Authors Alarmed As Oxford Junior Dictionary Drops Nature Words 174
Freshly Exhumed writes: Margaret Atwood, Andrew Motion, and Michael Morpurgo are among 28 authors criticizing Oxford University Press's decision to scrap a number of words associated with nature from its junior dictionary. In an open letter (PDF) released on Monday, the acclaimed writers said they are "profoundly alarmed" and urged the publisher to reinstate words cut since 2007 in the next edition of the Oxford Junior Dictionary. Among words to be dropped are acorn, blackberries, and minnows.
Understandable, given the market share (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Damn! Just.....damn.
The Big Picture (Score:2)
The JOED removed these because they needed the space for "surveillance", "camera", and "goodthink." They're lagging behind the USA, though, as we've shortcut the entire process by no longer requiring students to be able to read. (Or write. Or do math.)
Between that and our fabulous jobs policy*, the USA leads the world. Now, if only lead weren't toxic, we'd be ok.
* US Jobs Policy:
Step 1: Export tech jobs overseas to increase corporate profit
Step 2: Throw all low-skill immigrants back across the border
Step 3:
Who remembers Archimedes and RISC OS? (Score:5, Insightful)
They also removed Acorn [wikipedia.org], whose most lasting impact is probably the spinoff ARM Ltd. that maintains the instruction set used in these mobile computers.
Re: Who remembers Archimedes and RISC OS? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
ARMs are weapons
They are in Sony's Wild ARMs games [wikipedia.org]. Yet none of them have been ported to anything but MIPS.
Re:Understandable, given the market share (Score:5, Funny)
It's actually all part of their new freemium strategy. They give away their junior dictionary for free, or for below cost. But then, when the kid really needs to find a word like "forest" because the kid has actually no idea what a "forest" is outside the context of Minecraft, and the school purposefully makes him read completely outdated tree-hugging communist manifestos from long dead authors that may contain the word "forest" in them, then the parent feels naturally obligated to upgrade to the next version.
Re: (Score:3)
That seems like a dumb strategy. Dictionaries are commodity items, and most people already have one they can give to their kids. The internet has free dictionaries, as do many word processors. The only dictionaries that have any real value are specialist ones and those allowed in exams, and the latter must obviously contain all the words required for said exam anyway.
Minnow? (Score:2)
Mmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
All of these are things a kid should come across while growing up in a few parts of the world.
Acorn is an especially disappointing word to lose--suddenly all these things falling from the sky don't have a word. We just live in a world where things fall from the sky and are undefined.
Minnows are a bit strange to lose because it's a basic fish, for a pet or for feeding to pets or for following. But I suppose you could always learn the word when you got the pet.
Finally, did they get rid of blackberries because it was racist?
Re: (Score:3)
Finally, did they get rid of blackberries because it was racist?
And isn't it racist to get rid of the blackberries?
Re: (Score:1)
I'm worried about the Dingle-Americans.
John Dingell not amused... (Score:2)
No word on his thoughts on berries [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
"Acorn is an especially disappointing word to lose--suddenly all these things falling from the sky don't have a word"
Acorn Computers?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Even if the sky is falling down (Score:3)
Acorn is an especially disappointing word to lose--suddenly all these things falling from the sky don't have a word. We just live in a world where things fall from the sky and are undefined.
Perhaps this "Chicken Little" fear mentality is what certain influential politicians want to impose on children.
Re:Mmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've got both acorns and blackberries growing in my yard. Not sure what I'm supposed to call them now...
More seriously - there has to be more to it than that, but possibly finding out would involve clicking the link and reading, and that would itself require a higher level of interest in this story than I actually possess.
Re: (Score:2)
Acorns: slingshot fuel
Blackberries: yummy things with nasty stickers
Minnows: Gilligan fish
Re: (Score:2)
We also all have an uvula, those trees can often have galls and many buildings have dormers. Doesn't necessarily mean they belong in a short childrens dictionary, though. After all, there are "real" dictionaries as well as the internet for anything not covered in the shortened one.
Re:Mmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
Acorns and minnows though? I'd keep those both because they're stuff kids actually encounter in many parts of the world, and they're common metaphors, which gets really weird if you don't know what the actual thing is.
