This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Oxford English Dictionary article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Oxford English Dictionary is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Is it O.E.D. or ode? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.246.1 ( talk) 11:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
You're not begging to differ, you're giving the exact same answer. 58.250.175.74 ( talk) 04:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Since this article is about the Oxford English Dictionary itself, shouldn't it use OED spelling? Bob A ( talk) 17:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
What did you have in mind? There's an OUP spelling style, but not a specifically OED spelling (it records all spellings, in general). quota ( talk) 08:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
The appropriate style is the one in use throughout wiki if there is one. If there is not a style, then that is the style that should be used. It is not correct in English to adapt to local styles so for instance we say Paris, not Pahree. If you look at the OED entry for France, it is unlikely it is written in French, so even their style takes that approach.
Also called the "Pocket Oxford Dictionary" is not on this page. Why is this? Snowman ( talk) 08:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Two paragraphs of the wikipedia article are very close paraphrases of the article on the OED in the Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language. Here are the two paragraphs:
And here is the relevant text from the Companion:
I am going to rewrite these two paragraphs both for clarity and to properly cite the source. GabrielF ( talk) 17:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
@Quota: I don't know what your source is for saying that the OED "doesn't define meanings." The back of my Concise OED (2002) says, "This world-famous dictionary provides a comprehensive description of the English language..."; of course I can't dispute the fact that the OED 'describes' the words it 'defines', but it does also define. Forgive me for quibbling. Throughout the introduction to that dictionary, the authors refer to the entries as 'definitions.' (To delve into nerdiness, it is not clear whether an individual definition refers to the entire entry for a word or just one of the numbered components thereof, which the introduction refers to interchangeably as 'meanings', 'senses', etc. If there are 600,000 entries, there may be 600,000 definitions or there may only be definitions for 600,000 words.) Tdimhcs ( talk) 17:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I expanded the template, Template:Dictionaries of English, and added it to this article, and a few others. Does this seem useful? should i add pub dates? is it correct in its categorizing? Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 06:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
It is humorus that reference is made to several foreign dictionaries as preceding the OED, but not Webster's dictionary which was the standard for comprehensive English language dictionaries for much of the 19th century (in both America and England). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.38.6 ( talk) 20:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:OED2-CD-1.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 18 November 2011
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 12:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC) |
This message is being posted on behalf of Oxford University Press by whom I am employed. I am asking the Wikipedia community for help with this issue as I am mindful of not violating Wikipedia’s COI guidelines.
There is a factual mistake under the ‘Criticisms’ section of this article where it states ‘The iOS version of the OED has used Twitter account access to falsely accuse legitimate users of pirating the software.’ There is not and has never been an OED app. This statement relates to a temporary problem experienced by some users of a third party app that used non-OED dictionary data licensed from OUP. The article which this statement references is also incorrect in referring to the OED and the original author has been notified.
