Oxford Dictionary Does Science Fiction 144
Embedded Geek writes: "The News Log for Locus has an item about
the Oxford English Dictionary's attempt to capture unique words and phrases used in various fields. It has begun with a pilot site for science fiction. Specifically, they are looking for published uses of specific words in Science Fiction, SF Criticism, and SF Fandom.
The goal is not to create a glossary of terms but rather find the earliest (antedating), latest (postdating), and intermediate (interdating) uses of these words already in the dictionary in books, magazines, etc. They are soliciting help from the public in this effort. Presumably, if this effort is a success, they will begin working on other fields: other literature, programming, open source... who knows?"
What? (Score:1)
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
From the OED page [66.108.177.107]:
This list is not meant to be a glossary of SF terminology: it is only a list of those terms that the OED has a particular need to have researched. Certain terms have been excluded from this list because we know beyond doubt that we have the earliest possible example, the circumstances of the coinage being known. These include dalek, robot, and grok. There is no need to point out the absence of these words.
Re:What? (Score:1)
Re:What? (Score:1)
What does that mean?
Re:What? (Score:1)
-Q
Re:What? (Score:1)
Re:What? (Score:1)
-Q
Re:What? (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:1)
"You might notice we didn't put some words on our list that you think is important (such as 'grok', 'dalek' and 'robot'). We aren't asking for information about these words because we already know everything we need to know."
I could also add the inferrance:
"Please don't send us info about 'grok'. We don't need to get flooded with emails about 'grok'. We've already read "Stranger in a Strange Land"; please give us data we can use."
grok (Score:1)
~Steve
PS - just had to get something insightful. Hoping for fp!
Re:grok (Score:2, Funny)
Re:grok (Score:1)
How timely (Score:3, Funny)
Open source dictionary (Score:4, Informative)
It was a joint collaboration very much like open-source software!
Re:Open source dictionary (Score:1)
Just goes to prove that once they lock you up in an institute for the mentally insane, that you can still be productive.
Hmmm... I wonder if they have broadband...
"On, no, not again!" (Score:2)
FIAWOL!
Farrell McGovern
Concom CAN-CON (www.achilles.net/~cancon)
Oh no .... (Score:3, Funny)
No if you don't mind, I think I'll continue webifying my infostructure, in order to monetize your desktop.
Re:Oh no .... (Score:1)
See ... this woulda helped ... (Score:2)
But with all the Science Fiction words and works out there ... I think there is already wo0rks such as this on the net that already ...
Ohh well I could be wrong.
Stanislaw Lem (Score:4, Funny)
"Onefoot, twofoot. Threefooter, fourfooted. Footing, footingly, footling. Footage, befootery. Footment. And footloose gets you footless, unfooted, defeeted. Ah, defeetism. Feetish, feetus. .
"But these words have no meaning!"
"At the moment, no, but they will. .
Re:Stanislaw Lem (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Stanislaw Lem (Score:2)
Sompting: The act of involuntarilty dribbling on your pillow in your sleep
Lusby: The above bra bulge of a woman who insists she's actually a cup size smaller than she really is.
Tom.
Do you really want to work on this? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm torn. The OED is an extremely important resource for the English language, and having more people contribute can only be a good thing. Actually, the Oxford has a history of community contributions so the concept is not entirely new. Just the medium.
On the other hand, online access costs something like US$550/year for a private individual, which just seems a little excessive. It seems a little like getting open source coders to work on your closed source commercial project.
Yes, it is expensive to build and maintain something like the OED and they claim that they're not actually trying to make money, just cover their costs. Here's some numbers in an old Salon article:
http://www.salon.com/books/log/1999/09/08/oed/
I guess it just saddens me that access is so unaffordable, when the resource itself is so rich. Am I being unreasonable?
Re:Do you really want to work on this? (Score:1)
There's some here! (Score:2)
Re:There's some here! (Score:2)
Don't you mean "There are some here"?
Tom.
Re:Do you really want to work on this? (Score:2)
Yes, I'm torn too. For it to really be an open source effort (in the sense of not requiring a fairly sizeable centralized $$$ flow), you would need volunteer editors as well as volunteers who contribute raw data. And based on my experience at dmoz.org [dmoz.org], it isn't clear to me how well it would work for the OED (dmoz is great in a lot of ways, but there are plenty of problems too with neglected categories and standards which aren't uniform and the like).
But having said all that, the OED would be more useful if it were easier/cheaper to get one's hands on a copy. So the status quo has drawbacks which are more than merely theoretical.
Re:Do you really want to work on this? (Score:1)
Re:Do you really want to work on this? (Score:1)
Since it costs nothing to set-up, why not keep the dictionary in public (community) control?
