Major Update For OED Science Fiction Project 112
ColdChrist writes "The Oxford English Dictionary Science Fiction project was last reported on here back in March 2004. The site has been redesigned and relaunched; the biggest change is that the OED's database of citations of SF words is now made (mostly) available via the website. The OED (a nonprofit organization) does not usually make its work available in this way, but OED has agreed to publicly open up this part of its database to acknowledge the great contribution volunteers have made to this project. That means that if you contribute a cite, it's viewable by everyone; see here for more details. Also, quite a few more words are being added from an internal pending list."
Update on Science Fiction (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Update on Science Fiction (Score:1)
Oh, I dunno about that. Even a horrible flick [imdb.com] by the inventor of his 'religion' didn't keep John Travolta from scoring Kelly Preston and having a couple kids.
Re:Update on Science Fiction (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Update on Science Fiction (Score:2)
hoo boy (Score:5, Funny)
Some Doesn't strike me as really Sci-Fi (Score:1)
Re:Some Doesn't strike me as really Sci-Fi (Score:2)
Re:Some Doesn't strike me as really Sci-Fi (Score:2)
Re:Some Doesn't strike me as really Sci-Fi (Score:2)
Re:Some Doesn't strike me as really Sci-Fi (Score:2)
Anyway, I always like the idea that to Grok meant to comprehend the totality of an object idea or situation such that you make it part of yourself. Thus when you eat / Grok someone after there death you symbolize not just your comprehension of who they where but you also add some part of what they where to who you are.
PS: Anyway, I can't recall if the destruct
I hope that embiggens someones heart (Score:2, Funny)
I think its time for... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I think its time for... (Score:2)
http://www.answers.com/google [answers.com]
Re:I think its time for... (Score:1)
--
Free iPod? Try a free Mac Mini [freeminimacs.com]
Or a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox [freegamingsystems.com]
Wired article as proof [wired.com]
Re:I think its time for... (Score:4, Informative)
Google define: (Score:2)
For example:
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+dictiona
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+artichok
Google +glossary (Score:2)
Re:Google +glossary (Score:2)
Re:OED is not ready for /. (Score:5, Funny)
No, he was right. (Score:2)
No, I'm not a real dork, I never managed to plow my way through the books. I just googled that up.
--grendel drago
Re:OED is not ready for /. (Score:1)
and to top it off, they neglected to include Vulcan, Klingon, Romulan, or even Elvish in their multi-lingual Page Not Found notices...
Ungrateful lingua-fascists! How easy they forget a former employee [oed.com].
Lexicate Me (Score:3)
MOD PARENT UP (#11895250) (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Lexicate Me (Score:2)
Re:Lexicate Me (Score:1)
Re:Lexicate Me (Score:2)
Re:Lexicate Me (Score:2)
Re:Lexicate Me (Score:2)
Re:Lexicate Me (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Lexicate Me (Score:1)
Throughout its history, the Oxford English Dictionary has been enriched by evidence contributed by readers. One hundred and twenty years ago, James Murray, original editor of the OED, launched an 'Appeal to the English-Speaking and English-Reading Public of Great Britain, America and the British Colonies' for words for the Dictionary. This appeal was relaunched in 1999 by the current editor, John Simpson . .
Obviously, OED editors haven't come across the new 'wiki' word yet.
Re:Lexicate Me (Score:2)
The OED is in a funny situation. It has always relied on volunteers (it may have paid a few of them something, but not much). But it has always had quite simple (if unjustifiable) criteria ie appearing in print for words (verbal doesnt count). So you can produce evidence for its words, although there are errors particularly with foreign words used in English where they mistake similar sounding words (I found a few but couldnt be bothered to report them).
Wiktionary alas doesnt bother with citations, which i
Re:Lexicate Me (Score:1)
Re:Lexicate Me (Score:2)
No time yet (Score:2)
Re:No time yet (Score:1)
To anyone who might know:
What is the difference between
The Meaning of Everything [amazon.com]
The Surgeon of Crowthorne [amazon.com]
and the book mentioned in the parent post?
I'm quite a fan of Winchester works, but he seems to have sqeezed this topic a little too much...
Re:No time yet (Score:2)
I first noticed that they had different publishers... Maybe for whatever reason he could change the title and sell it with someone else? I mean 'The Professor' and 'The Surgeon' almost have the same damn cover!
As far as 'The Meaning' my guess is that Mr. Winchester spent a very long time putting together all kinds of information on the OED as he was researching for 'The Professor' and decided, "Hey, I'll write a book based on this too."
Considering that
Re:No time yet (Score:2)
Re:No time yet (Score:1)
Re:No time yet (Score:1)
Damn (Score:5, Funny)
How are we going to maintain our separation from society (or should I say elitism) if anyone can just look up what the hell we mean??
Wikitionary (Score:1)
--
Free iPod? Try a free Mac Mini [freeminimacs.com]
Or a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox [freegamingsystems.com]
Wired article as proof [wired.com]
Opening up to acknowledge contributions (Score:1)
Heh? (Score:2)
What did they intend to do with a private SF words database in the first place? It's not like they're doing anyone a f
Re:Heh? (Score:1, Insightful)
Do you know what a "dictionary" (as in "Oxford English Dictionary") is? It's kind of like a database of words.
Guess what? There's a lot of words used in SF that aren't used much in other areas, or that have different meanings in SF. The OED wants to document the whole English language, and that necessarily includes the English used in SF literature.
