Don't Miss
Daniel Nester
What’s a Word Gotta Do to Get in This Joint, Anyway?
Posted by Erin McKean, April 12th, 2006
7 Comments
Filed under: Guests.
Lots of people (and by "lots" I mean roughly 99% of everyone I've ever spoken to) believe that the dictionary is a Who's Who of words. That it's like Ivy League college admissions. That only the really good words, the ones that have eaten all their spinach and who play the oboe and who get high scores on the SAT, make it into the dictionary. That the words that make it into the dictionary are somehow "realler" than the words that don't.
Well, that's not exactly true. It does take a bit of work to get a word into the dictionary, but inclusion in the dictionary is not an honor. The dictionary words are not more real than the words not in the dictionary. What they are is more USEFUL.
Think of the dictionary as less of a Social Register for words and more like a word general store. I am the manager of the word general store. Do I stock only words in my size? Only in the flavors I like? Only the words I wish people would use? No — I provide a wide selection of words for the use of all my customers. And because my customers are such a wide group (basically, all adult readers and writers) I have to make sure to include the words that will serve their needs.
Because there's limited shelf space in the Word Store, we have to make hard decisions about what to stock. Those decisions are based mainly on usefulness, not on beauty or on any kind of perceived intrinsic merit. We want you to be able to walk in and grab what you need off the shelf (and since we don't have to worry about shoplifting, there's nothing kept behind the counter).
How do we judge a word's usefulness? Basically, we check to see if people are using it. It seems a bit more circular than it is, trust me. Some people have the idea that if a word isn't in the dictionary, they can't use it. This is not a rule any lexicographer ever came up with (think about it — if this were true, we'd all be out of jobs right quick) and luckily not a rule that most people follow. If a word you want to use isn't in the dictionary (and you're sure you haven't just misspelled it — hey, don't worry, it happens to everyone), go ahead and use it! That's the best way to get it in the next edition, and then everyone's happy.
Being in the dictionary, then, doesn't make a word "real." All words are real. Words are like dogs. Some dogs are pedigreed, some are not, but the unpedigreed dogs are dogs just the same — they bark like dogs and run like dogs and rub their little doggy noses into your hand whether or not they have a piece of paper from the Kennel Club. It's the same with words. The right word in the right place can make you laugh, or cry, or think — act like a "real word" whether it's been caught in alphabetical order between the covers of a thick reference book or not.
The lexicographer is quite a bit like the Great and Wonderful Oz. Think about it. The Scarecrow already had a brain; the Tin Man already had a heart; the Lion already had courage; all Oz did was make them aware of it. All the lexicographer does is point out the words that are already real.
So, if you want to get a word into the dictionary (now that I've just told you it's not the Word Medal of Honor), show me that people are using it. Lots of people, in lots of different places (not just online, not just in one narrow field of reference). Send me examples in context. Show me that it's important, that people need to know it to live their lives. Show me that it's a great tool, something nobody can read or write without. Then we'll add it to the stock of the store. (As always, you can send words to me at dictionaries@oup.com.)
Books mentioned in this post
-
$68.50 New Hardcover
add to wish list
-
$9.95 Used Hardcover
add to wish list
The Concise Oxford American Dictionary
Erin McKean
Interesting post, Erin. Is there a committee somewhere that rules on a word's "worthiness"? Can the creator of a word grease some palms to get it in?
Well, there's no committee like the Academie Francaise, if that's what you mean. And there's no real way to bribe lexicographers, we tend to be absent-minded professor types who barely recognize currency. :-)
However, if you think your word has been unjustly overlooked, you can send it in to us. The bare word, standing alone, is not good enough -- send us a packet that shows it in context. Ideally, this would be several newspaper or magazine articles, passages from books, links to blogs, etc. The important part is that they NOT ALL BE WRITTEN BY YOU.
Then sit back and wait! If it's really useful, people will use it.
Umm, you're a lexie, right?
You wrote: "That the words that make it into the dictionary are somehow 'realler' than the words that don't."
I get that you put _realler_ in scare quotes. And I get that Oxford is a British institution and so even though you've edited an American dictionary you might have a tendency to use UK spelling conventions in your own writing.
But is there some other reason that you put two ells into a word that most Americans, if they were going to write it in dialog, would spell _realer_?
Just curious. Really!
Nicely said, Erin. On the Wordcraft Discussion Board, where we talk about words, we've had recurring discussions of:
1) What makes a word a word? We've really come to no conclusions. If you use the OED as the gold standard, you miss out on quite a few words. Erin's post gives me insight into that.
2) Is "epicaricacy" a word? This word is listed in specialty dictionaries, but not the major ones. In those dictionaries, it is defined as taking joy in another's misery (like "Schadenfreude," the German word). In other words, it is the English word for "Schadenfreude," for which we have no equivalent. "Epicaricacy" has Greek roots, and yet no one knows how the current spelling evolved; the Greek word was "epicharikaky" from "epichareia" ???joy' and "kakos" ???bad, evil;??? yet, many think the change in spelling is too much of a leap. While "epicharikaky" was cited in Nathan Bailey???s "Universal Etymological English Dictionary" (1721), it hasn't appeared in any "real" dictionaries since. It also hasn't been found in published works, thus keeping it from the OED, we are told after corresponding with them about "epicaricacy." So...is it a word, or not?
Not quite, Kalleh. "Epicaricacy" appears in Shipley's Dictionary of Early English, published in the 1950s I believe, and in two later popular word-books (Mrs. Brynne, who apparently got it from Shipley, and Depraved and Insulting English). Outside of dictionaries, Trench used the word, as did Burton in Anatomy of Melancholy.
Sorry, folks, I thought I had subscribed to a comment feed to find new ones, but I guess I didn't ...
Dick, I just like the way "realler" looks with two l's. And since it's not a standard English word, I figure I get to spell it the way I like. I don't use any other Brit spelling conventions, honest. The Oxford American is (as the name might suggest) 100% American.
And Kalleh, I usually say that if someone has used a word with deliberate intent, it is a word. (That is, it's not an error of some kind -- confusion with another word, misspelling, etc.) Of course, it's hard to know sometimes if there is deliberate intent, especially when the writers are dead and you can't ask 'em, but that's the rule of thumb I use.
In fact, I can't see the use in quibbling over whether a word is "real" or not. If you like it and you think your audience will too, use it! Why not? Saying you can't use a word because it's not real is like saying you can't use wildflowers in a centerpiece because they weren't bought at a florist shop. It's a meaningless distinction.
Thank you for your site.