We get regular customer queries about the availability of an OED app and we do not wish to create any confusion over what products we have available so please could this statement be removed from the OED article? All help is greatly appreciated
Regards, Stephen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.239.14 ( talk) 13:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello! What is the difference between OED.com and OxfordDictionaries.com? Thanks! BigSteve ( talk) 11:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
From the article: "Burchfield also broadened the scope to include developments of the language in English-speaking regions beyond the United Kingdom, including North America, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, and the Caribbean." This recent Guardian article would seem to call that into question. - Jmabel | Talk 00:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Am I just reading too much into it, or does the term "self-styled" seem rather loaded when used the way it is in the opening paragraph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.127.47 ( talk) 01:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
You are too kind, it is snarky in tone. If a criticism needs to be made, it should be in the section provided for that. It is probably an accurate statement, but it is not balanced in tone with the rest of wiki entries where this could be said. Worse for the reputation of wikipedia is that in some regard they are in competition with the OED, and as such this kind of comment looks self-absorbed, and brings discredit on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.24.89 ( talk) 21:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
This phrasing "...the self-styled premier dictionary of the English language" is insulting. The OED is generally regarded as the premier dictionary of the English language by anyone qualified to express an opinion. Arcanicus ( talk) 08:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Right, I've been bold and tried to sort this one out. "Self-styled" is innaccurate and insulting and I have removed it. However " THE premier" is debatable, particularly in the USA where Webster's is preferred. I have therefore changed it to ""the premier British dictionary" which I hope is in line with concensus. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 11:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Physicists Explore The Rise And Fall Of Words. Apparently, some physicists used the OED as a great example of analyzing words. I think some links to an academic paper about this would improve this article. Komitsuki ( talk) 18:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Is there a template specifically for the second edition? I use a copy of it and don't want citations to incorrectly show OED3. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 17:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
According to http://public.oed.com/oed-editor-retirement-announcement/ John Simpson will soon retire as editor, being replaced (effective 1 November 2013) by Michael Proffitt. Mitch Ames ( talk) 10:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted the unwanted and untruthful edit of editor User:Dougweller regarding the nature of the dictionary. The current online edition states the following: "As a historical dictionary, the OED is very different from those of current English, in which the focus is on present-day meanings." [1] Kind regards to all lovers of truth. 81.106.127.14 ( talk) 23:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
It is very strange that the article has nothing to say about the copyright status of older editions of this essential reference work of the English language. (Is there any free online searchable access to text of older editions?)- 71.174.175.150 ( talk) 15:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
It might (or might not) be worthy of note that the two most prolific contribbutors to the first edition were both Americans: Fitzedward Hall and W. C. Minor. 76.126.195.34 ( talk) 06:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The "Criticism" section should be expanded to describe more generally the impact, influence, and overall reception of the OED. 73.223.96.73 ( talk) 05:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Anyone have a problem with me adding Template:British English Oxford spelling to the top of this page? It seems that of all articles on English Wikipedia, this is the one that should most be written under these spelling guidelines. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Dudes OED is not only a dictionary. It's also oral epithelial dysplasia Office of Executive Director Office expiration date Online Event Display operational effectiveness demonstration optical emission detector / optical emission detection (related to optical emission spectroscopy) Optimal experiment design
And probably a good number of other. Do it, it's not my job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.96.120.4 ( talk) 09:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Oxford English Dictionary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
As I read it, the section on Countdown suggests that the show started giving the 20 volume 2nd edition away as a prize seven years before it was published. 58.250.175.74 ( talk) 04:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Surely the claim to be descriptivist is too controversial to be included without comment in the first sentence. Later in the article we see that Oxford University linguist Roy Harris criticised the OED for its prescriptivism. Of course, the OED's editors today are probably descriptivists, just as they say they are. But parts of the OED haven't been fully updated since the 19th century. A modern dictionary - and any descriptivist - will tell you that "in the ascendant" means "rising in power or influence" (ODO). The OED (latest online version) will tell you that this usage of the expression is "erroneous", since "in the ascendant" is supposed to mean "supreme". The OED is in fact full of references to "erroneous" and "incorrect" usages. Similarly, for example, if you look up "each", the usage of the plural verb after the pronoun (as in "Each of these verses have five feet") is described as "incorrect" (OED online, latest). You can agree or disagree with that judgement, but there's nothing descriptivist about it. 86.151.173.117 ( talk) 13:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Oxford English Dictionary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
With a little twinge of regret, I am about to fix an error introduced by some IP almost a decade ago.
On 12 March 2008, the IP changed "four volumes of some 6,400 pages" to "four, 6,400-page volumes". As I write, this remains "four 6,400-page volumes".
This is pre-computing. It's about codices. Codices each having six thousand four hundred pages. Yeah, right.
I can only infer that in the intervening decade, the readers of this part of the article (and these have included me) have been extraordinarily -- uh, well, I listed some uncomplimentary adjectives here, but some people have thin skins, so perhaps not.