And you know what as well? A lot of SF fans like reading SF literature. So the OED
Re:Oxford? (Score:5, Informative)
Typically a University publishing house will charge for time, materials and other assorted costs, but not significantly more. Now, when you consider that these places don't have the kind of turnover of, say, Harper-Collins, O'Reilley, Haigue & Hochland, etc, but will need paper and printing systems of comparable or superior quality, it's clear that those costs are going to add up fast.
There's also the matter that nobody cares that much if there's a whole load of typos in a college textbook - students are supposed to know what's meant, but a LOT more people are going to kick up a fuss if there's any typos anywhere in the Complete OED. That means you've got to get a small army of proofreaders. That probably adds to the costs, somewhat.
Re:Oxford? (Score:2)
Perhaps you're American and don't realise the huge number of academic books, not just dictionaries, the OUP publishes and sells in Commonwealth countries. They're one of the world's largest publishers, academic or otherwise.
Re:Oxford? (Score:3, Informative)
The homepage of Jesseword has his full name along with a link to the OED staff page http://oed.com/about/staff.html [oed.com] to verify the sites authenticity. Doesn't look like any kind of joke. Conspiracy theories should be better thought out and researched.
Wiktionary (Score:4, Informative)
--
Free iPod? Try a free Mac Mini [freeminimacs.com]
Or a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox [freegamingsystems.com]
Wired article as proof [wired.com]
Pity the rest of the OED isn't online (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Pity the rest of the OED isn't online (Score:1)
Pronunciation: 'sIt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Forms: cited; citing
Etymology: Latin citare to rouse, call on, summon
1 : to demand the appearance of in court : serve with a citation
2 : to quote or refer to as a precedent or authority
Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Re:Pity the rest of the OED isn't free online (Score:1)
Re:Pity the rest of the OED isn't free online (Score:1)
Re:Pity the rest of the OED isn't online (Score:3, Funny)
D00d, the person who contributed this story is probably hard at work right now "architecting a Website" with another "knowledge-worker." Cut him some slack...
Re:Pity the rest of the OED isn't online (Score:1)
/. effect (Score:1)
Words can't express it (Score:1)
You forgot to add one important point... (Score:2)
A pox on their house! (Score:1)
On the plus side, it does include klingon.
LK
Re:A pox on their house! (Score:2)
It's a science fiction dictionary.
The fantasy dictionary is a different project.
Re:A pox on their house! (Score:1)
Archaeology is a science.
LK
Re:A pox on their house! (Score:2)
Archaeology is a science.
And The Lord of the Rings was in the Third Age (before the current Fourth, I believe), and Conan's Hyborian Age was about 10,000 BC. Doesn't make either SF.
Re:A pox on their house! (Score:2)
science? or sci-fi? (Score:3, Interesting)
And terms like "megayear", "kiloday"; well it's hard to see why they need defining at all. Even though I'm a pedantic bore, it still seems overgeekly.
Re:science? or sci-fi? (Score:2, Interesting)
Why should their SF meanings be any different? (Score:2)
To be fair, there are many words that have very different meanings in different context, for a blatant example there's the scientific meaning of theory, then there's the creationists' "evolution is only a theory" meaning which confuses the scientific meaning with the layman's meaning, much more like a hypothesis in science.
But when an [good] science fiction story takes a word from science, I see no reason to change the meani
When is a Phaser Rifle a a Phaser Rifle? (Score:2)
Re:science? or sci-fi? (Score:1)
The OED tracks the fact that these words ARE BEING USED, not the fact that they exist.
In absolute terms, it is probably the single largest scholarly work in existence.
Anyone know where 'tackymat' came from? (Score:2)
Re:Anyone know where 'tackymat' came from? (Score:1)
The OED is great, but ... (Score:3, Insightful)
The OED was put together by a large army of volunteers, who laboriously found and copied out examples of the use of words over the years, researched the etymology, and mailed the information to the editor. The editors (the project took 71 years (or less than 50, or more than 100, depending on how you choose to count), and several editors died of old age along the way) would assemble the scraps of information into a coherent entry for every word which was ever used in written English.
But, I think they're charging a lot for their dictionary, and I wouldn't donate any material to them.
Oxford and Clarendon Press only paid for a small staff, and the vast majority of the gruntwork was done by the army of English and American volunteer philologists. The 12 volume reissue was done in 1933, and the main body of the work hasn't changed since then, though they do issue supplements. In short, they've long since recovered their costs, and any income from it is pure profit.
It seems to me that the OED is something of a profit center for them. I would be happy to make contributions to a project which was making my free contribution freely available to all. If Oxford wants me to contribute to their cash cow, they can send me some of the cash.
Re:The OED is great, but ... (Score:2)
Re:The OED is great, but ... (Score:1)
Re:The OED is great, but ... (Score:2)
I'm not convinced. Perhaps you're referring to "The" OED only, the 24+ volume full thing. But OUP derives many smaller dictionaries from that text: the Concise, Pocket, etc, CDROM and online versions, and many specialised ones. If the bulk of the data collection is written off against The OED, then of course it's running at a loss. But the sale of all dictionaries, I'm sure, is making a nice profit. Everyone in my family has at leas
Re:The OED is great, but ... (Score:3, Informative)
What ARE you talking about? The 2nd Edition was completed in 1989, at a cost of 13 million pounds, and they have been revising it constantly since then. See [oed.com] for yourself.
Somebody submit my favorite! (Score:1)