| Author |
Message |
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:40 pm
Post subject: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
It would be relatively easy to greatly improve the communication process
by having a single standard dictionary that everyone could refer to. This
dictionary would be published on the web. Every time that a sense meaning
for a word changes, another entry is made in this standard dictionary. This
entry would replace the prior entry, but the prior entry would still be available.
If anyone needs to refer to a specific prior entry, they would refer to it by
the date that it was made. Example: Absolute(2007)
Every sense meaning would have a standard sequential number. If someone
wanted to be completely clear which sense meaning that they were referring
to, they could merely include the ISO standard sense meaning number with
the use of the word. Example: Absolute(3).
The idea is that everyone would use the same standard communication
protocol within their encoding and decoding meanings using words within the
communication process model.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:47 pm
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
Peter Olcott <olcott@att.net> spake thusly:
| Quote: | It would be relatively easy to greatly improve the communication process
by having a single standard dictionary that everyone could refer to. This
dictionary would be published on the web.
|
For which value of "everyone"? There must be hundreds of millions of
English speakers who don't have Internet access.
| Quote: | Every time that a sense meaning
for a word changes, another entry is made in this standard dictionary. This
entry would replace the prior entry, but the prior entry would still be available.
If anyone needs to refer to a specific prior entry, they would refer to it by
the date that it was made. Example: Absolute(2007)
Every sense meaning would have a standard sequential number. If someone
wanted to be completely clear which sense meaning that they were referring
to, they could merely include the ISO standard sense meaning number with
the use of the word. Example: Absolute(3).
The idea is that everyone would use the same standard communication
protocol within their encoding and decoding meanings using words within the
communication process model.
|
For which dialect of English? American? Scottish? Yorkshire?
Bradford?
If it's for all of those, then, I have to take issues with
"relatively easy".
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bertel Lund Hansen
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:12 pm
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
Peter Olcott skrev:
| Quote: | This dictionary would be published on the web. Every time that
a sense meaning for a word changes, another entry is made in
this standard dictionary.
|
These explanations would consist of words, right? And the meaning
of these words will have to be agreed upon, right? So first we
need a dictionary to define the meaning of the words that we are
going to use in our standard dictionary.
Crosspostet to: <news:alt.usage.english>,<news:alt.english.usage>
--
Bertel
Denmark
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:17 pm
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
"the Omrud" <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1dd2d3bca5e12daa98a1c1@news.ntlworld.com...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott <olcott@att.net> spake thusly:
It would be relatively easy to greatly improve the communication process
by having a single standard dictionary that everyone could refer to. This
dictionary would be published on the web.
For which value of "everyone"? There must be hundreds of millions of
English speakers who don't have Internet access.
The local library has this access. Besides this is only for people that |
for some reason need to be completely precise. If the truly have this
need, then their place of employment would provide this access.
| Quote: |
Every time that a sense meaning
for a word changes, another entry is made in this standard dictionary. This
entry would replace the prior entry, but the prior entry would still be available.
If anyone needs to refer to a specific prior entry, they would refer to it by
the date that it was made. Example: Absolute(2007)
Every sense meaning would have a standard sequential number. If someone
wanted to be completely clear which sense meaning that they were referring
to, they could merely include the ISO standard sense meaning number with
the use of the word. Example: Absolute(3).
The idea is that everyone would use the same standard communication
protocol within their encoding and decoding meanings using words within the
communication process model.
For which dialect of English? American? Scottish? Yorkshire?
Bradford?
If it's for all of those, then, I have to take issues with
"relatively easy".
If we factor out the commonality how much of a difference is there? |
We would have the universal subset, and the differences could be accounted
for by whatever means is most expedient. It might not be worth the trouble
to keep track of all of the slang, except in those cases where the meanings
remained somewhat constant.
| Quote: |
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:21 pm
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
"Bertel Lund Hansen" <nospamfilius@lundhansen.dk> wrote in message news:1mdpqv7gccg0o.1st593fztpb0b.dlg@40tude.net...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott skrev:
This dictionary would be published on the web. Every time that
a sense meaning for a word changes, another entry is made in
this standard dictionary.