Re:Do you really want to work on this? (Score:3, Informative)
Do you mean like this [everything2.com]?
Re:Do you really want to work on this? (Score:2, Informative)
- Most colleges and universities have access, and if you're an alumnus -- and join the alumni association -- you'll probably retain your access.
- Ditto for community colleges. Most community collges usually offer library cards for the public-at-large. These days, once you get a library card at a comm coll, you usually have access to their on-line catalog -- which probably includes on-line access to the OED.
- Also -- perhaps oddest of all -- if you join the 'History Book Club' (and perhaps others -- the Reader's Subscription, Quality Paperback Book Club, etc.) you are granted access to the on-line OED through their websites. I just discovered this the other day. I signed up for the History Book Club (in order to get the 4 free books) and then received an email explaining that I now had access to the full on-line OED.
- And finally, don't forget there's a compact OED -- two big volumes with a magnifying glass -- that contains the *complete* OED. (Doesn't include any recent updates, but it's fantastic for what it does contain -- and it's the most recent edition.) I received the Compact OED several years ago for free for joining the Book-of-the-Month club. The compact OED is also available for around $299 (I think) at Borders and Barnes and Noble. (If you know an employee of either of those stores, you can get a nice discount.)
So, yeah, there are *many* ways of getting the OED -- hard copy and on-line. And most likely you already have access for free but don't know it -- local library, college, community college, book club!
Kelso
Re:Do you really want to work on this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe you are, maybe you're not. But let me put it in a context for you.
I think it's a bad idea to compare it to coding, open/closed-source, etc. This is not the right paradigm. I think this is more like an academic work. For example, if you write a scholarly article, you submit it to some journal or another. They don't pay you anything, and they even take the copyright. Then they turn around and sell these journals for tons of money. For example, it is common for mathematics journals to cost an institution US$1000 or more a year. The authors of the papers get nothing from this.
Of course, if you're associated with a reasonable university, you'll be able to gain access to these journals as a scholar. So it seems to me that contributing to the OED is completely analogous to scholarly publication.
Re:Do you really want to work on this? (Score:2)
Re:Do you really want to work on this? (Score:1)
I'd love one, don't know how I'd find the time for browsing all those cross-references though.
Yeah, but.... (Score:3, Informative)
It only costs us $550/year [oed.com] per person to use the Oxford English Dictionary online...
Re:Yeah, but.... (Score:1)
http://dictionary.oed.com/public/subscriptions/li
or you can be a cheapskate (Score:1)
Re:or you can be a cheapskate (Score:2, Insightful)
Inexpensive access to the OED (Score:3, Interesting)
Grit your teeth and (gag) join the Quality Paperback Book Club (http://www.qpb.com). Once the dust settles, you get free online access to the OED, as long as you buy a book every six months.
I hate book clubs, but this works for me.
Re:Inexpensive access to the OED (Score:1)
Maybe I should look at them again... online OED access would be nice. Do you have a link that mentions that offer? I didn't see it in my quick glance at www.qpb.com.
Re:Inexpensive access to the OED (Score:1)
Re:Yeah, but.... (Score:1)
The online rate is rather unreasonable. I don't know why they do that since the compact dead tree version (with magnifying glass) is more reasonably priced (at least for what you get). If memory serves it can be had for under $300.
Earlier usage of Avatar (Score:1)
Re:Earlier usage of Avatar (Score:1)
Re:Earlier usage of Avatar (Score:1)
Function: noun
Etymology: Sanskrit avatAra descent, from avatarati he descends, from ava- away + tarati he crosses over -- more at UKASE, THROUGH
Date: 1784
1 : the incarnation of a Hindu deity (as Vishnu)
2 a : an incarnation in human form b : an embodiment (as of a concept or philosophy) often in a person
3 : a variant phase or version of a continuing basic entity
From Miriam Webster online [m-w.com].
It predates SF and is just recycled like many other terms.
Re:Earlier usage of Avatar (Score:1)
Your not wrong, you're just not completely right.
How about ... (Score:3, Redundant)
Re:How about ... (Score:1)
Hacker? (Score:2)
Hey cool! (Score:1, Troll)
I wonder if it'll get slashdotted. If so, that will be a personal first. So far it seems ok, but it is 1:13 AM EST after all.
Re:Hey cool! (Score:2)
#$%&.
dweomer (Score:1)
Obscure Sci-Fi Lingo (Score:1)
That is, if those even count as sci-fi references...
Proper credit? (Score:5, Insightful)
This could come in handy for future generations as well...
