The history of maps is actually pretty hilarious. People would just make shit up cause if you haven't been there and don't have another map for comparison who the hell knows? Map makers would also put fake towns on their maps so they could see if anyone was plagiarizing them. It was basically all grifters for a while.
a "real" word is one that people actually use to communicate. i could see a dictionary coinage making its way into real world use, but i don't know of any such examples
No, the dictionary isnt the king of language. If no one is using word, and the editor just invented that word, you cant go out and use the word expecting anyone to know what youre talking about. It only becomes a word if people know what the fuck youre saying.
Dictionaries describe the language that already exists, they dont create new language from thin air and enforce its use.
Not necessarily. Plenty of dictionaries have been written as attempts at language reform rather than as exercises in just describing existing language as objectively as possible. Noah Webster for example didn't invent entirely new words, but he pushed certain spelling reforms in his dictionary that in no small part is responsible for American vs British differences such as "Color" vs "Colour". I can't think off the top of my head of a dictionary created with significant intention to promote a specific additional vocabulary, but I'd be thoroughly surprised if its never been done before.
With the recent decline of linguistic perscriptivism falling ever more out of vogue, some people seem to have adopted a hardline descriptivist view of language as only ever evolving from unplanned organic use, which is completely ahistorical. There have been many centralized top-down reforms of language, where there was an explicit survey and analysis of dialects across a region, followed by an intentional reformation of the language into a planned form seen as more standardized and consistent. As the Roman Empire dissolved in much of Western Europe, Latin began to fracture into regional isolates that were quickly becoming unintelligable to each other. The Carolingian Empire attempted several language reforms (with varying degrees of success) to create a once-again universally intelligable language. For English, the Court of Chancery played a major part in the standardization of the language, promoting certain styles vocabularies and spellings over others.
I was watching Dateline or some shit like that, and they were interviewing someone about a traumatic event, and they said something along the lines of "I was feeling so many different things, I was having feelings that Webster hasn't even come up with a word for yet" and i had to pause for a second to take a step back and try on their worldview of linguistics which was so much different than mine.
The history of maps is actually pretty hilarious. People would just make shit up cause if you haven't been there and don't have another map for comparison who the hell knows? Map makers would also put fake towns on their maps so they could see if anyone was plagiarizing them. It was basically all grifters for a while.
dictionaries do the fake towns thing, but with words
If it's in a dictionary and has a definition isn't that just a new real word?
a "real" word is one that people actually use to communicate. i could see a dictionary coinage making its way into real world use, but i don't know of any such examples
If no one orders a meal but its still on the menu it's still a meal.
good username :galaxy-brain:
No, the dictionary isnt the king of language. If no one is using word, and the editor just invented that word, you cant go out and use the word expecting anyone to know what youre talking about. It only becomes a word if people know what the fuck youre saying.
Dictionaries describe the language that already exists, they dont create new language from thin air and enforce its use.
Not necessarily. Plenty of dictionaries have been written as attempts at language reform rather than as exercises in just describing existing language as objectively as possible. Noah Webster for example didn't invent entirely new words, but he pushed certain spelling reforms in his dictionary that in no small part is responsible for American vs British differences such as "Color" vs "Colour". I can't think off the top of my head of a dictionary created with significant intention to promote a specific additional vocabulary, but I'd be thoroughly surprised if its never been done before.
With the recent decline of linguistic perscriptivism falling ever more out of vogue, some people seem to have adopted a hardline descriptivist view of language as only ever evolving from unplanned organic use, which is completely ahistorical. There have been many centralized top-down reforms of language, where there was an explicit survey and analysis of dialects across a region, followed by an intentional reformation of the language into a planned form seen as more standardized and consistent. As the Roman Empire dissolved in much of Western Europe, Latin began to fracture into regional isolates that were quickly becoming unintelligable to each other. The Carolingian Empire attempted several language reforms (with varying degrees of success) to create a once-again universally intelligable language. For English, the Court of Chancery played a major part in the standardization of the language, promoting certain styles vocabularies and spellings over others.
Yeah they do. By making up words and putting them in the dictionary they are doing just that.
Every word at some point was "just some guy inventing a word". I'm sure they were't ALL dictionary editors, but I'd bet some of them were
I was watching Dateline or some shit like that, and they were interviewing someone about a traumatic event, and they said something along the lines of "I was feeling so many different things, I was having feelings that Webster hasn't even come up with a word for yet" and i had to pause for a second to take a step back and try on their worldview of linguistics which was so much different than mine.
I'm sure this reflects on their view on linguistics and not just what they said in the moment while recollecting trauma.