These explanations would consist of words, right? And the meaning
of these words will have to be agreed upon, right? So first we
need a dictionary to define the meaning of the words that we are
going to use in our standard dictionary.
|
We could start with an arbitrary dictionary. The choice would be made
on the basis of which one is the most complete. I would guess that this
would be the Oxford. Only the current meaning would be included in
the first ISO standard.
| Quote: |
Crosspostet to: <news:alt.usage.english>,<news:alt.english.usage
--
Bertel
Denmark |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Iain
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:24 pm
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | It would be relatively easy to greatly improve the communication process
by having a single standard dictionary that everyone could refer to. This
dictionary would be published on the web. Every time that a sense meaning
for a word changes, another entry is made in this standard dictionary.
|
Words are required to define words. What is the semantic reference
point?
There is no real need to record senses in an exact way. Record the
precise meaning of "Direct" and let the various senses of "Director"
take care of themselves.
Prescriptivism would be a more sensible approach -- Prescriptivism is
okay for as long as it is known for what it is, e.g. there is nothing
spurious about Esperanto. You could invent a "lingua franca English" if
you wanted, but it'd evolve semantically unless you find a way of
recording meaning as if it were sound, or you have a linguistic rule
binding meaning with morphology, like Esperanto, in which word building
is a part of ordinary speech.
~Iain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rick Wotnaz
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:29 pm
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
"Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> wrote in
news:Sk3af.2004$5N1.1772@dukeread08:
| Quote: | It would be relatively easy to greatly improve the communication
process by having a single standard dictionary that everyone
could refer to. This dictionary would be published on the web.
Every time that a sense meaning for a word changes, another
entry is made in this standard dictionary. This entry would
replace the prior entry, but the prior entry would still be
available. If anyone needs to refer to a specific prior entry,
they would refer to it by the date that it was made. Example:
Absolute(2007)
Every sense meaning would have a standard sequential number. If
someone wanted to be completely clear which sense meaning that
they were referring to, they could merely include the ISO
standard sense meaning number with the use of the word.
Example: Absolute(3).
The idea is that everyone would use the same standard
communication protocol within their encoding and decoding
meanings using words within the communication process model.
|
Are(1) you(1) completely(4) satisfied(3) that(4) this(6) proposal
(2) is(1) truly(5) practical(4)? Writing(2) would(1) have(26) to
(21) look(5) like( this(1), for(3) the(5) love(12) of(7) God
(1341)!
--
rzed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:36 pm
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | "Bertel Lund Hansen" <nospamfilius@lundhansen.dk> wrote in message
[...]
These explanations would consist of words, right? And the meaning
of these words will have to be agreed upon, right? So first we
need a dictionary to define the meaning of the words that we are
going to use in our standard dictionary.
We could start with an arbitrary dictionary. The choice would be
made
on the basis of which one is the most complete. I would guess that
this
would be the Oxford. Only the current meaning would be included in
the first ISO standard.
[...] |
And so, with a single deft motion, he reveals that he reads the OED
with the same scrupulous attention he accords to Usenet postings.
"Only the current meaning", forsooth!
You are just taking the Mick, aren't you? Please tell me it's all a
joke.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Dean
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:38 pm
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | It would be relatively easy to greatly improve the communication
process
by having a single standard dictionary that everyone could refer to.
|
I disagree with everything you say in that sentence but I will defend
with your last breath your right to post it
| Quote: | This dictionary would be published on the web.
|
If you're short of a fruitless lifetime labour, you should start
immediately. Otherwise, you should contribute to the existing Wiktionary
at
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Main_Page
--
John Dean
Oxford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:53 pm
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:3ss18iFp4m9bU1@individual.net...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
"Bertel Lund Hansen" <nospamfilius@lundhansen.dk> wrote in message
[...]