Incidentally, I neither have access to the cited source, nor time now to look through the article for similar horse droppings. -- Hoary ( talk) 05:37, 13 February 2018; bowdlerized and augmented 05:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
After "Ian Paterson (2003). A Dictionary of Colour (1st paperback ed.), London: Thorogood (published 2004), p. 73"
After "Oxford English Dictionary (OED)"
-- Danvasilis ( talk) 23:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
As part of the process of putting together a model citation for the 1933 issue of the 1st Edition I have located the following files. Do they merit inclusion in the article? There is already a table for the 1888-1933 issue of the edition on the page. If it is worthwhile adding, should all the content of the table below be added, or only some columns?
Feedback please, Skullcinema ( talk) 11:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) -- 2607:F2C0:E7A2:2C:1E:3CA:63E3:7894 ( talk) 23:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC) it is reference material.
@ Martin of Sheffield: "citation" gives Ogilvie, Sarah (2013), Words of the World: a global history of the Oxford English Dictionary (hardcover), Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1107605695 Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFOgilvie2013. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 21:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');
in your common.js. What you should have done is add |ref=none
to the citations to turn off the linkage. Give me a couple of minutes and I'll do it for you. Regards,
Martin of Sheffield (
talk)
22:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)The first paragraph of the "Historical Nature" section begins:
"In the order that the sense of the word began being used" is awkward because no order is identified within which one single sense of a word can have begun to be used. The implied personification of "the OED explains" is inaccurate, particularly because a dictionary does not "explain" words, and neither does a dictionary "show" definitions. "Rather than merely their" is not English idiom. I suggest:
The next two sentences run:
A definition is not just "shown with" quotations—it is illustrated by them. The first quotation does not present the "first recorded instance of the word," for that means the first time that the word was recorded in any sense whatever. Instead, it presents the earliest recorded usage of the word in the particular sense already defined. "That the editors are aware of" is wordy; wordy also is the general discussion of the temporal indications. The expression "additional quotations" implies that the first quotations given contain information about the historical span of usage, and the additional ones info about the usage in context, but this is logically incoherent—it is not possible to quote a sentence in which a word is used and not "give information" about its use in context. Indeed, if a quotation "gives information" about usage "beyond" the explanation of the word in that sense by the entry's author, then the author has not defined the particular sense of the word, since in defining a word one necessarily identifies the conceptual limits within which is captured every conceptual element that is part of this sense and from which nothing that is part of this sense has been omitted. Use of the verb "to ascertain" is also unfortunate, for it means to establish with certainty after performance of whatever cognitive labors the original situation of cognitive uncertainty made necessary. So, again, if a reader needed quotations "to ascertain" the use of a word in context, the lexicographer would not actually have defined the word in that particular sense. The passage might run:
This captures all the information the author or authors of the original two sentences wished to convey: (i) the fact that quotations follow the definition; (ii) the general illustrative function of the quotations; (iii) the lexicographical warrant for the choice of quotations in the two terminal historical positions; and (iv) the function of the presentation of the quotations in their historical span. Wordwright ( talk) 23:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Consider these two paragraphs from the section "Early Editors":
In the first paragraph we are told of three of Furnival's failings: he had the wrong temperament; he failed to keep volunteers motivated; many slips—things mentioned without identification—were misplaced. In the second paragraph, we are told that he spent twenty-one years in preparatory efforts, that he founded a scholarly society, and that he recruited 800 volunteers—statements that hardly comport with the clam about his temperament; the earlier claim that volunteers weren't motivated is contradicted by the claim that they were enthusiastic but not competent; and if Furnivall handed two freaking tons of slips to his successor, it's hard to take seriously the vague statement that "many" slips were misplaced.
