If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   The print edition of the Oxford English Dictionary about to go the way of the dodo   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 62
    More: Ironic, Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford, Urban Dictionary, Oxford Dictionary, Oxford University Press, sex slaves, Samuel Johnson, dictionary  
•       •       •

4645 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Aug 2010 at 10:50 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



62 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-08-29 10:51:13 AM
I thought oxfords never went out of style.
 
2010-08-29 10:51:52 AM
What is this "print edition" of which you speak?
 
2010-08-29 10:54:39 AM
Books will slowly yet surely will get somewhat replaced by their digital counterparts.
 
2010-08-29 10:59:47 AM
Written English language is moving back towards being phonetically spelled anyway. We're probably going to have High English and Low English in the next decade or so and the people who use High English will be able to use their KindlePad to look up the hard more-than-two-syllable words and punctuation.
 
2010-08-29 11:00:58 AM
Irony: A figure of speech in which the intended meaning is the opposite of that expressed by the words used; usually taking the form of sarcasm or ridicule in which laudatory expressions are used to imply condemnation or contempt.

Let me know when the "ironic" shows up, subby.
 
2010-08-29 11:02:14 AM
It's like rain on your wedding day.
 
2010-08-29 11:03:54 AM
Actually, make that "a more pronounced divide between High and Low English"
 
2010-08-29 11:06:25 AM
Wait, something that used to be popular is not going to be made anymore? Is there anything more ironic than that?
 
2010-08-29 11:06:28 AM
LONDON - It's been in print for over a century, but in future the Oxford English Dictionary - the authoritative guide to the English language - may only be available to peruse online.

From the fark article a few days ago "9 Words That Don't Mean What You Think".

People think it means:
To skim over or browse something.

Actually means:
Almost the opposite of that.

Ironic. Someone writing an article on how a dictionary is no longer going to be in print uses a word wrong that would have easily been found in said dictionary. The opposite of what one would think.
 
2010-08-29 11:06:30 AM
LegacyDL
Books will slowly yet surely will get somewhat replaced by their digital counterparts.

Yup. Because it's easier to alter them and implement censorship without people knowing. Physical books are almost holy implementations to us, and burning, destroying them, or otherwise altering them in any way is akin to an unholy sin. But digital copies are a totally different story. One could easily alter texts & manuscripts, or delete them entirely without a person's knowledge or consent. And that's ok by modern standards. You think editing Star Wards was bad? Just wait until the "George Lucas Excuse" of censorship being that removing the controversial, sacrilegious, or unpopular parts of books isn't censorship because it's actually just the author's "True Vision" that he or she wanted...
 
2010-08-29 11:07:21 AM
I was unaware the Oxford dictionary even had eggs to feed to the dogs and rats.
 
2010-08-29 11:07:29 AM
Who are all these people paying $295 a year to read a dictionary? I own a compact OED I paid for once in 1989 and still have access to, because, you know, I OWN it. If I had to subscribe to an online version, I would be over $3,000 out of pocket by now. It's like buying a house with an interest-only loan--you never really own it, and it will be taken away when you stop making payments.

Plus, without taking a site tour, I imagine, the online version is not particularly browser-friendly. You look up a word and that one word is all you get. One of the joys of looking something up in a good dictionary is letting your eyes wander to other interesting words on the same page, brought to your attention through the serendipity of alphabetical order.
 
2010-08-29 11:09:05 AM
Hopefully this won't happen, but irregardless, I wouldn't pay for it.
 
2010-08-29 11:09:15 AM
Do you undastand tha words that are comin outta my mouf?
 
2010-08-29 11:09:53 AM
I don't know how anyone could pass it up, what with it's rock-bottom $1,165 price point.
 
2010-08-29 11:10:17 AM
Someday I'll tell my daughter how when I was a little boy, we had to look up dirty words in the printed dictionary and we liked it!
 
2010-08-29 11:12:07 AM
whatshisname: Hopefully this won't happen, but irregardless, I wouldn't pay for it.

Unsure if that was meant as a joke or not.
 
2010-08-29 11:14:55 AM
whatshisname: Hopefully this won't happen, but irregardless, I wouldn't pay for it.

That statement was very unique.
 