An interesting insight to add to analyze within the context of the "Whorfian Hypothesis"
Having to do with studying how a language evolves, and becomes structured, even words that were 'made-up' have a bit of relevance to them. When a new word is formed it must have a base (to allow for proper edict realizations) or more specifically a history. That's sort-of how the Klingon Language got it's gears going; taking the words that were used (in context - disecting sentences) and applying the rules to form the rest of what has become Klingon. English (even bastardized American English [the sort I use]) follows the same sort of process.
I would guess that this new attempt of Oxford's will be even more revolutionary than many percieve at this time.
I call AI for John McCarthy (Score:4, Informative)
Hi Mike,
Science predates Science Fiction
Winton
AI or Artificial Intelligence
Coined by John McCarthy [in a SCIENCE setting, not SCI-FI!], 1956. Seems to be fairly unanimous.... concept goes way back.
" He [JM] invited them to Vermont for "The Dartmouth summer research project on artificial intelligence." (reference [thinkquest.org])
1956 John McCarthy coined the term "artificial intelligence" as the topic of the Dartmouth Conference, the first conference devoted to the subject. (reference [aaai.org])
Re:I call AI for John McCarthy (Score:2)
Re:I call AI for John McCarthy (Score:2)
I've passed it on to JMC to see if he remembers the origin of the abbreviation.
Cheers,
Winton
Re:I call AI for John McCarthy (Score:1)
Mike Christie (OED sf citations moderator)
Re:I call AI for John McCarthy (Score:2)
Following on our thread, X-posted to
If you need the original hardcopy I guess
it could be obtained from Rockefeller or
maybe the NYker? JMC himself might have
a copy in his files (I don't know his current
Secretary at the moment, and don't want to bother
him again.
Cheers,
Winton
FORWARD FROM John McCarthy:
The proposal to the Rockefeller Foundation, in my files as
href=http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/d
(and in HTML form)
[stanford.edu]
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dart
for the summer project on artificial intelligence was August 1955.
Since they supported it, it would have been in their list of grants in
1955 or 1956. The New Yorker picked it up, perhaps from the list of
grants, and one of their bottom-of-the-column wisecracks said
something like "about time". That may be 1956 but could be later.
Just sent mine in... (Score:2)
Of course, it's not the earliest cite, but if anyone has a pre-1972 cite, feel free to send it in.
the jargon file (Score:2, Informative)
I mean besides being a good read, there is some pretty useful information in there from a linguistic point of view.
Re:the jargon file (Score:1)
Re:the jargon file (Score:2)
Oxford dictionary definition: The Slashdot Effect (Score:4, Funny)
The Slashdot Effect: (phrase, colloq.) The process by which a server is brought down causing hardworking Oxford dictionary staff to lose many, many invaluable hours of work and research. (see: assholes)
:)
Re:Oxford dictionary definition: The Slashdot Effe (Score:1)
Re:Oxford dictionary definition: The Slashdot Effe (Score:1)
Notice something wrong there?
Re:Oxford dictionary definition: The Slashdot Effe (Score:2)
Sorry, no, I don't notice something wrong they're!
Star Wars? (Score:2)
You must be kidding me. The Empire Strikes Back (episode 5 for all the kiddies) was released in 1980, and I know for a fact that the term 'asteroid field' was used in this movie. If this turns out to be the first use of this... well, it's rather freaky, don't you think? I'm as big a SW fan as anyone, but I never considered it anywhere near hard scifi!
Re:Star Wars? (Score:1)
A 'geek' supplement would be nice (Score:1)
Re:A 'geek' supplement would be nice (Score:1)
Newspeak (Score:1)
Hmm... Is this how it begins?
Well, wait, now, I suppose Newspeak would be listed then, wouldn't it?
Heh. Self referencing, even.
A good idea. (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's one (Score:2)
Where are the Asimov's laws of robotics ? (Score:2)
Dan Simmons even coined the word asimotif [multimania.com] (quote from the french edition) in his book "Endymion".
For those who have never heard of these laws, here they are :
The 1940 Laws of Robotics
First Law:
A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
Second Law:
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
Third Law:
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
If you want to see how Asimov dealt with these, I suggest reading "I, Robot" [fatbrain.com], a little old but still interesting.
Re:Where are the Asimov's laws of robotics ? (Score:2)
They do however include a word from Asimov, 'positronic' (his robots have 'positronic' brains), cited in 1941
Yes but ... [Re:Where are the ... robotics ?] (Score:2)
I also thought that but the list contains Clarke laws and Sturgeon law, that's what motivated my post.