Since it was the two societies who published texts, the publications were not part of Furnivall's efforts; what he spent twenty-one years doing is not specified, but I imagine that he spent a lot of time ordering and reviewing the slips that his 800 volunteers submitted to him. We are not told against what framework of criteria he or someone else evaluated the pertinence and historical status of quotations so that we can understand with what a selection was inconsistent and in defiance of what rule one as arbitrary, but we cannot know that the volunteers made inconsistent and arbitrary selections unless Furnivall engaged in some critical, rectificatory consultations with his volunteers, or noticed that some volunteers' selections were judicious or had other virtues, etc. Similarly, we cannot know that slips were misplaced unless Furnivall kept a record of the receipt of slips from which volunteers recorded with what information so that, at some succeeding stage of critical review, he (or an assistant) could tell that slips whose receipt was recorded had gone missing—whereupon he would have requested replacement quotations.
Hence it is not relevant that his efforts did not constitute the activity of compiling the dictionary—in order actually to begin compiling the dictionary, you must first have gathered the material evidence necessary to determine just how many senses a word has, then one must subject the quotations and the senses to the various critical procedures necessary for the purposes of a historical dictionary. It seems to me that Furnivall acquitted himself well in the truly heroic undertaking of maintaining the general integrity of the work and labor placed in the scattered rights hands of 400 volunteers who did not know what the scattered left hands of another 400 volunteers were doing; all the more heroic because, over the course of those years, doubtless, he himself was engaged in a course of trial, error, and rectification in working out some of the magisterial critical principles necessary for happy regulation and consummation of the project.
I submit this revision for review:
This version has the advantage of proper topical development and logical consistency, but I think it would be much stronger if a concrete account of the actual editorial work that Furnivall did were included. I will try to find the time to do the proper research, but perhaps others have already done research that they can draw upon for the improvements. Wordwright ( talk) 18:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
This article states that Furnivall retained Murray as editor and that they eventually approached the Oxford University Press about publishing it. The Wikipedia article on James Murray says that the OUP interviewed him in 1878 and retained him as editor a year later. Two very different stories. They should be reconciled. I left a similar note on the Talk page for “James Murray”. Merry medievalist ( talk) 12:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
This image of Robert Kaske shows him with a bookcase filled with what look to be volumes of the OED. Can anyone confirm that this is the case? If so, any idea what edition it is? Thanks, -- Usernameunique ( talk) 06:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Can anyone clarify and correct this edit by an IP? The article now appears to say that the OED was regularly awarded as a prize on Countdown until 2010, and was last awarded in 2021. So what happened between 2010 and 2021? Neither of the cited sources suggest anything changed in 2010. GrindtXX ( talk) 12:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
We can't say it is principal because it is largest and most popular. Being largest or being most popular doesn't make it principal, which means main. We should change "principal" to "largest and most popular" or something Petipoelattchi ( talk) 15:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
The current first sentence of the page states, "The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is the principal historical dictionary of the English language, published by Oxford University Press (OUP)." I believe this needs changing. It repeats three words and provides a concept that any reasonable person already grasps by reading the title alone. Do we need to repeat that it is a dictionary and of the English language? I believe we can be more creative than using forceful redundancies and I don't think they are unavoidable as is the thesis in MOS:REDUNDANCY about this page.
Per the policy Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#The dictionary definition trap, A good definition is not circular, a synonym or a near synonym, overly broad or narrow, ambiguous, figurative, or obscure. When a descriptive title is self-explanatory, such as history of Malta, a definition may not be needed.
Per MOS:INTRO, ""Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions". The sentence tries its best to be so overly descriptive that it feels it is unavoidable to use redundancies in its effort.
Per MOS:FIRST, ""Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." We could use some other words to introduce the topic, it is not necessary we use redundancies and circular definitions.
Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is the principal historical a diachronic dictionary of the English language, published by Oxford University Press (OUP)." Diachronic distinguishes it from others, like Webster, etc. Principal=main or first order of importance which may be the perspective for some, but not on a global scale.