Re: (Score:2)
I hadn't heard of minnows, and didn't know what it was until I looked it up now :) Apparently you can go through half a lifetime as a fluent second-language speaker - using the language both professionally and privately - without encountering it...
Re: (Score:2)
"From tiny acorns grow mighty oaks"
In the future kids will see that poster at Spencer's Gifts and say, "WTF?"
That's good then - puts it in the same category as everything else at Spencer's Gifts.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? When I was a kid, I caught minnows (and tadpoles-- are those in there?) and collected acorns. We had a blackberry bush. Seriously, these are rather everyday words in the Western world.
Everyday words that everybody knows would actually be great candidates for removal from a small pocket dictionary. You want moderately common words that not everyone would understand, but where a few word definition is more useful than an encyclopedic explanation.
Re: (Score:2)
I've got both acorns and blackberries growing in my yard. Not sure what I'm supposed to call them now...
According to the article, you should call them analogues and broadbands. Note how easy it is to memorize that thanks to the first characters being identical.
Re:Mmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, it's not as though these words have been struck from the English lexicon. Seriously... do kids nowadays rely exclusively on the Oxford Junior Dictionary instead of doing a quick web search or consulting a more complete dictionary? I don't recall ever in my life using a "kid's" dictionary during my school years. We used the big ones right from the start.
It wasn't always perfect, of course. I recall asking my teacher what a word meant, and she correctly told me that I should look it up in the dictionary myself. I did so, found the word, and it was defined by a different word I didn't know. I looked up that word, and it used the first word in it's definition. My teacher then relented and explained the word to me herself. That's why kids have teachers and parents.
All in all, a tempest in a teacup. Kids will learn these words once they graduate to more complete resources. No big deal. Side note: I'll bet "tempest" isn't in the junior dictionary either.
Re: (Score:3)
First off, it's not as though these words have been struck from the English lexicon. Seriously... do kids nowadays rely exclusively on the Oxford Junior Dictionary instead of doing a quick web search or consulting a more complete dictionary? I don't recall ever in my life using a "kid's" dictionary during my school years. We used the big ones right from the start.
It wasn't always perfect, of course. I recall asking my teacher what a word meant, and she correctly told me that I should look it up in the dictionary myself. I did so, found the word, and it was defined by a different word I didn't know. I looked up that word, and it used the first word in it's definition. My teacher then relented and explained the word to me herself. That's why kids have teachers and parents.
All in all, a tempest in a teacup. Kids will learn these words once they graduate to more complete resources. No big deal. Side note: I'll bet "tempest" isn't in the junior dictionary either.
So what you are saying is it's much ado about nothing?
Re: (Score:3)
So what you are saying is it's much ado about nothing?
As you like it. Naturally, one can conclude that, despite the process of defining the English language being an occasional comedy of errors, we must admit that measure for measure, all's well that ends well,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The OJD is now given to every child in the UK primary school system (equivalent of the US elementary school) to ensure those with parents that aren't bothered or too poor have the single book that's of great use when doing homework. Perhaps you need a dose of reality, not every kid has the internet at home. What you did at school is irrelevant, this is today, not you fagging behind the bikeshed yesterday.
So yes, damn straight it's a big deal that the singular reference all kids have is getting hacked back a
Re: (Score:2)
Minnows are a bit strange to lose...
I guess the editors were traumatized by Gilligan's Island when they were kids.
Re: (Score:2)
ACORN: Defunct community action group and general boogeyman of the right. Obsolete.
Blackberries: Given the tension in Fergusen and New York, dropping this word is probably wise.
Minnow: racial slur (probably).
Doubleplusgood (Score:5, Funny)
The first edition of the newspeak dictionary is out. Doubleplusgood news brothers!
Daddy, where do trees come from? (Score:2)
Re:Daddy, where do trees come from? (Score:5, Funny)
Sort algorithms.
Re: (Score:2)
My child's dictionary will consist of... (Score:2)
"define:" and that's about it. She wont be getting an oxford "junior dictionary", wtf is that anyways..
Re: (Score:2)
define: anyways
Let me know how that goes.
