The lexicographers behind Britain's Collins English Dictionary have decided to
exuviate (shed) rarely used and archaic words as part of an abstergent
(cleansing) process to make room for up to 2,000 new entries. "We want the
dictionary to be a reflection of English as it is currently spoken," says Ian
Brookes, managing editor of Collins, "rather than a fossilized version of the
language."
But this is a controversial mission statement, as the article goes on to point out:
Here in Old Blighty, the birthplace of English, the dictionary's compilers
face passionate resistance from language lovers who believe that any cull
reduces the richness and variety that make language powerful — and leaves us
all a bit dumber... Collins' editors know that old words die hard — and that
some people will vilipend (regard with contempt) any execution without a
fair trial. So they've offered the chance of a reprieve. They have made
public 24 words that face deletion because editors could find no example of
their use in their database of English-language books, newspapers,
broadcasts and other media. If, by February 2009, a word reappears in that
database with at least six "high quality" citations, it could be spared from
the semantic dustbin.
You can read the full list of 24 words currently residing on Dictionary Death Row here. If you ask me (you didn't, but I'll say it anyway), the thought of such wanton lexicide (wonder whether that one will ever make it into the CED) is abhorrent, and must be stopped! But it's not just these 24 words that face the chop - there are loads of unfortunate lexemes that need rescuing from the clutches of the language axeman. Where, for example, would we be without the word napiform meaning 'shaped like a turnip'? And what about typtology, 'the theory that the dead communicate with the living by tapping on tables'. And, should the day come when the word hylomania bites the dust, how on earth will we ever be able to talk about 'the abnormal love of wood'? A language cull would indeed reduce the richness, the variety and - at times - the downright weirdness of the English language... and that can only be a bad thing.
So let's hear from you - which obscure words are on your top three list of vocab worth reviving?
4 comments:
"Compussible" is just so hilarious it has to be kept-sounds like something Ralph Wiggum from the Simpson would say!
"Vilipend" rolls of the tongue really well, with the phonology of the word actually showing contempt! It's fantastic!
Similar to Compussible, "Embrangle" is hilarious because it sounds like a mixture between "entangle" and "embroil", and yet the meaning is completely different. Even the word is confusing. Whoever first thought of these words were geniuses(genii?)
Fubsy and niddering are my favourites, I might try and revive them.
Muliebrity: The condition of being a woman <- the condition?! Why isn't there a word for the "condition" of being a man?
I for one am not prejudiced against any words. I love them all, with the exceptions of abbreviations and slang (I’m not down innit), but to me they are my children. I say we must stop them from entering the gingerbread house of the witch or otherwise known as the recycle bin of the Collin’s English Dictionary as who doesn’t want to be secretly sexist at times and use Muliebrity as an adjective for all of our mothers. It disgusts me, its little but there nevertheless, that the red squiggly line of Microsoft Word has underlined such a word! A conspiracy? Perhaps…
Okay I admit that probably 99% of the words shown have not been heard in conversation by my ears, but they are so awesome that I may just note them down and surprise everyone with my extensive vocabulary of soon to be nonexistent words. Fubsy…sounds like a “Fab” eating Furby, yet I’ve been often looking for another word to squat.
Since reading this, I have managed to use some of the words! ‘Hypomania’ more than others, just as I think it is amazing :D I definitely think that we should revive some of the words! But then, if we didn’t start cutting words out of the dictionary, it would end up being twice the size that it is! A conundrum...How about a complete dictionary with all words ever in it, but a separate, more ‘modern user friendly’ version without some? Would be a shame to lose those words.
Post a Comment