Atsme
💬
📧
11:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
References
In order to be more properly encyclopedic, shouldn't we add a mention to this article that profanities (as well as some slang terms) and place names were left out of the Oxford English Dictionary? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 21:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Might we not include a reference to Sarah Ogilvie, currently no Wikipedia entry, and her recent book The Dictionary People? Everybody got to be somewhere! ( talk) 16:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Oxford English Dictionary article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Oxford English Dictionary is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Is it O.E.D. or ode? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.246.1 ( talk) 11:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
You're not begging to differ, you're giving the exact same answer. 58.250.175.74 ( talk) 04:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Since this article is about the Oxford English Dictionary itself, shouldn't it use OED spelling? Bob A ( talk) 17:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
What did you have in mind? There's an OUP spelling style, but not a specifically OED spelling (it records all spellings, in general). quota ( talk) 08:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
The appropriate style is the one in use throughout wiki if there is one. If there is not a style, then that is the style that should be used. It is not correct in English to adapt to local styles so for instance we say Paris, not Pahree. If you look at the OED entry for France, it is unlikely it is written in French, so even their style takes that approach.
Also called the "Pocket Oxford Dictionary" is not on this page. Why is this? Snowman ( talk) 08:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Two paragraphs of the wikipedia article are very close paraphrases of the article on the OED in the Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language. Here are the two paragraphs:
And here is the relevant text from the Companion:
I am going to rewrite these two paragraphs both for clarity and to properly cite the source. GabrielF ( talk) 17:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
@Quota: I don't know what your source is for saying that the OED "doesn't define meanings." The back of my Concise OED (2002) says, "This world-famous dictionary provides a comprehensive description of the English language..."; of course I can't dispute the fact that the OED 'describes' the words it 'defines', but it does also define. Forgive me for quibbling. Throughout the introduction to that dictionary, the authors refer to the entries as 'definitions.' (To delve into nerdiness, it is not clear whether an individual definition refers to the entire entry for a word or just one of the numbered components thereof, which the introduction refers to interchangeably as 'meanings', 'senses', etc. If there are 600,000 entries, there may be 600,000 definitions or there may only be definitions for 600,000 words.) Tdimhcs ( talk) 17:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I expanded the template, Template:Dictionaries of English, and added it to this article, and a few others. Does this seem useful? should i add pub dates? is it correct in its categorizing? Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 06:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
It is humorus that reference is made to several foreign dictionaries as preceding the OED, but not Webster's dictionary which was the standard for comprehensive English language dictionaries for much of the 19th century (in both America and England). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.38.6 ( talk) 20:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:OED2-CD-1.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 18 November 2011
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 12:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC) |
This message is being posted on behalf of Oxford University Press by whom I am employed. I am asking the Wikipedia community for help with this issue as I am mindful of not violating Wikipedia’s COI guidelines.
There is a factual mistake under the ‘Criticisms’ section of this article where it states ‘The iOS version of the OED has used Twitter account access to falsely accuse legitimate users of pirating the software.’ There is not and has never been an OED app. This statement relates to a temporary problem experienced by some users of a third party app that used non-OED dictionary data licensed from OUP. The article which this statement references is also incorrect in referring to the OED and the original author has been notified.
