[
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]
68.186.88.59
In Reply to: RE: Another dictionary--The American Heritage posted by Norm on July 05, 2008 at 11:43:37
"This dictionary is closer to the present day usage."Um, no. The American Heritage Dictionary, Merriam-Websters and so on are casual use dictionaries. They're intended to be simple and straight-forward with the intent of finding no particularly scrutinous use beyond helping folks with their morning crossword puzzles, kids with their book reports and serve as a generalized guide for spelling. They're fantastic for such casual uses, but to do so, they must also sacrifice the finer points of language for such simplicity and convenience in casual, everyday language. However, when one wants to look into etymological origins or some area of significance in lexicography, these same dictionaries are simply insufficient and too simplicistic. In such a case, authoritative dictionaries of language such as the Oxford become an absolute requirement as they include the various overtones and meanings of the words that the others cut so paperback versions can be squeezed between the gossip rags at supermarket checkout stands. There is a very good reason the American Heritage Dictionary can be purchased new for a few dollars and the Oxford costs nearly a thousand (unless you are really lucky to find a cheap second-hand set that the seller doesn't recognize its worth like I was with my copy).
As you've ventured into the periphery of my area of expertise, I'll borrow an example from yours. Such casual use dictionaries, especially the stripped down versions put up on the internet for little purpose beyond helping the typical person figure out what 'gravitas' means when they read it in a news article on politics, are somewhat the lexigraphical equivalent of the Schoolhouse Rock song "I'm Just a Bill" when contrasted to the actual constitutional laws and associated text books. It covers the basics that most people need to know for everyday life, but it does not remotely cover the real complexities of the associated laws and certainly does not qualify as any sort of evidence in a debate regarding the meaning and intent of constitutional law.
There is something else about language: some words do change meanings on the decade scale, in particular pop slang, but those words of Greek origins, such as "empirical" are surprisingly stable in meaning and use. They've been around for millenia and have meant nearly the same thing for that time and even the simple changes of tone in usage tend to occur on the century scale.
Such is the case with Empirical from what I can see in the books that I have on hand (most of my "library" including most of my dictionary collection and books on etymology is packed up in storage at the moment). It has remained remarkably consistent in meaning since it was re-introduced into common usage during the Renaissance along with a plethora of other Greek words. Yet, the overtone of "quackery" is the more recent development of meaning, not the archaic as you argue, and is mostly less than two-hundred years old with a sudden increase in this century.
I've a handful of dictionaries covering the last ~130 years on hand, but the "quackery" definition has increased in significance during that time. At the earliest, it was the bottom definition, almost an afterthought, but as the decades progressed, that meaning progressed from the bottom (say an attachment to the third meaning) up through the second and then as a component of the first with the language becoming stronger. This trend has continued to the present day and if anything, the definition I provided earlier is closer to present day usage and potentially future usage. Having done some work in the past in comparing definitions in dictionaries from different sources and times (actually more fun than it sounds), I actually found this kind of interesting and wonder just what was happening in the latter part of the 18th century and early part of the 19th century to instigate such a shift in meaning. Perhaps it was due to a sudden improvement in "modern" medicine.
Just to help out some more, here are a few excerpts from alternative definitions taken from a couple of Websters (varying age), Funky Wagnalls, etc (not Oxford in this case), showing a strong trend, related to the components you've tried to argue were as a fluke:
"Depending upon experience or observation alone, without due regard to science and theory; narrowly and blindly experimental; wanting inscience and deep insight"
"Given to or skilled in experiments; generalizing hastily from limited facts; hence, charlatanistic"
"a quack" (One of the simpler definitions I encountered.)
"Like, or characteristic of, a quack or charlatan" (This was the second half of definition #1 with the two components your provided being #2 and #3, which is interesting.)"
Edits: 07/06/08Follow Ups:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]