Forum: Author Hangout

I guess if you buy a pant you only get one leg.

Following a broken bone in his foot, Indian wicketkeeper Rishabh Pant is pretty much one-legged at the moment :-(

AJ

I would be neither surprised not bothered by the English language moving towards a singular term centuries after "pants" became a singular garment.

The transition period would be 'interesting. A pair of pants - how many garments?

AJ

It is an interesting holdover to an earlier time.

And it was much the same in other garments. Most know what a Doublet is, but most likely do not know that the sleeves were not actually sewn onto the garment but tied on. So in warm weather or doing chores they could be removed and still leave the wearer properly clothed.

In the era before zippers or snaps, garments were most commonly tied. Even buttons until the 18th century were more of a decoration and fashion statement than a key part of the structure of clothing. And that really only took off in real practice in the 1800s when the sewing machine made creating durable button holes a reality.

When they first started wearing "hose," the two legs were separate. Each was tied to the waistband, and a codpiece was necessary to cover the gap between them.

I don't know if they were still doing this when the variant called "pantaloons" came into fashion.

By the time they started calling them pants, they were always joined.

Ngrams' first non-zero for delish is 1803. Up until the turn of this century, which is the last point on my graph, delicious has always been at least 10,000 times more common than delish.

AJ

In the first 3 examples the word is used as an adjective, not a noun.

I actually think it's a compound noun.

I actually think it's a compound noun.

I think they are too. If the word before 'panty' was an adjective, by the rules of order of adjectives it should be possible to separate the two by a purpose/qualifier adjective type. In each case, I don't think that's possible without changing the meaning.

AJ

Most dictionaries document the language as it is used today, not as it was used long ago. That's more the province of specialty dictionaries (e.g. the Oxford English Dictionary).

I sympathize with your desire for completeness, and rely on multiple sources for that very reason. At the same time, however, most people are not well served by a dictionary that includes too many archaic words, and especially if they're not flagged as archaic.

An 'unabridged' dictionary should, but there is still a lot of room for disagreement as to whether a word last in common usage several centuries ago is still a part of the English language or not. Yes, English tends to be a snowball, accumulating everything it passes by, but there's room for even snowballs to jettison some debris along the way.

archaic word

Is the word archaic or is it that some of its meanings are archaic?

There are many authors on SOL and in the publishing world that set their stories in the past. To make the story seem realistic, they use the archaic meaning of words. If the reader is not familiar with a word's archaic meaning, then they go to a dictionary to learn what A word means in the context used.

I see a problem with excluding a word's archaic meanings from dictionaries. I see no problem with defining the meaning to be archaic in the dictionary.

Most unabridged dictionaries (not all of them) list archaic meanings (and, often, flag them with 'archaic'). Abridged dictionaries are, by definition, omitting things.

For historical fiction, readers may well have to go to specialty dictionaries. But that's what I would expect, as a reader.

readers may well have to go to specialty dictionaries

I have never heard of "specialty dictionaries", other than medical and legal dictionaries.

Do you have an example of a historical dictionary for fiction?

There are also user-specific dictionaries, so you can add the words you most use (i.e. frequently used names or locations). However, if you start using a separate use-dictionary for each individual story, things can get out of control pretty quickly (ex: if the diction becomes too large, it effectively stops works efficiently, either slowing or simply not processing the specific words).

Do you have an example of a historical dictionary for fiction?

https://www.shakespeareswords.com/Public/Glossary.aspx

"If you are looking for a word and it doesn't appear in the Glossary, this will be because it has the same sense in Modern English, and can be found in any general dictionary. We only include words that no longer exist in Modern English, have changed their meaning since Shakespeare's day, or have an encyclopedic or specialized sense that would make them unfamiliar to many modern readers."

Many thanks to you and to samuelmichaels for the links. Considering the price of the dictionaries, I doubt that I will ever buy one. That is especially true due to my not writing stories in that period of history.

Most unabridged dictionaries (not all of them) list archaic meanings (and, often, flag them with 'archaic'). Abridged dictionaries are, by definition, omitting things.

All dictionaries are abridged. The Oxford English Dictionary, for example, drops entries for existing words and doesn't add entries for new words if the usage levels drop too low. (I was told the criteria but they escape my memory).

Anecdotally, even the most complete dictionary only includes entries for about 10% of the words in the English language.

AJ

I agree about the OED, though it's the closest thing we have. 'Unabridged' is, ultimately, a marketing term.

The OED contains 600,000 words. Most high-end estimates for the number of English words are about one million, give or take a bit. I'm not sure where your 10% number comes from, but it seems likely to be incorrect.

I'm not sure where your 10% number comes from, but it seems likely to be incorrect.

It's obviously a made-up figure but it came from a former OED-compiler (a guest speaker at a writer's group meeting).

AJ

Interesting. One would have to assume that person thinks English has at least 6 million words. I don't see much evidence for that hypothesis.

I might bend on it if English-based acronyms were counted as 'words' (by one estimate, there are over 4 million English-based acronyms out there). But that's bending the rules somewhat, I think.

For instance, I would say it's arguable that 'SCSI' and 'NASA' are generally word-like. But, say, is 'OMW'? Or 'PEBKAC'? How about the endless list of military acronyms?

One would have to assume that person thinks English has at least 6 million words. I don't see much evidence for that hypothesis.

My major concern would be over the validity of the words. If every word that has ever occurred in written/printed English is included, I'd expect a high proportion of typos.

AJ

I've always felt that at least 20% of the words there were never used in regular speech.

Way back when I had my first job, my co-worker at the desk next to mine hung up after talking to her husband and told me that he was reading the dictionary again. In response to my "Huh?" she explained that many of the words he used talking to her began with the same letter.

Anecdotally, even the most complete dictionary only includes entries for about 10% of the words in the English language.

In the news, the Cambridge Dictionary added 6,000 new words this year, including 'skibidi', 'tradwife' and 'delulu'.

Colin McIntosh, a lexicographer at Cambridge Dictionary, said, "We add words only where we think they'll have staying power."

AJ

Young fools grow up to be...old fools.

This continues to be a fascinating community

Umm..

community

You spelt 'zoo' wrong.