We get regular customer queries about the availability of an OED app and we do not wish to create any confusion over what products we have available so please could this statement be removed from the OED article? All help is greatly appreciated
Regards, Stephen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.239.14 ( talk) 13:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello! What is the difference between OED.com and OxfordDictionaries.com? Thanks! BigSteve ( talk) 11:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
From the article: "Burchfield also broadened the scope to include developments of the language in English-speaking regions beyond the United Kingdom, including North America, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, and the Caribbean." This recent Guardian article would seem to call that into question. - Jmabel | Talk 00:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Am I just reading too much into it, or does the term "self-styled" seem rather loaded when used the way it is in the opening paragraph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.127.47 ( talk) 01:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
You are too kind, it is snarky in tone. If a criticism needs to be made, it should be in the section provided for that. It is probably an accurate statement, but it is not balanced in tone with the rest of wiki entries where this could be said. Worse for the reputation of wikipedia is that in some regard they are in competition with the OED, and as such this kind of comment looks self-absorbed, and brings discredit on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.24.89 ( talk) 21:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
This phrasing "...the self-styled premier dictionary of the English language" is insulting. The OED is generally regarded as the premier dictionary of the English language by anyone qualified to express an opinion. Arcanicus ( talk) 08:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Right, I've been bold and tried to sort this one out. "Self-styled" is innaccurate and insulting and I have removed it. However " THE premier" is debatable, particularly in the USA where Webster's is preferred. I have therefore changed it to ""the premier British dictionary" which I hope is in line with concensus. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 11:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Physicists Explore The Rise And Fall Of Words. Apparently, some physicists used the OED as a great example of analyzing words. I think some links to an academic paper about this would improve this article. Komitsuki ( talk) 18:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Is there a template specifically for the second edition? I use a copy of it and don't want citations to incorrectly show OED3. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 17:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
According to http://public.oed.com/oed-editor-retirement-announcement/ John Simpson will soon retire as editor, being replaced (effective 1 November 2013) by Michael Proffitt. Mitch Ames ( talk) 10:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted the unwanted and untruthful edit of editor User:Dougweller regarding the nature of the dictionary. The current online edition states the following: "As a historical dictionary, the OED is very different from those of current English, in which the focus is on present-day meanings." [1] Kind regards to all lovers of truth. 81.106.127.14 ( talk) 23:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
It is very strange that the article has nothing to say about the copyright status of older editions of this essential reference work of the English language. (Is there any free online searchable access to text of older editions?)- 71.174.175.150 ( talk) 15:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
It might (or might not) be worthy of note that the two most prolific contribbutors to the first edition were both Americans: Fitzedward Hall and W. C. Minor. 76.126.195.34 ( talk) 06:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The "Criticism" section should be expanded to describe more generally the impact, influence, and overall reception of the OED. 73.223.96.73 ( talk) 05:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Anyone have a problem with me adding Template:British English Oxford spelling to the top of this page? It seems that of all articles on English Wikipedia, this is the one that should most be written under these spelling guidelines. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 06:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Dudes OED is not only a dictionary. It's also oral epithelial dysplasia Office of Executive Director Office expiration date Online Event Display operational effectiveness demonstration optical emission detector / optical emission detection (related to optical emission spectroscopy) Optimal experiment design
And probably a good number of other. Do it, it's not my job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.96.120.4 ( talk) 09:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Oxford English Dictionary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
As I read it, the section on Countdown suggests that the show started giving the 20 volume 2nd edition away as a prize seven years before it was published. 58.250.175.74 ( talk) 04:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Surely the claim to be descriptivist is too controversial to be included without comment in the first sentence. Later in the article we see that Oxford University linguist Roy Harris criticised the OED for its prescriptivism. Of course, the OED's editors today are probably descriptivists, just as they say they are. But parts of the OED haven't been fully updated since the 19th century. A modern dictionary - and any descriptivist - will tell you that "in the ascendant" means "rising in power or influence" (ODO). The OED (latest online version) will tell you that this usage of the expression is "erroneous", since "in the ascendant" is supposed to mean "supreme". The OED is in fact full of references to "erroneous" and "incorrect" usages. Similarly, for example, if you look up "each", the usage of the plural verb after the pronoun (as in "Each of these verses have five feet") is described as "incorrect" (OED online, latest). You can agree or disagree with that judgement, but there's nothing descriptivist about it. 86.151.173.117 ( talk) 13:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Oxford English Dictionary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
With a little twinge of regret, I am about to fix an error introduced by some IP almost a decade ago.
On 12 March 2008, the IP changed "four volumes of some 6,400 pages" to "four, 6,400-page volumes". As I write, this remains "four 6,400-page volumes".
This is pre-computing. It's about codices. Codices each having six thousand four hundred pages. Yeah, right.
I can only infer that in the intervening decade, the readers of this part of the article (and these have included me) have been extraordinarily -- uh, well, I listed some uncomplimentary adjectives here, but some people have thin skins, so perhaps not.