These explanations would consist of words, right? And the meaning
of these words will have to be agreed upon, right? So first we
need a dictionary to define the meaning of the words that we are
going to use in our standard dictionary.
We could start with an arbitrary dictionary. The choice would be
made
on the basis of which one is the most complete. I would guess that
this
would be the Oxford. Only the current meaning would be included in
the first ISO standard.
[...]
And so, with a single deft motion, he reveals that he reads the OED
with the same scrupulous attention he accords to Usenet postings.
"Only the current meaning", forsooth!
You are just taking the Mick, aren't you? Please tell me it's all a
joke.
--
Mike.
All of the meanings that a word has ever had in the entire history of the |
word, would not be relevant to the specific purpose of my proposal.
Primarily this would be a system such that the current meaning of any
word could be readily accessed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bertel Lund Hansen
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:55 pm
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
Peter Olcott skrev:
| Quote: | We could start with an arbitrary dictionary.
|
You didn't get my point. Defining words is a task that bites its
own tail. The precision that you imagine, simply does not exist
and cannot be achieved. A living language changes all the time.
Crosspostet to: <news:alt.usage.english>,<news:alt.english.usage>
--
Bertel
Denmark |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bertel Lund Hansen
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:56 pm
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
Rick Wotnaz skrev:
| Quote: | Are(1) you(1) completely(4) satisfied(3) that(4) this(6) proposal
(2) is(1) truly(5) practical(4)? Writing(2) would(1) have(26) to
(21) look(5) like( this(1), for(3) the(5) love(12) of(7) God
(1341)!
|
Not to speak of *reading* which would require lookups for every
word.
Crosspostet to: <news:alt.usage.english>,<news:alt.english.usage>
--
Bertel
Denmark |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pat Durkin
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 10:21 pm
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
"Rick Wotnaz" <desparn@wtf.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9702610616DA1reederz@63.223.7.253...
| Quote: | "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> wrote in
news:Sk3af.2004$5N1.1772@dukeread08:
It would be relatively easy to greatly improve the communication
process by having a single standard dictionary that everyone
could refer to. This dictionary would be published on the web.
Every time that a sense meaning for a word changes, another
entry is made in this standard dictionary. This entry would
replace the prior entry, but the prior entry would still be
available. If anyone needs to refer to a specific prior entry,
they would refer to it by the date that it was made. Example:
Absolute(2007)
Every sense meaning would have a standard sequential number. If
someone wanted to be completely clear which sense meaning that
they were referring to, they could merely include the ISO
standard sense meaning number with the use of the word.
Example: Absolute(3).
The idea is that everyone would use the same standard
communication protocol within their encoding and decoding
meanings using words within the communication process model.
Are(1) you(1) completely(4) satisfied(3) that(4) this(6) proposal
(2) is(1) truly(5) practical(4)? Writing(2) would(1) have(26) to
(21) look(5) like( this(1), for(3) the(5) love(12) of(7) God
(1341)!
|
But, what a game this would make! A TV game, with Alex Trebe(c)k
providing the clues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 10:35 pm
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
"Rick Wotnaz" <desparn@wtf.com> wrote in message news:Xns9702610616DA1reederz@63.223.7.253...
| Quote: | "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> wrote in
news:Sk3af.2004$5N1.1772@dukeread08:
It would be relatively easy to greatly improve the communication
process by having a single standard dictionary that everyone
could refer to. This dictionary would be published on the web.
Every time that a sense meaning for a word changes, another
entry is made in this standard dictionary. This entry would
replace the prior entry, but the prior entry would still be
available. If anyone needs to refer to a specific prior entry,
they would refer to it by the date that it was made. Example:
Absolute(2007)
Every sense meaning would have a standard sequential number. If
someone wanted to be completely clear which sense meaning that
they were referring to, they could merely include the ISO
standard sense meaning number with the use of the word.
Example: Absolute(3).