I would stop (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Our local Rotary Club gives free dictionaries to all the 3rd graders every year. I checked, but it's not the OED Junior, it's a special edition "Dictionary & Gazetteer" compiled by The Dictionary Project (https://www.dictionaryproject.org/).
Re: (Score:2)
I've got hard copies of the OED from less than ten years ago. It was like $30 for a hard cover great big thing. The best part is that it provides a wealth more information than any online dictionary I've seen unless you have the overpriced subscription to the OED. I also got the thesaurus for about the same price.
What can you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What can you expect? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, yes, but as your own link explains:
The Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year is a word or expression that has attracted a great deal of interest during the year to date.
So it's less that they chose those words and more that we, as English speakers, chose them.
"Acorns, and Blackberries, and Minnows, oh my!" (Score:1, Troll)
Spoken with a Surrender Dorothy!" voice . . .
Acorns and Blackberries and Minnows just happen to be the three things that were removed from British Royalty member Prince George Michael's rectum after he fell asleep at the wheel of his SUV in London, ripped to his tits on drugs.
A bloke at the pub down the street told me that his sister works in a hospital, so he must know.
They also excavated a few hamsters and gerbils in duck tape
Coincidence? I think not!.
Once again, it's one rule for the Royal Family,
Re: (Score:2)
They also excavated a few hamsters and gerbils in duck tape
Duck tape is also being removed from the dictionary.
Re: (Score:2)
For the same reason, we should also ban aspirin, zipper, cellophane, velcro, teflon, freon, and linoleum from the dictionary.
Re: (Score:2)
So? (Score:3)
Second (and I tend to agree with this one): make sure our children's learning institutions such as the public schools insist on a certain quality of product in return for our tuition/tax money. If the Oxford Junior Dictionary doesn't support all of the lessons we want our instructors to teach to our children then find one that does and buy it instead.
Only when they volunteer for it. (Score:2)
Literally (Score:2)
Its bad enough they already changed the definition of literally because nobody used it correctly.
Re:Literally (Score:5, Insightful)
"Incorrect" in languages is only incorrect until we change the rules. If common language usage becomes inconsistent with the current written rules, at some point it makes more sense to change the rules to reflect the actual usage than to try to correct usage en mass*. This tends to drive language purists insane. They seem to endlessly complain when popular "made up" words get added to the dictionary, without really stopping to consider that every single word in the dictionary was "made up" at some point in history, as was every grammar rule in existence.
Languages continually evolve over time - there's nothing more or less "official" about our modern English language versus the English language of 500 years ago, even though there are significant differences. The point of a language is to communicate with each other, and just as our technology continues to evolve, so does the way in which we communicate.
* For example, since this is Slashdot, consider the attempt to encourage the public to distinguish between "hacker" and "cracker". That distinction never gained any ground, and it's likely it never will. Likewise, almost no one calls the Linux operating system GNU/Linux outside a few die-hard FSF folks.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Incorrect" in languages is only incorrect until we change the rules.
True but there needs to be some definition of what counts as 'we' when it comes to changing the rules. A few ignorant kids posting comments on Twitter and Facebook showing they have no clue what 'literally' means should not be enough to get the meaning changed in a dictionary. Indeed I would guess the way that most people saw the 'new' meaning was through reposts with a comment to the effect of "look what this idiot wrote".
Re:Literally (Score:5, Insightful)
When pretty much every English dictionary is in agreement on a revised definition, then we can safely conclude it's more than just a few ignorant kids posting on Facebook and Twitter.
I find it somewhat amusing to be defending the use of the "non-correct" definition of "literally" because honestly, it really irritates me as well. So, you and I can continue being irritated until the day we die, or we can accept that people are going to use the term in a figurative sense (rather ironic, given the original definition), and get on with our lives. If it makes you feel any better, keep in mind that even the new dictionary definition indicates that this is an "informal" use, so it's still not appropriate to use in most written works.
Re:Literally (Score:5, Insightful)
This tends to drive language purists insane. They seem to endlessly complain when popular "made up" words get added to the dictionary, without really stopping to consider that every single word in the dictionary was "made up" at some point in history, as was every grammar rule in existence.