Incidentally, I neither have access to the cited source, nor time now to look through the article for similar horse droppings. -- Hoary ( talk) 05:37, 13 February 2018; bowdlerized and augmented 05:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
After "Ian Paterson (2003). A Dictionary of Colour (1st paperback ed.), London: Thorogood (published 2004), p. 73"
After "Oxford English Dictionary (OED)"
-- Danvasilis ( talk) 23:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
As part of the process of putting together a model citation for the 1933 issue of the 1st Edition I have located the following files. Do they merit inclusion in the article? There is already a table for the 1888-1933 issue of the edition on the page. If it is worthwhile adding, should all the content of the table below be added, or only some columns?
Feedback please, Skullcinema ( talk) 11:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) -- 2607:F2C0:E7A2:2C:1E:3CA:63E3:7894 ( talk) 23:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC) it is reference material.
@ Martin of Sheffield: "citation" gives Ogilvie, Sarah (2013), Words of the World: a global history of the Oxford English Dictionary (hardcover), Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1107605695 Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFOgilvie2013. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 21:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');
in your common.js. What you should have done is add |ref=none
to the citations to turn off the linkage. Give me a couple of minutes and I'll do it for you. Regards,
Martin of Sheffield (
talk)
22:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC)The first paragraph of the "Historical Nature" section begins:
"In the order that the sense of the word began being used" is awkward because no order is identified within which one single sense of a word can have begun to be used. The implied personification of "the OED explains" is inaccurate, particularly because a dictionary does not "explain" words, and neither does a dictionary "show" definitions. "Rather than merely their" is not English idiom. I suggest:
The next two sentences run:
A definition is not just "shown with" quotations—it is illustrated by them. The first quotation does not present the "first recorded instance of the word," for that means the first time that the word was recorded in any sense whatever. Instead, it presents the earliest recorded usage of the word in the particular sense already defined. "That the editors are aware of" is wordy; wordy also is the general discussion of the temporal indications. The expression "additional quotations" implies that the first quotations given contain information about the historical span of usage, and the additional ones info about the usage in context, but this is logically incoherent—it is not possible to quote a sentence in which a word is used and not "give information" about its use in context. Indeed, if a quotation "gives information" about usage "beyond" the explanation of the word in that sense by the entry's author, then the author has not defined the particular sense of the word, since in defining a word one necessarily identifies the conceptual limits within which is captured every conceptual element that is part of this sense and from which nothing that is part of this sense has been omitted. Use of the verb "to ascertain" is also unfortunate, for it means to establish with certainty after performance of whatever cognitive labors the original situation of cognitive uncertainty made necessary. So, again, if a reader needed quotations "to ascertain" the use of a word in context, the lexicographer would not actually have defined the word in that particular sense. The passage might run:
This captures all the information the author or authors of the original two sentences wished to convey: (i) the fact that quotations follow the definition; (ii) the general illustrative function of the quotations; (iii) the lexicographical warrant for the choice of quotations in the two terminal historical positions; and (iv) the function of the presentation of the quotations in their historical span. Wordwright ( talk) 23:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Consider these two paragraphs from the section "Early Editors":
In the first paragraph we are told of three of Furnival's failings: he had the wrong temperament; he failed to keep volunteers motivated; many slips—things mentioned without identification—were misplaced. In the second paragraph, we are told that he spent twenty-one years in preparatory efforts, that he founded a scholarly society, and that he recruited 800 volunteers—statements that hardly comport with the clam about his temperament; the earlier claim that volunteers weren't motivated is contradicted by the claim that they were enthusiastic but not competent; and if Furnivall handed two freaking tons of slips to his successor, it's hard to take seriously the vague statement that "many" slips were misplaced.
