SHAKSPER 2007: The OED from the Times

From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@SHAKSPER.NET)
Date: 11/28/07 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0779  Wednesday, 28 November 2007

From:		Michael Luskin <Luskin@aol.com>
Date:		Monday, 26 Nov 2007 10:07:10 EST
Subject:	The OED from the Times

By EDWARD ROTHSTEIN

Published: November 26, 2007

In his 1755 dictionary Samuel Johnson defined the lexicographer as "a 
writer of dictionaries; a harmless drudge, that busies himself in 
tracing the original, and detailing the signification of words." 
Unfortunately Johnson was uncharacteristically wrong. A lexicographer, 
if any good, is hardly a drudge, and if bad, is hardly harmless.

Nor, for that matter, are dictionaries "written" anymore. They are 
"compiled," a word that, according to the newly published Sixth Edition 
of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, comes from the Latin, 
compilare, meaning to plunder or plagiarize.

Of that, this two-volume dictionary may be partly guilty, since it is 
partly plundered. The mother lode ("a principal or rich source") is, of 
course, the great 1928 first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, 
which defined 414,000 words in 15,490 pages. That dictionary, like this, 
its latest spinoff ("a byproduct or an incidental development from a 
larger project"), was created "on historical principles." This means 
that it not only defined the words but also cited their earliest known 
uses, drawn from what the first volume of that first edition, published 
in 1888, called "all the great English writers of all ages."

Much has changed since then, when Walter Scott - now a literary wraith - 
was the dictionary's second most-quoted English writer after 
Shakespeare. And the new Shorter Oxford provides a telling example of 
those changes, reflecting, and partly anticipating, the transformations 
unfolding in the unabridged third edition of the O.E.D. (as the project 
is called). That new O.E.D. began in 2000 with the letter M, and, as of 
September 2007, reached the word purposive, each successive change made 
available for the dictionary's online subscribers.  (See oed.com.)

The first edition grew out of a different conceptual universe. James 
Murray, its remarkable editor, said in 1900 that the O.E.D. was 
"permeated" with "the scientific method of the century." Charlotte 
Brewer points out in a valuable forthcoming book, "Treasure-House of the 
Language: The Living OED" (Yale), that meant illuminating the evolution 
of English, chronicling the origins of its linguistic species and 
surveying their habitats. Historical quotations were as crucial as 
current definitions.

This also meant that from the very start the dictionary's creators were 
engaged in a debate. Would this dictionary, with its display cases of 
literary specimens, demonstrate the natural history of English, 
constructing a "treasure-house of the language," as Ms. Brewer's title 
puts it? Or would it show something more like an open-air menagerie 
pulsing with ever-changing life, admitting even the newest words and 
meanings? Was the dictionary to be prescriptive, showing how language 
should be used, or descriptive, reflecting how it actually was used?

The first edition tended to prove the inadequacy of the first position. 
  Murray, for example, refused to include the word appendicitis, 
criticizing ugly Latinizations of words by the medical profession. 
Aesthetics, however, did not prevent the word from entering popular 
awareness in 1902 when Edward VII had to postpone his coronation because 
of that diagnosis.

The sheer length of time it took to produce the first edition - 40 years 
of cataclysmic history unfolded between the appearance of its first 
volume and the publication of the last - demonstrated just how mercurial 
the language was and how difficult to codify. The O.E.D. was antique 
before its completion, requiring an immediate supplement that 
incorporated words from radium to robot.

The second supplement required four volumes and 29 years, and was 
completed in 1986; its changes were then folded into the original 
O.E.D., creating a 20-volume second edition in 1989 (available on a $295 
CD-ROM). The continually evolving third edition is being overseen by 
John Simpson and more than 70 lexicographers. In the meantime this 
Shorter O.E.D. ($175, including a CD-ROM), with about 600,000 
definitions, is a remarkable resource, but it also offers some glimpses 
of the issues being faced.