Most complaints about change in language aren't about the introduction of some new meme-ish neologism or term that's sprung into use. The real (and justified) complaints are about changes that reflect a reduction in clarity, or which make expression surrounding critical thinking or subtlety less fashionable or in real terms more difficult. Changes in language that dumb communication down should indeed be fought against, and loudly. Giving in to the habits of the incurious, the poor communicators, and the lazy is just a way to make more of them.
Re: (Score:2)
While you are absolutely correct, I sometimes wish for a more prescriptivist approach. After all, we are now left with no good synonym for "literally." Perhaps we'll have to start using reduplication, and say, "literally literally?"
Re: (Score:1)
Login next time, Richard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Literally (Score:4, Interesting)
Heh, I would certainly ask you if you meant "decimate as in the Roman army definition" or "decimate as in killed a whole lot of them".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with the redefinition of the word literally is that it has had its meaning reversed, this is tantamount to redefining the word 'correct' to mean 'incorrect'. Changing dictionary definitions for words due to common usage is bad enough, pulling a complete 180 on the definition serves only to eventually confuse all concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
modern kids vocabulary (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Such as redefining "liberal" to mean "gun-toting thief who insists that every be disarmed"?
Age group? (Score:3)
I tried to look up what age group this dictionary targets. It took a while to find, because this particular dictionary seems to exist in a sort of quasi-online, quasi-physical state, where the book's website tells you to go buy it, and the official OUP site doesn't recognize it.
Anyways, it's apparently aimed at ages 7 and up, and defines 13,000 words over 288 pages. You might be able to justify it, if these words are no longer in the top 13k words by usage. Then again, the common words aren't the ones you need a definition for.
Re: (Score:2)
Essential qualities in a definition are identifying the category to which the word belongs, and the distinguishing characteristic(s) that separate the word from other words in the category. In most contexts, a minnow is a "small fish".
You might not even notice if you ate a single minnow. Scoop 'em up and fry them in hot oil by the bucketful.
Words removed from dictionary all the time (Score:1)
This isn't unusual. Languages evolve. Words that fall out of use are being removed from the dictionary all the time. For example, the latest Webster's no longer lists "gullible".
Re: (Score:1)
'acorn' to remove? Were you ever a kid?
Not to worry! (Score:3, Insightful)
They were replaced with: "dildo" "fist" and "transgender"........
Not quite the same .. ring? (Score:2)
...
The weather started getting rough,
The tiny ship was tossed,
If not for the courage of the fearless crew
The [redacted] would be lost, the [redacted] would be lost
It's never been a "real" dictionary (Score:3)
The "Junior Edition" has never been a "real" dictionary. It's always been a pared down subset of the full dictionary they publish.
Complaining that it doesn't have certain words is like complaining that a Collegiate Dictionary doesn't have all the words that a full dictionary twice the size (or larger) does.
Let's face it: most people live in the urban world nowadays. They're far more likely to run into technology buzzwords than they are parts of nature. To most city dwellers, "nature" never extends beyond a walk in a manicured park.
Re: (Score:3)
while true that the urban world has changed a lot, blackberries and acorns are probably some of the more likely rather than less likely parts of nature they will come across, both can be found even in many large cities. Be interesting to know if they have kept things that are less common nowadays. hell they put in analogue which is a word, I would think, that a child is far less likely to run into.
Re: (Score:2)
In what way would the 2-3 word dictionary definition of acorn actually help you, really? Bearing in mind that you wouldn't be able to figure out what that oak nut was if you didn't already know its name, so that doesn't count.
The random online definition from google is "the fruit of the oak, a smooth oval nut in a rough cuplike base." Very useful I guess assuming that you know the word acorn, you don't know what it is, but you do know what an oak tree is.
This is also just the "top 13K" words edition - thin
Re: (Score:2)
It's common practice to provide drawings for many of the more basic nouns, and acorn is a prime example.
To establish a language in a logical manner, something has to be tied to reality. An effort to make a language out of words solely defined by other words is circular, baseless, and futile. Some things must be identified by pointing (illustration) and acorn is a good place for a root.
Small subset (Score:5, Informative)
The Oxford Junior Dictionary contains about 3% of the Oxford English Dictionary. Some words need to be swapped out to make room for words that are more relevant to the users.