Since it was the two societies who published texts, the publications were not part of Furnivall's efforts; what he spent twenty-one years doing is not specified, but I imagine that he spent a lot of time ordering and reviewing the slips that his 800 volunteers submitted to him. We are not told against what framework of criteria he or someone else evaluated the pertinence and historical status of quotations so that we can understand with what a selection was inconsistent and in defiance of what rule one as arbitrary, but we cannot know that the volunteers made inconsistent and arbitrary selections unless Furnivall engaged in some critical, rectificatory consultations with his volunteers, or noticed that some volunteers' selections were judicious or had other virtues, etc. Similarly, we cannot know that slips were misplaced unless Furnivall kept a record of the receipt of slips from which volunteers recorded with what information so that, at some succeeding stage of critical review, he (or an assistant) could tell that slips whose receipt was recorded had gone missing—whereupon he would have requested replacement quotations.
Hence it is not relevant that his efforts did not constitute the activity of compiling the dictionary—in order actually to begin compiling the dictionary, you must first have gathered the material evidence necessary to determine just how many senses a word has, then one must subject the quotations and the senses to the various critical procedures necessary for the purposes of a historical dictionary. It seems to me that Furnivall acquitted himself well in the truly heroic undertaking of maintaining the general integrity of the work and labor placed in the scattered rights hands of 400 volunteers who did not know what the scattered left hands of another 400 volunteers were doing; all the more heroic because, over the course of those years, doubtless, he himself was engaged in a course of trial, error, and rectification in working out some of the magisterial critical principles necessary for happy regulation and consummation of the project.
I submit this revision for review:
This version has the advantage of proper topical development and logical consistency, but I think it would be much stronger if a concrete account of the actual editorial work that Furnivall did were included. I will try to find the time to do the proper research, but perhaps others have already done research that they can draw upon for the improvements. Wordwright ( talk) 18:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
This article states that Furnivall retained Murray as editor and that they eventually approached the Oxford University Press about publishing it. The Wikipedia article on James Murray says that the OUP interviewed him in 1878 and retained him as editor a year later. Two very different stories. They should be reconciled. I left a similar note on the Talk page for “James Murray”. Merry medievalist ( talk) 12:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
This image of Robert Kaske shows him with a bookcase filled with what look to be volumes of the OED. Can anyone confirm that this is the case? If so, any idea what edition it is? Thanks, -- Usernameunique ( talk) 06:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Can anyone clarify and correct this edit by an IP? The article now appears to say that the OED was regularly awarded as a prize on Countdown until 2010, and was last awarded in 2021. So what happened between 2010 and 2021? Neither of the cited sources suggest anything changed in 2010. GrindtXX ( talk) 12:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
We can't say it is principal because it is largest and most popular. Being largest or being most popular doesn't make it principal, which means main. We should change "principal" to "largest and most popular" or something Petipoelattchi ( talk) 15:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
The current first sentence of the page states, "The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is the principal historical dictionary of the English language, published by Oxford University Press (OUP)." I believe this needs changing. It repeats three words and provides a concept that any reasonable person already grasps by reading the title alone. Do we need to repeat that it is a dictionary and of the English language? I believe we can be more creative than using forceful redundancies and I don't think they are unavoidable as is the thesis in MOS:REDUNDANCY about this page.
Per the policy Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#The dictionary definition trap, A good definition is not circular, a synonym or a near synonym, overly broad or narrow, ambiguous, figurative, or obscure. When a descriptive title is self-explanatory, such as history of Malta, a definition may not be needed.
Per MOS:INTRO, ""Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions". The sentence tries its best to be so overly descriptive that it feels it is unavoidable to use redundancies in its effort.
Per MOS:FIRST, ""Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." We could use some other words to introduce the topic, it is not necessary we use redundancies and circular definitions.
Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is the principal historical a diachronic dictionary of the English language, published by Oxford University Press (OUP)." Diachronic distinguishes it from others, like Webster, etc. Principal=main or first order of importance which may be the perspective for some, but not on a global scale.
Atsme
💬
📧
11:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
References
In order to be more properly encyclopedic, shouldn't we add a mention to this article that profanities (as well as some slang terms) and place names were left out of the Oxford English Dictionary? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 21:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Might we not include a reference to Sarah Ogilvie, currently no Wikipedia entry, and her recent book The Dictionary People? Everybody got to be somewhere! ( talk) 16:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)