| Author |
Message |
R H Draney
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:01 am
Post subject: Re: a doozy of an obituary |
|
|
Hagrinas Mivali filted:
| Quote: |
Dictionaries don't care about Usenet either, or at least they claim not to
care. When columnist Dan Savage wanted to get "santorum" into dictionaries,
he was told that Internet references don't count.
|
Definition: a fermented beverage made from sugar cane by a Mexican masked
wrestler....r
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
don groves
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:01 am
Post subject: Re: a doozy of an obituary |
|
|
In article <cnjb1l01nuq@drn.newsguy.com>, R H Draney at
dadoctah@spamcop.net exposited:
| Quote: | Hagrinas Mivali filted:
Dictionaries don't care about Usenet either, or at least they claim not to
care. When columnist Dan Savage wanted to get "santorum" into dictionaries,
he was told that Internet references don't count.
Definition: a fermented beverage made from sugar cane by a Mexican masked
wrestler....r
|
I was wondering why a Senator from PA should be in a dictionary.
--
dg (domain=ccwebster) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Dean
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:01 am
Post subject: Re: a doozy of an obituary |
|
|
Hagrinas Mivali wrote:
| Quote: | Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' ) wrote:
Sara Lorimer wrote:
The obituary for David Shulman, "a self-described Sherlock Holmes of
Americanisms," in today's New York Times not only quotes AUE's Jesse
Sheidlower (for some odd reason, though, they don't mention AUE)
The media still doesn't know about usenet. They know about blogs, the
web, people downloading music on peer to peer networks. They don't
know about usenet. I don't know why.
Dictionaries don't care about Usenet either, or at least they claim
not to care. When columnist Dan Savage wanted to get "santorum" into
dictionaries, he was told that Internet references don't count.
|
Ben Zimmer's been posting OED cites based on Usenet for a little while
now.
--
John Dean
Oxford
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jesse Sheidlower
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:02 pm
Post subject: Re: a doozy of an obituary |
|
|
In article <cnje69$ubn$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>,
John Dean <john-dean@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Hagrinas Mivali wrote:
Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' ) wrote:
The media still doesn't know about usenet. They know about blogs, the
web, people downloading music on peer to peer networks. They don't
know about usenet. I don't know why.
Dictionaries don't care about Usenet either, or at least they claim
not to care. When columnist Dan Savage wanted to get "santorum" into
dictionaries, he was told that Internet references don't count.
Ben Zimmer's been posting OED cites based on Usenet for a little while
now.
|
Indded, there are 400 quotes from Usenet in OED right now,
with about that number currently waiting in the wings for
soon-to-be-published entries. I don't think there can be any
reasonable argument made that we "don't care" about Usenet.
Jesse Sheidlower
OED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Brader
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 6:06 am
Post subject: Re: a doozy of an obituary |
|
|
Jesse Sheidlower writes:
| Quote: | Indded, there are 400 quotes from Usenet in OED right now,
with about that number currently waiting in the wings for
soon-to-be-published entries. I don't think there can be any
reasonable argument made that we "don't care" about Usenet.
|
I suppose there couldn't an entry for Usenet itself, as it starts
with U, but is there one for "newsgroup", and if not, may we see it?
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "It was too crazy to be true,
msb@vex.net | and too crazy to be false." --Tom Clancy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jesse Sheidlower
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 20, 2004 6:00 pm
Post subject: Re: a doozy of an obituary |
|
|
In article <10ptbnsph47u5fd@corp.supernews.com>,
Mark Brader <msb@vex.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Jesse Sheidlower writes:
Indded, there are 400 quotes from Usenet in OED right now,
with about that number currently waiting in the wings for
soon-to-be-published entries. I don't think there can be any
reasonable argument made that we "don't care" about Usenet.
I suppose there couldn't an entry for Usenet itself, as it starts
with U,
|
Sure there could; it's been there for three years or so. We
publish some high-profile entries regardless of their place
in the alphabet.
---
Usenet, n.
Computing.
[< USE v. + -net (in NETWORK n.), after Usenix (see
quot. 1980), blend of USE v. or USER n.1 and UNIX n.]
