Dear Matthew, (01)
I certainly agree: (02)
> I don't think you should really talk about the history of English
> dictionaries without mentioning Samuel Johnson. Although not the first,
> his is the most famous or early English Dictionaries, published in 1755. (03)
But the point of David's remark was the literary qualities of
dictionaries in the 20th c. I quoted the blog that David cited
and commented on some of the points it mentioned. (04)
> He even used wit and humour, defining a lexicographer as "..a harmless
> drudge, that busies himself in tracing the original, and detailing the
> significations of words". (05)
That's an example of literary qualities that would never be allowed
by today's publishers. There are many other examples, such as his
definition of 'oats': "A grain, which in England is generally given
to horses, but in Scotland supports the people." (06)
> I don't think the English have ever considered Webster's as anything
> other than a dictionary of American English (07)
That's true. But by the late 19th c, Webster's had grown larger
than Johnson's, and it was being used in England. (08)
John (09)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (010)
|