The idea is that everyone would use the same standard
communication protocol within their encoding and decoding
meanings using words within the communication process model.
Are(1) you(1) completely(4) satisfied(3) that(4) this(6) proposal
(2) is(1) truly(5) practical(4)? Writing(2) would(1) have(26) to
(21) look(5) like( this(1), for(3) the(5) love(12) of(7) God
(1341)!
--
rzed
|
It would not have to look like that. This degree of precision would
never be used. The sense meaning subscripts would only be used
if you meant other than the first most commonly used meaning.
Even then it would only be used if you wanted to make sure that
you were being completely precise, legal documents, scientific papers
and the like. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 11:22 pm
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
Iain wrote:
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
It would be relatively easy to greatly improve the communication process
by having a single standard dictionary that everyone could refer to. This
dictionary would be published on the web. Every time that a sense meaning
for a word changes, another entry is made in this standard dictionary.
Words are required to define words. What is the semantic reference
point?
There is no real need to record senses in an exact way. Record the
precise meaning of "Direct" and let the various senses of "Director"
take care of themselves.
Prescriptivism would be a more sensible approach -- Prescriptivism is
okay for as long as it is known for what it is, e.g. there is nothing
spurious about Esperanto. You could invent a "lingua franca English" if
you wanted, but it'd evolve semantically unless you find a way of
recording meaning as if it were sound, or you have a linguistic rule
binding meaning with morphology, like Esperanto, in which word building
is a part of ordinary speech.
~Iain
|
Esperanto's method of building up words from roots is useful but
mainly, it seems to me, as a mnemonic aid--although a very useful one,
of course. I've seen discussions about the word for "pink"--"rozkolora"
("rose-colored") is the traditional word, but people have objected to
it on logical grounds. I recently had a discussion about "English
speaker"/"Anglophone": One popular English-Esperanto dictionary has
"Anglaparolanto," but members of an Esperanto newgroup insist the
correct version is "anglalingvano" (literally, "English language
member")--and that does appear to be the term most often encountered. A
typewriter can be a "skribmashino" ("writing machine") or a "typilo"
("typing instrument").
One word which is ambiguous in English, Esperanto, and French is
"UFO"/"NIFO" ("neidentigita fluganta objekto"), and OVNI ("objet volant
non identifié"). In all three languages, this can mean either "an
unknown object appearing in the sky (or in space)" or "an
extraterrestrial or interdimensional craft."
There is a deliberate effort with Esperanto to avoid idioms, but there
nevertheless are idioms. The verb "krokodili" ("to crocodile") means to
speak in a national language when having an Esperanto meeting. The
non-literal use of "viewpoint" seems odd to some Esperantists whose
native language doesn't use such a metaphor.
Esperanto has many advantages over national languages when considered
as an international lingua franca, but the argument that it is a
"logical language" should not be understood to mean that it allows the
speaker to be more logical in thought. Instead, it should be understood
as meaning the language is more regular in word-construction and
grammar and has fewer idioms than the national languages.
In principle, an "ISO dictionary" of the sort imagined by the original
speaker could include such things as "Swiss cheese" being a permissible
label on a list of ingredients in the US when the cheese actually used
in the product could be American-made gruyere (while gruyere sold by
itself could probably not be labeled "Swiss cheese"), while "Swiss
cheese" in Britain means "cheese imported from Switzerland." It would
have to distinguish between various meanings of "UFO": Even among those
who belief UFOs are a type of craft, there are some who believe they
are extraterrestrial spacecraft, some who believe they are
interdimensional craft, and some who believe they are craft, but have
no definite opinion about their source. And someone would have to think
favorably enough of the dictionary idea to pay for it. Also, it would
have to be updated to an extent which, I expect, is true of no other
ISO standard.
(On the subject of UFOs: I found myself recently the only one in a
group of five relatively well-educated people who was skeptical that
UFOs were craft of any sort. I found this surprising and a bit
depressing.)
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in