Re: Small subset (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In related news, Wiktionary has been forced to drop 10% of its words due to storage space limitations...
I'm imagining that "Junior" dictionaries are things distant aunts buy their nieces and nephews whom they don't really know, such that the aunt should really be the target market of the demographic research on word inclusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is where set theory and averages do not match. Even is the average person only knows 15,000-30,000 each person will know a different set of words. For example one person might not know the word "elucidate" but another one might not. If you union the sets of words each person knows that set will be much bigger than 15k-30k.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:"cut and paste"? (Score:4, Informative)
No, originally it was only cut and paste. Because once upon a time that was how you did large scale re-editing. You had a pair of scissors, a pot of paste, and you cut out passages and pasted them where you wanted them to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not true.
Some times it really is quicker to do the job in an analogue way than to figure out a way to do it electronically with what tools are available. Or, which tools are allowable according to a site's IT policies ; if I'm forbidden to use "portable" apps by the IT department on a particular job, then it doesn't matter if I've got an appropriate DTP or CAD or drawing application on a memory stick. Those sites are also likely to be the ones that take 3 weeks to process
All words (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The junior edition contains expanded, simpler explanations for words, which take up more space, so they only include a subset of the currently recognised english langauge - its not as if this is the first time they have omitted words, they've done it ever since the first junior edition was released.
Re: (Score:2)
The full unabridged OED takes up a huge chunk of wall space
...or a memory chip the size of a baby's fingernail. I mean, it is reassuring to have a few physical copies sitting in libraries around the world for sentimental purposes and backup in the event of the great EMP, but there's no other rational need for a paper dictionary. In modern society, if the power has been out for a week, the inability to have a properly refereed game of Scrabble is going to be the least of your worries.
Up until the coming of digital books nobody had space for a full unabridged OED
...which ceased to be an issue a quarter of a century ago with the arrival of the C
Personally... (Score:2)
...I'd drop 'dictionary'. Who uses them instead of a website anyway?
Easy (Score:2)
It's a survivalist plot.
You can live from these 3 things in the woods if civilization collapses, but they don't want the iGeneration to know.
So what? (Score:2)
As Triumph would say, the correct answer is "Who gives a shit?"
Does anybody still buy dead-tree dictionaries? I don't see this being relevant outside of a few grandparents who might buy this "Junior Dictionary" for their grandkids in the mistaken belief that it isn't easier for the kiddos to just look words up online, where space is not a premium so there's no need to omit words.
JUNIOR Dictionary (Score:2)
Look unless you want that giant 2 foot cube book they used to have in the library... we are going to need to leave some words out.
Re: (Score:2)
nonsense, less than ten thousand words are in common use, the OED has almost 200,000 words
Use the Excellent 1913 Webster's Dictionary (Score:3)
The dictionary used to be a very different book, meant for much more than listing definitions.
From the blog post linked below:
"The first thing you’ll notice is that the example sentences don’t sound like they came out of a DMV training manual (“the lights started flashing”) — they come from Milton and Shakespeare and Tennyson (“A thought flashed through me, which I clothed in act”)."
http://jsomers.net/blog/dictio... [jsomers.net]
After reading James Somers' post about adding the 1913 Webster's dictionary to his system I gave it a try. The old dictionary sometimes has archaic definitions but is generally much more useful and even entertaining to use.
Simple Definition (Score:5, Funny)
What constitutes a forest might be complicated in the UK. But it's simple in the US .
No, what constitutes a forest is simple everywhere. It is just defined as ...er... a ...um... ok who who thought dropping 'forest' from the dictionary was a good idea?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Simple Definition (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We should require all public school students, unless they have a doctor's note, to attend mandatory education at a forest for some amount of time. I'm thinking 1 week.
What constitutes a forest might be complicated in the UK.
Naw, all they have to do is hang around in Dunsinane till great Birnam wood remove to it... The UK kids tend to eat that stuff up.
FTFY (Score:2)
Let me fix that for you using the junior dictionary:
Wow, I'd only be, like, OMG for stuff that is like, real, you know, not this stuff that is, like, meh, whatever.