fun and it’s fun that in which I participate with gusto. I do wish the journalist had included the part of our interview where I emphasized that it was one of the few ways in which lexicographers can flex their lexy muscles in public. Who doesn’t like talking about how they do the work they enjoy?

Still, the article does have it merits. Not least, it gives you a sneak peek at four of my nominations for words of the year. There’s “wide stance” and “toe-tapper,” which I covered previously, as well as windshield cowboy and jailbreak.

I just had another in a long series of conversations about how to get a word in the dictionary. Sigh. There was a misunderstanding, as always.

This phone call went as they usually do: somebody has coined a word, they think it’s really spiffy, they want to get it in “The Dictionary,” and they call me thinking I work for “Webster’s,” and they want me to put their spiffy word in “The Dictionary.”

I don’t work for Webster’s, there’s no such dictionary company (although there are companies that include “Webster’s” in their names), and the way you get a word in “The dictionary” is by using it a lot and encouraging everyone else to use it, too. After it’s successful, lexicographers will consider including it. They don’t include brand-new words in mainstream American dictionaries. There’s not enough room and nearly all supposedly spiffy new words suck.

Also, there’s no such thing as “The Dictionary,” as I explain at length here.

Furthermore, if you call somebody and ask how to get a word in the dictionary and then you won’t tell them what the word is because they “might steal it,” well, what can I say? You’re going to get exactly nowhere. You have to set it free. If your word is truly spiffy, then it will survive and might show up in a dictionary one day—but probably not with your name, or anyone’s, attached.

You cannot get paid every time someone uses a word. You also cannot copyright or patent a word. You can trademark it, however, but then you’ll have no chance of getting it in a dictionary unless it’s a trademark for a fabulously popular must-have product that becomes a generic name for the whole product category.

So, if you’re looking for fame, this isn’t the way. I suggest a rifle and a belltower being very, very good-looking instead. Or a chess champion. Or the world’s best plumber. ANYTHING else. 

The word-of-the-year flood commences:

Grass Station is Webster’s New World’s 2007 ‘Word of the Year’.

It’s October, people. You don’t have a “word of the year.” You have a “word of the 41rst p0st!!!!”

Though at least “grass station” is better than “info-snacking,” their laughably stupid choice for 2005.