2010-08-29 11:15:25 AM
Ironic? Dictionaries have been useless for at LEAST 10 years. It's called an internet, learn to use thems.
 
2010-08-29 11:21:36 AM
darkscout: LONDON - It's been in print for over a century, but in future the Oxford English Dictionary - the authoritative guide to the English language - may only be available to peruse online.

From the fark article a few days ago "9 Words That Don't Mean What You Think".

People think it means:
To skim over or browse something.

Actually means:
Almost the opposite of that.

Ironic. Someone writing an article on how a dictionary is no longer going to be in print uses a word wrong that would have easily been found in said dictionary. The opposite of what one would think.


It's not clear that the person writing the article meant "to skim over", it would make perfect sense if they meant "to read through carefully". Hence, it's not clear that the person who wrote the story about the dictionary used the word incorrectly -incorrect usage of 'irony'

unless, of course, subby was deliberately misusing the irony tag on a story about the dictionary, in which case it's meta-irony at best (in the same way that a song about irony was written by someone with an incorrect understanding of what the word meant.)

so, overall, I'm gonna go with "Fail" on this usage of the irony tag
 
2010-08-29 11:21:54 AM
whatshisname: Hopefully this won't happen, but irregardless, I wouldn't pay for it.

Your statement begs the question if you ever planned on paying for it anyways.
 
2010-08-29 11:23:38 AM
Everybody tie yourself into our paid online subscription model instead of owning the DVD version!
 
2010-08-29 11:24:31 AM
Semi off-topic: Am I the only one who finds it really difficult to read from a screen for an extended period of time?

I've tried every type of screen out there, with all sorts of filters and whatnot over them. I've tried a Kindle. I just can't make myself focus on a screen like I can text printed on paper.

Reference books - like a dictionary or textbook - are great when they're digitalized. I never read them from cover to cover. Who does? I just use them to find a quick fact or bit of info I wasn't clear on.

Novels, newspapers, magazines, and the like are a different story.
Maybe part of it is that a screen usually is connected to a computer - which means there are more distractions when I'm trying to read. With a paper book, I can go outside, away from such distractions, etc.

I don't think printed books will be going away any time soon. Some people like getting their information in simple, easy to digest chunks (ie Wikipedia). Others like getting a complete understanding of a subject.
 
2010-08-29 11:25:45 AM
step 1) convince public to adopt electronic mediums for everything

step 2) cut the power

step 3) RULE!
 
2010-08-29 11:26:20 AM
Gortex: You're not the only one. I cannot pay attention to stories on a screen nearly as well as I can printed books.
 
2010-08-29 11:27:04 AM
andocommando82: I don't know how anyone could pass it up, what with it's rock-bottom $1,165 price point.

That's only $50.65 per volume. Which is a steal!
 
2010-08-29 11:27:56 AM
Barakku: Ironic? Dictionaries have been useless for at LEAST 10 years. It's called an internet, learn to use thems.

The worst part of the internet is that with 5 seconds, you could look up spelling and grammar. In many cases, your writing comes with little red lines underneath to inform you of spelling and grammar errors.

Yet, still, EVERYONE SCREWS IT UP. Self included.

The day that people actively promote the use of "loose" over "lose", I'm switching to German.
 
2010-08-29 11:31:24 AM
stirfrybry: step 1) convince public to adopt electronic mediums for everything

step 2) cut the power

step 3) RULE!


Step 4) get killed. Seriously. Wonderful thing about America is if any politician really wanted to go full Evil Overlord, there are more than a few people in town who can shoot them in the head.
/This is part of why people don't do outrageous crazy things, but of course there's usually many ways to detain (or kill) people that want to/do asinine things without shooting them

darkscout: Ironic. Someone writing an article on how a dictionary is no longer going to be in print uses a word wrong that would have easily been found in said dictionary. The opposite of what one would think.

Er, no, no it could not have easily been found in said dictionary. Pawing through a 20 volume abomination (Which volume is P...hmmm where is Pe...oops, flipped past it...) vs an internet search is a matter of minutes compared to milliseconds.
 
2010-08-29 11:34:35 AM
haddie: I'm switching to German.