For included here are 2,500 new entries that treat language more as 
living menagerie than as natural history museum. Along with restless leg 
syndrome and flatline come more questionable entries, where use becomes 
the main criterion for inclusion.

"Generic," for example, has given birth to a verb that makes even 
appendicitis seem attractive: "genericize." Bureaucratic identifications 
make the cut, however local and obscure: "P45" is defined as a 
certificate given to an employee in Britain and Ireland "at the end of a 
period of employment, providing details of his or her tax code."

But once description trumps prescription and currency eclipses 
timelessness, it becomes difficult to capture the slippery shifts in 
tone and fashion that accompany new words. "Ghetto fabulous" is defined 
here as "pertaining to or favoring an ostentatious style of dress 
associated with the hip-hop subculture," though its use now is broader 
and sometimes more ambiguous. And "ghetto blaster" should probably be 
marked obs. (for obsolete).

But the biggest difficulties are in the "historical principles," which 
seem to have become historical themselves - held over from the past, 
only to be jettisoned when inconvenient. This is clearest in the use of 
quotations. Of course the first O.E.D. was skewed in its choices, 
reflecting few writers of the 18th century, and offering a selection not 
fully representative of the language's powers. But now the O.E.D. does 
not even pretend to offer "all the great English writers of all ages."

Diversity becomes a greater priority. The Shorter dictionary has 1,300 
new quotations from writers like Susan Faludi, Spike Lee, Isaac Bashevis 
Singer and Zadie Smith, and the editors emphasize their broad 
demographic intentions.  This can be illuminating. I like, for example, 
the Shorter's definition for "mook" ("a stupid or incompetent person") 
with an illustration from Mr. Lee, "Who are you gonna listen to, me or 
that mook?" But in that case, there is also too little information: Only 
cross-references lead the reader to guess that the word evolved out of a 
racial slur.

And while it may be fine, in the old O.E.D., to cite authors like 
Shakespeare or Tennyson by first initial and last name, once the 
floodgates are opened, undated identifications become bewildering.

A. Cohen, for example, turns out to be the writer Arthur Cohen. But in 
what way does his quotation, "He could make no promises," illuminate the 
evolution of the language or masterly use of the word promise? 
Similarly, the word smile is illustrated by a quotation from The Japan 
Times: "A smile creases his ...face." There is no distinction in these 
examples other than the lexicographers' desire to certify their broad 
representation of sources. To what linguistic end?

Does it matter, for example, that the word entrust is entrusted with a 
quote from L. Bruce - "I was entrusted with the unromantic job of 
weeding" - even if the L. in question is Lenny? As for a more obscure 
word, like enubilate, it might have been made as clear as its meaning 
("make clear") by providing some appropriate examples. For that you must 
turn to the unabridged O.E.D., where a 1903 citation from The Saturday 
Review establishes an enchantingly ornate context: "Maeterlinck is 
gradually enubilating himself from those enchanting mists in which first 
he strayed."

Of course this Shorter is necessarily a snapshot - a glimpse of a very 
great dictionary grappling with its tradition and ambitions, offering 
much that fascinates, along with much that vexes or perplexes. For more 
detail look at Ms. Brewer's book, or at her illuminating Web site 
(oed.hertford.ox.ac.uk), in which the O.E.D.'s third edition is being 
closely scrutinized.

By the time that edition is complete, perhaps decades hence, it may 
never even be printed. The Internet is now the O.E.D.'s perfect home - 
as revisable and seemingly beyond codification as language itself. But 
the new O.E.D. also seems tempted by the unbounded possibility of that 
infinite revision, as if the very idea of a "treasure-house of the 
language" were somewhat quaint. And to that one can only respond with an 
exclamation that has just made it into the O.E.D.'s third edition: 
"Puh-leeze!"

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, editor@shaksper.net
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the 
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the 
editor assumes no responsibility for them.


about SHAKSPER | current postings | submitted papers | browse SHAKSPER | search SHAKSPER
  
Copyright © 2004, Hardy M. Cook, design by Eric Luhrs. All rights reserved.