Comments on: Libraries of Babel http://mrquale.com/2009/11/13/libraries-of-babel/ Version 2.0 Mon, 06 Sep 2010 16:36:59 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Mr. Quale http://mrquale.com/2009/11/13/libraries-of-babel/comment-page-1/#comment-9695 Mr. Quale Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:41:47 +0000 http://mrquale.com/?p=730#comment-9695 It's interesting that you bring up Wikipedia as a "new dictionary." In fact, the little Dictionary application that comes on Mac computers now references "The New Oxford Dictionary" and "Wikipedia" as two of its "Reference Libraries." For fun, I just typed in "ROTFL" into my Dictionary and it came up with a Wikipedia entry dedicated to "LOL," which also looks at derivations of this abbreviation, including "ROTFL." The entry is quite detailed, and draws on a wide range of ideas. One part suggests that the use of these acronyms are modern day way of "annotating text with stage directions." An interesting way to look at these, IMHO. Sorry, typing that is making me LOL. The irony of using these might be that when we type these supposed emotional or "bodily reactions" to messages, we are in reality creating figurative, hyperbolic expressions. So "LOL," translated literally, would instead suggest "laughing quietly in my head while typing on my computer." How strange. It’s interesting that you bring up Wikipedia as a “new dictionary.” In fact, the little Dictionary application that comes on Mac computers now references “The New Oxford Dictionary” and “Wikipedia” as two of its “Reference Libraries.”

For fun, I just typed in “ROTFL” into my Dictionary and it came up with a Wikipedia entry dedicated to “LOL,” which also looks at derivations of this abbreviation, including “ROTFL.” The entry is quite detailed, and draws on a wide range of ideas. One part suggests that the use of these acronyms are modern day way of “annotating text with stage directions.” An interesting way to look at these, IMHO. Sorry, typing that is making me LOL. The irony of using these might be that when we type these supposed emotional or “bodily reactions” to messages, we are in reality creating figurative, hyperbolic expressions. So “LOL,” translated literally, would instead suggest “laughing quietly in my head while typing on my computer.” How strange.

]]> By: Andrea http://mrquale.com/2009/11/13/libraries-of-babel/comment-page-1/#comment-9674 Andrea Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:51:18 +0000 http://mrquale.com/?p=730#comment-9674 I agree with Alex when talking about languages being one step behind language. Language always changes and new words are used and then become popular. Dictionaries will not be able to include this but I doubt that most dictionaries include what we call "slang words". If you want to know what lol means than you'll probably have to look it up on Wikipedia (yes, everything you need is on there) or ask a question on some teen forum. As Mr. Quale said once in class, it would be embarrassing to ask our friends what ROTFL means. Dictionaries are one step behind and they will always be because they will never be able to include all the words we use. In a way, wikipedia is becoming a new dictionary since it provides definitions as well. I agree with Alex when talking about languages being one step behind language. Language always changes and new words are used and then become popular. Dictionaries will not be able to include this but I doubt that most dictionaries include what we call “slang words”. If you want to know what lol means than you’ll probably have to look it up on Wikipedia (yes, everything you need is on there) or ask a question on some teen forum. As Mr. Quale said once in class, it would be embarrassing to ask our friends what ROTFL means.
Dictionaries are one step behind and they will always be because they will never be able to include all the words we use.
In a way, wikipedia is becoming a new dictionary since it provides definitions as well.

]]> By: Mr. Quale http://mrquale.com/2009/11/13/libraries-of-babel/comment-page-1/#comment-9432 Mr. Quale Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:31:47 +0000 http://mrquale.com/?p=730#comment-9432 You should also experiment with her dictionary website Wordnik to see if it is much better than a print dictionary. I like her idea at the end that she wants her son's generation and the ones after it to look at a print dictionary as something that is interesting, but dated and not the most useful, kindof like a vinyl record. I mean, I love records--and miss my collection that is sitting in a basement in the US--but now there is much more efficient means of enjoying music. You should also experiment with her dictionary website Wordnik to see if it is much better than a print dictionary. I like her idea at the end that she wants her son’s generation and the ones after it to look at a print dictionary as something that is interesting, but dated and not the most useful, kindof like a vinyl record. I mean, I love records–and miss my collection that is sitting in a basement in the US–but now there is much more efficient means of enjoying music.

]]> By: alex H http://mrquale.com/2009/11/13/libraries-of-babel/comment-page-1/#comment-9430 alex H Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:10:44 +0000 http://mrquale.com/?p=730#comment-9430 yeh, I thought this women was pretty cool. But how possible is the idea that all the englsh language can be fitted into 'one pan' as she says? Isn't it only right that dictionaries are always one step behind the language that people are using. I guess maybe what she is trying to say is that the dictionary should be in such a format that it can be far closer to english that is in current usage by engish speaking communities around the globe. This is possible. If you think of wikipedia, it tends to take less than a day to change an incorrect entry on wikipedia but years to change something in the encyclopedia britannica.... hmm.... so.... good stuff. yeh, I thought this women was pretty cool. But how possible is the idea that all the englsh language can be fitted into ‘one pan’ as she says? Isn’t it only right that dictionaries are always one step behind the language that people are using. I guess maybe what she is trying to say is that the dictionary should be in such a format that it can be far closer to english that is in current usage by engish speaking communities around the globe. This is possible. If you think of wikipedia, it tends to take less than a day to change an incorrect entry on wikipedia but years to change something in the encyclopedia britannica…. hmm…. so…. good stuff.

]]>