Good choice. Germans have awesome compound words. Can I interest you in a German dictionary?
 
2010-08-29 11:37:03 AM
"Peruse" was used correctly. No one reads the OED unless they are hard core about their words.

Here is an interesting thought: if you perceived that "peruse" was used incorrectly, maybe it is because your mind interprets it with the incorrect meaning.
 
2010-08-29 11:47:49 AM
Does nobody else foresee a corresponding drop in wheelbarrow sales?
 
2010-08-29 11:52:18 AM
etherknot: haddie: I'm switching to German.

Good choice. Germans have awesome compound words. Can I interest you in a German dictionary?


Only if it cost numerous thousands of dollars and is split up over numerous volumes that I have to buy as a lump.
 
2010-08-29 11:52:32 AM
This reminds me of the time I was in the Newark airport and excited that you could get print editions of the NYT and WSJ. My grandmother rolled her eyes.
 
2010-08-29 12:04:06 PM
haddie:
Only if it cost numerous thousands of dollars and is split up over numerous volumes that I have to buy as a lump.


Komplett Deutsche Sprache WeinerWörter Bücher!

/more fun to say than babelfish.altavista.com
 
2010-08-29 12:11:58 PM
Bunch of grammar and irony nazis in a thread about dictionaries. Who would've guessed.
 
2010-08-29 12:27:06 PM
darkscout: LONDON - It's been in print for over a century, but in future the Oxford English Dictionary - the authoritative guide to the English language - may only be available to peruse online.

From the fark article a few days ago "9 Words That Don't Mean What You Think".

People think it means:
To skim over or browse something.

Actually means:
Almost the opposite of that.

Ironic. Someone writing an article on how a dictionary is no longer going to be in print uses a word wrong that would have easily been found in said dictionary. The opposite of what one would think.


It would serve you well to read said dictionary.

peruse, v. section II4c

To read through or over; (generally) to read. In later use also: to browse, skim. Also occas. intr.
Modern dictionaries and usage guides, perh. influenced by the word's earlier history in English, have sometimes claimed that the only 'correct' usage is in reference to reading closely or thoroughly (cf. senses 4a, 4b). However, peruse has been a broad synonym for read since the 16th cent., encompassing both careful and cursory reading; Johnson defined and used it as such. The implication of leisureliness, cursoriness, or haste is therefore not a recent development, although it is usually found in less formal contexts and is less frequent in earlier use (see quot. 1589 for an early example). The specific sense of browsing or skimming emerged relatively recently, generally in ironic or humorous inversion of the formal sense of thoroughness. Cf. SCAN v. for a similar development and range of senses.


/yay for Uni VPN
 
2010-08-29 12:32:27 PM
CTRL-F "festizzio"

Phrase not found

i.imgur.com
 
2010-08-29 12:46:23 PM
Inchoate: Gortex: You're not the only one. I cannot pay attention to stories on a screen nearly as well as I can printed books.

I just don't get this. I was at Barnes and Noble the other day (actually had to walk through it to get the rest of the mall) and I noticed a new book from an author I enjoy reading. Via my phone - logged into Amazon and bought the kindle version. Finished reading the book on my iPad yesterday. No different than reading a physical version of it. And it won't take up space on a shelf for the next 10 years like his other books.

/will not buy a book unless it comes in an electronic format
//physical books are dead
///its the content that's important - not the means in which it is delivered
 
2010-08-29 12:53:29 PM
Cornelius Dribble: Who are all these people paying $295 a year to read a dictionary? I own a compact OED I paid for once in 1989 and still have access to, because, you know, I OWN it. If I had to subscribe to an online version, I would be over $3,000 out of pocket by now. It's like buying a house with an interest-only loan--you never really own it, and it will be taken away when you stop making payments.

Plus, without taking a site tour, I imagine, the online version is not particularly browser-friendly. You look up a word and that one word is all you get. One of the joys of looking something up in a good dictionary is letting your eyes wander to other interesting words on the same page, brought to your attention through the serendipity of alphabetical order.


There's actually a middle ground, popular in Asia for years - namely, electronic dictionaries.

You don't need the internet, but they're digital, full lookup, cross-referencing, the whole bit.

