New Online Dictionaries Automate Away the Linguistic Middleman 60
Posted
by
timothy
from the boncha-porftis-hworkin dept.
from the boncha-porftis-hworkin dept.
An article in The New York Times highlights two growing collections of words online that effectively bypass the traditional dictionary publishing system of slow aggregation and curation. Wordnik is a private venture that has already raised more than $12 million in capital, while the Corpus of Contemporary American English is a project started by Brigham Young professor Mark Davies. These sources differ from both conventional dictionary publishers and crowd-sourced efforts like the excellent Wiktionary for their emphasis on avoiding human intervention rather than fostering it. Says founder Erin McKean in the linked article, 'Language changes every day, and the lexicographer should get out of the way. ... You can type in anything, and we'll show you what data we have.'
Isn't that called Googling? (Score:4, Insightful)
Telivision (Score:5, Insightful)
Google seems to do a good job of detecting spelling errors and automatically updating it's dictionary and of course it also shows you websites where that word is used. I don't really see what Wordnik provides.
Re:Isn't that called Googling? (Score:5, Insightful)
Gee, it sure looks like they're returning random search engine results next to—oh look, a list of opinions as proferred by so-called "linguistic middlemen."
I like how the top example for how 'magic' is used in English isn't even purely English, but a bullet point about features in the Zend framework. I'll make a habit of saying "__magic()" in everyday speech more often!
I think the worst outcome of this is that PHP now somehow has influence on the evolution of a natural language. I do not believe I am alone in feeling terrified by this prospect.
Re:Good idea? (Score:5, Insightful)
To be honest, I find it visually more pleasant. After looking at code that passes strings around as arguments in C-style imperative languages all day, it's nice to see something without a big gap on the baseline (this "is," an "example", for you.) Since the quotation mark is already floating up and away from the letters, it's less jarring to see it separated from the word than a comma or period. (This is more or less the modern aesthetic justification for keeping it the traditional way. However, modern typographers don't always agree with traditionalists: watch what happens when you point out that the "single" space used to separate sentences prior to the invention of the typewriter was actually larger than a standard double space.)