Talk:Oxford English Dictionary

To add to article

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)

Further Reading

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)

Sentence Needs Revision

This should be revised for clarity:

They update the OED on a quarterly basis to make up for its Third Edition revising their existing entries and adding new words and senses. Rdyornot (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rdyorno: I provided an updated url for the cited source that supposedly explains the update process for the 3rd edition, though I frankly don't know how to properly interpret what the OED folks wrote. And then there's what was allowed to go into the WP article, seeming to jumble things further. A good "counter-example" to the notion that there's an effective WP editing process. Fabrickator (talk) 07:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree the sentence is badly worded, but I don't think it (or the source page) are saying anything particularly deep or obscure: merely that the OED is updated quarterly. I will reword to make that clear. However, I think the whole "Third edition" section needs an overhaul. At the moment, it's just a string of facts (sourced, but to sources of different dates), without any real overall coherence. In particular, my understanding is that over the past 20+ years the "vision" of the future OED has shifted from a self-contained 3rd edition to be published (online) in 2037, to an online resource that will always be a state of flux and revision. But we need a source that makes that change of outlook clear. GrindtXX (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Meaning of '?th impression'?

Could someone clarify what '?th impression' means? It is sprinkled throughout the article. Initially I thought it was a formatting error and I've been unable to find any information online as to what it means. FropFrop (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It means "printing", and is like "edition" but means there were no changes to the work (or only very minor ones). OED reserves "edition" for significantly changed versions. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

FropFrop may mean why is there a question mark. Mcljlm (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Aah! That looks like a mistake, or wrong way to look at things, but I don't know. Johnbod (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The term "impression" is used in publishing to indicate the number of times a particular edition of a book has been printed, therefore "?th impression" means that which one of the printings of that particular edition of the OED is being referred to is unspecified or unknown. Carlstak (talk) 04:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Could we reasonably substitute “Unknown impression” or similar? Or… anything else to make it less confusing. Maybe a footnote? — HTGS (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I think "unknown" impression would be fine, and perhaps an explanatory footnote to explain to readers what an impression is in this context. I agree that "?th impression" is confusing, but for the record, I didn't add it to the article. Thanks for the suggestion, HTGS; if you would like to make those changes, I don't think anyone would mind. Carlstak (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why "impression" is useful or necessary at all, especially as they are unknown. Just remove them. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

That would be fine, too. They really aren't necessary to anyone's understanding of the subject. Carlstak (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@HTGS @Carlstak They seem to be part of an attempt to provide references. IMO, rather than a footnote or removing them entirely, their useful info should just be put into citations. The word 'impressions' shouldn't be included. FropFrop (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Research using the OED

The section on "Research using the OED" seems like fluff. Do comparable dictionaries not get used for research? What specific aspects of the OED, not available in otherwise comparable dictionaries, make it especially suitable for this research? Fabrickator (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

With regard to blend words, this is present in fairly basic dictionaries. For instance, I have the "Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary" published by Houghton Mifflin in 1984. Under "brunch", it indicates [BR(EAKFAST)]+[(L)UNCH]. Even Merriam-Webster online dictionary shows under etymology: "breakfast + lunch" ... plus indicating that the first known use was in 1895. To point out that the OED has features that happen to be on par with sources commonly available in a standard dictionary is unjustified puffery. Fabrickator (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)