And now, they're available on my phone. I have the paper version of several of the big popular Japanese dictionaries (including the ones that are essentially the "OED" for that language) on my phone now. No internet needed, I own them entirely, but they're weightless, great readability, and with the ability to quickly jump around. And yet you don't HAVE to jump around, you can see the words in context in a list, let your eyes wander to the words next to it on the "page," etc.

Surely something similar exists for the OED?
 
2010-08-29 12:56:11 PM
The print edition of the Oxford English Dictionary about to go the way of the dodo

When you start adding words like staycation and grrrl it's time to hang it up.
 
2010-08-29 01:02:17 PM
very sad
 
2010-08-29 01:07:02 PM
SockMonkeyHolocaust: Actually, make that "a more pronounced divide between High and Low English"

Ouch. At that point, Low English will probably consist of grunts, clicks, and whistles.
 
2010-08-29 01:09:33 PM
Hand Banana: The print edition of the Oxford English Dictionary about to go the way of the dodo

When you start adding words like staycation and grrrl it's time to hang it up.


Congratulations on completely missing the point of the OED.
 
2010-08-29 01:42:59 PM
Gortex: Semi off-topic: Am I the only one who finds it really difficult to read from a screen for an extended period of time?

I've tried every type of screen out there, with all sorts of filters and whatnot over them. I've tried a Kindle. I just can't make myself focus on a screen like I can text printed on paper.

Reference books - like a dictionary or textbook - are great when they're digitalized. I never read them from cover to cover. Who does? I just use them to find a quick fact or bit of info I wasn't clear on.

Novels, newspapers, magazines, and the like are a different story.
Maybe part of it is that a screen usually is connected to a computer - which means there are more distractions when I'm trying to read. With a paper book, I can go outside, away from such distractions, etc.

I don't think printed books will be going away any time soon. Some people like getting their information in simple, easy to digest chunks (ie Wikipedia). Others like getting a complete understanding of a subject.


Try adding this to your toolbar. Eases the strain of reading pages on-line. It really is great.
Link (new window)
 
2010-08-29 01:51:04 PM
Paid $30 to get it on my HTC Evo. You get what you pay for with free internet dictionaries.
 
2010-08-29 02:16:50 PM
TheRaven7: This reminds me of the time I was in the Newark airport and excited that you could get print editions of the NYT and WSJ. My grandmother rolled her eyes.

I still get excited when I see print copies of the Onion-- I've never spent more than a month at a time in a place where it's readily available, so the novelty hasn't worn off yet.
 
2010-08-29 02:29:22 PM
Sue Dunham:

Try adding this to your toolbar. Eases the strain of reading pages on-line. It really is great.
Link (new window)


I like their choice of example text.
 
2010-08-29 02:35:15 PM
"20-volume, 750 pound ($1,165) set published in 1989 - has sold about 30,000 sets in total."

That does not surprise me. Who really needs a 20-volume, $1000+ dictionary?
 
2010-08-29 02:40:01 PM
Mock26: "20-volume, 750 pound ($1,165) set published in 1989 - has sold about 30,000 sets in total."

That does not surprise me. Who really needs a 20-volume, $1000+ dictionary?


Libraries. Heck, 20 years ago when I was in college the UT library's OED was on half a dozen CDs with its own dedicated computer. I used it a few times.
 
2010-08-29 03:06:52 PM
Maybe I'm just old school, or just old, but I still prefer the printed page.

In 1969 or 1970, as part of a promotion by the Book of the Month Club, I got the photo reduced complete OED for $16. It has four photo reduced pages per page on two volumes, in a heavy cardboard slipcase, complete with a small carboard drawer at the top with a magnifying glass. When I first got it, I could read most of the entries w/o the magnifying glass. Now, even with my tri-focals, I need the magnifying glass. It's still just farking awesome, though.

I also have the huge, 15 lb Liddell & Scott Greek Lexicon, it's smaller Intermediate version and the big Lewis & Short Latin dictionary, all by the OUP and a good number of the old Oxford Classical Texts. Quality stuff. The paper is a hemp paper, made from the discarded and then pulped mooring ropes from Royal Navy ships.

/yeah, I know, "you sound old," etc.
 
Displayed 50 of 62 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report