A communication system that enables users to subscribe to
newsgroups on the Internet or other networks; these
newsgroups (and their members) collectively. Initiated in
1979, as a Unix-based system, at Duke University,
N. Carolina.
1980 ;login: (Newslet. Usenix Assoc.) Sept. 12/1 Duke
started USENET and used it at the last Usenix
conference. Any Unix site can be part of USENET as long as
they have a dial in port. 1989 DesignCenter II. 18/1 HP
customers gain access to public domain categories in notes
through a diverse network called \u2018Usenet\u2019. 1993
E. RAYMOND New Hacker's Dict. (ed. 2) 300 The label newbie
is sometimes applied as a serious insult to a person who has
been around USENET for a long time but who carefully hides
all evidence of having a clue. 1997 Internet World Jan. 10/1
More complaints were heard about the quantity of junk mail,
off-topic posts, boorish behavior, and the general quality
of Usenet discussions.
----
| Quote: | but is there one for "newsgroup", and if not, may we see it?
|
Yes there is:
---
newsgroup, n.
Computing.
[< NEWS n. + GROUP n.]
A forum on a network, esp. the Internet, for the
discussion of a particular subject and the exchange of
information about it; a group of Internet users who
exchange e-mail messages on a topic of mutual interest.
1983 M. R. HORTON Request for Comments (Network Working
Group) (Electronic text) No. 850. 8 This allows
conversations within a newsgroup to be kept together, and
potentially users might shut off entire conversations
without unsubscribing to a newsgroup. 1983 Byte Oct. 219/1
Usenet provides a set of programs (collectively called
netnews) that allows messages to be posted in news groups,
where user-defined topics are discussed. 1990 L. WALL &
R. L. SCHWARTZ Programming Perl vii. 378 Since Perl is
constantly being improved (and broken) Larry frequently
posts patches to the Usenet newsgroup comp.lang.perl. 1994
Time 25 July 53/4 The newsgroups are organized into
hierarchies, such as science (sci), recreation (rec),
society (soc) and the miscellaneous category called
alternate (alt). 1998 P. CERUZZI Hist. Mod. Computing
ix. 298 UNIX-based news groups appeared after 1979, somewhat
independently of the mainstream ARPANET-Internet activities
and under the general name of Usenet.
---
Hmm, I can already see a few things to correct here....
(I think this entry appeared before we started to accept
citations from Usenet itself.)
Jesse Sheidlower
OED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Brader
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2004 12:02 pm
Post subject: Re: a doozy of an obituary |
|
|
Mark Brader:
| Quote: | I suppose there couldn't an entry for Usenet itself, as it starts
with U,
|
Jesse Sheidlower:
| Quote: | Sure there could; it's been there for three years or so. We
publish some high-profile entries regardless of their place
in the alphabet.
|
Well, it didn't occur to me that Usenet would be a high-profile entry.
Thanks for posting those.
--
Mark Brader | Those who mourn for "USENET like it was" should
Toronto | remember the original design estimates of maximum
msb@vex.net | traffic volume: 2 articles/day. --Steven Bellovin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hagrinas Mivali
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2004 6:08 am
Post subject: Re: a doozy of an obituary |
|
|
Jesse Sheidlower wrote:
| Quote: | In article <cnje69$ubn$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>,
John Dean <john-dean@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
Hagrinas Mivali wrote:
Bill Bonde ( ``And the Lamb lies down on Broadway'' ) wrote:
The media still doesn't know about usenet. They know about blogs,
the web, people downloading music on peer to peer networks. They
don't know about usenet. I don't know why.
Dictionaries don't care about Usenet either, or at least they claim
not to care. When columnist Dan Savage wanted to get "santorum" into
dictionaries, he was told that Internet references don't count.
Ben Zimmer's been posting OED cites based on Usenet for a little
while now.
Indded, there are 400 quotes from Usenet in OED right now,
with about that number currently waiting in the wings for
soon-to-be-published entries. I don't think there can be any
reasonable argument made that we "don't care" about Usenet.
Jesse Sheidlower
OED
|
I based my comment on the quotes below from a letter attributed to "Your Man
on the Inside" that appeared at:
http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/archives/2004/01/ . Perhaps "don't care"
was not the right phrase, but the impression I got was not one that put
Usenet on par with other sources.
"Firstly, our dictionary is not too sold on the idea of online sources
being reliable and permanent enough to warrant an entry that will last for
posterity. Therefore, printed sources are more successful.
....
If I remember correctly, the traditional rule of thumb for new entries was
that the word needs to appear in at least five different widespread printed
media sources over the course of five years. I think this is less relevant
these days with new techno-jargon, but it can still be a factor. " |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in