Laws of Robotics; General comments about citing (Score:1)
I think the Asimov's Robotics laws probably do need to be added, and I'll be talking to the OED editors about it soon. Please go ahead and send in cites: I should say that although I have a large sf collection, and have submitted many cites, one reason for the webpage is that I don't have time to dig out every cite that is relevant (though I often have the original magazine publication of a story, which is useful). So even if something seems obvious to you, go ahead and send it in.
I also want to say that we currently can't accept citations from web pages. I'm interested in hearing about them, because they may lead to a subsequent print citation, but for the moment they don't go in the database. I mention it because several people have sent the results of, for example, Google searches. They're interesting (and I'll reply individually to those folks) but unfortunately they're not citable.
Mike
In case you didn't know, he coined that word. (Score:2)
Robot, of course, was something he took from some old Russian SF writer, can't remember the name...
In addition to these, Asimov was a brilliant scientist and an amazing writer, and not merely of SF, but of all sorts of intriguing stuff. Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein together probably had as much influence on the course of SF as did the founders of SF, ie. Verne and Wells. ^_^
-Kasreyn
Let's give 'em the answer (Score:1)
I wonder when... (Score:1)
Etymology (Score:2, Interesting)
This is really what makes the OED so much better than any other dictionary. As a student of classical languages I can't express how enough how annyoing it is to hear someone incorrectly use a word they got out of the thesaurus . I think the OED is sort of the anti-thesaurus, really.
Now I'm not a huge Sci-Fi geek, (Except for quoting the Star Wars movies at appropriate times in conversation.) but I'm sure they feel the same way when people talk about the "Vulcan face-grab".
Re:Etymology (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm sure we all pity your plight.
What is ironic about your post, however,
is that so many of the words in the OED are there because of an initial misusage . .
. .
You could learn a lesson from Samuel Johnson, friend. Words change... so should you.
Now's my chance to help ... (Score:1, Redundant)
Pop Quiz (Score:2)
2. "Bioroid" (That's a gimme.)
3. Carla Speed McNeil
-Prime Commonalities? Definitions/explanations? If you can do it without a search engine, you win a thousand points, and prove yourself worthy of this site.
-Fantastic Lad
Use Everything (Score:1)
It's been done already... (Score:2)
Language....? (Score:1)
Now... this new collaboration... it will be a *very* useful tool for hopeful writers... a new resource for more "language" as words get used, and reused. Heck, maybe we'll all be going around the galaxy with towels at improbable rates.
I say yah! Free fun for those who enjoy creativity.
Time to pull out the Phil K. Dick! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Time to pull out the Phil K. Dick! (Score:1)
Tom.
Re:Time to pull out the Phil K. Dick! (Score:2)
Re:Time to pull out the Phil K. Dick! (Score:1)
Frel! (Score:2)
For the uninitiated, "frel" is an expletive used on Farscape.
What about... (Score:1)
or
w00t!
Junk English (Score:3, Informative)
He discussed his research, which involved review countless junk mail, spam, advertisements, corporate memos, etc. The book is broken down into type of language like Distraction Modifiers, Self-Help Jargon, Second Hand English, and Invisible Diminishers. For the latter, he cited an example being "only $99.95!" as if this is a low amount.
He also has some excerpts listed on the site above that are very intersting.
The thesis of his book seems to be that we are slowly degrading the English language, especially with our culture of hype. But I look at it from the Open Source perspective! If it doesn't work for you, add something to it or change some meaning... if others accept the change, then you've made a valuable contribution. If not, then you still have your own little version, only not every one will understand what you're saying. Now that's crunk!
I look forward to seeing the "end result" of new Oxford Dictionary! I really want a definitive definition for hydrospanner (isn't it a bridge?).
Cheers!
Carl
Re:Junk English (Score:1)
There's a childrens story that my daughter had where a boy decided, just to be annoying, to call a pen a "frindle". And he kept at it. Eventually, people around him started using the term, and the it spread out. years later the term had become so popular that it was entered into a dictionary. Now this is just a kids story, but the idea behind it is sound. If I use a term and you understand it, how can it be improper.
That said, I completely agreed with an above poster that any l337 5p33k3r5 should be shot on sight. There's improper and then there's ignorant.
Interesting (Score:1)
Well too bad (Score:2)
I can't believe they included "slash" (Score:1)
slash (n.) antedating 1988, (sense is fan fiction
about a pairing of fictional characters)
I will die laughing the day I see this in the dictionary.
btw, for those who don't know when they mean when they say "pairing" they mean male/male or female/female pairings. In practice though they mean male/male pairings. I've never heard of a f/f pairing called slash.
Re:OED is a subscription service... (Score:1)
I guess it's just a prestige thing. I can't see people volunteering to work on a proprietary software project for prestige, tho.
Weird.
--