The Dictionary Issue

[Michael J Hunt]

I mentioned that I couldn't do without my dictionary, and I really mean that. Whether it's a symptom of getting older (I won't use the word 'ageing') but I find that I struggle with even quite simple words that I'm sure I used to be able to spell without difficulty. Luckily, I have an in-built 'oddometer' (that is, a mechanism in the brain that spots when a word ' looks odd'); unfortunately, though, the mechanism doesn't always come up with the correct spelling.

I know some people don't bother about getting their spelling and grammar right for e-mails or forums, I always check for spelling and syntax before pressing send.

P.S. I like the editing button on this forum, since I always double-check after I've posted.

MJ

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

Of course, one could argue that this speaks to the deficiency of the English language itself. I mean, in Arabic (and Hindi, for that matter), you don't need to learn "spelling." With very few exceptions, words are spelled how they sound. There are clear guidelines for the formation of words from the trilateral roots (there being several basic verbal 'forms' and simple rules for deriving others). Arabic evolved as a language with a very strong oral tradition; writing came later and was matched to the needs of the spoken words. I think it has a lot to do with the hybrid character of English; with so many languages from which to draw vocabulary and grammar, it would too much to ask for a consistent system of spelling. Urdu has a similar problem: there are numerous letters that are phonetically the same but quite distinct in the written Urdu script. You have to know the word in order to write it down correctly. I mean, how else would you know the name "Maz" is actually spelled "Mu'adh"? It can make using an Urdu dictionary quite difficult when you only have a spoken word or Romanized transliteration to go on.

My second language is Spanish, which is also spelled phonetically. Even though a lot of my vocabulary has faded over years of non-use, I (or anyone else who's had so much as first-year school Spanish) can read off a page full of text perfectly ... without knowing a thing about what it means. I'll have to admit, I do like a language that makes sense. With three exceptions, even "irregular" verbs are just regular on a different pattern. There's no bring/sing/swing/ping problem. (for those who don't get it, the past tenses are brought, sang, swung, and pinged)

English started out as a way to say things like "I have wine. You have wool. You give me wool, I give you wine," or "Me lord. You peasant. You work or else." So it has random chunks of vocabulary, structure, and pronunciation from Anglo-Saxon and Norman-French. I'm not sure its two parent languages were ever really married; I think they've just been living together, and cheating on each other a lot. And some of their kids ....

Formerly, one would have a speaking vocabulary (the words actually used in everyday speech), a writing vocabulary (the more precise and formal words used in written communication -- no, I don't really talk like this!), and a reading vocabulary (all the words one could understand). The introduction of phonics for teaching reading merged them, especially the reading vocabulary, because phonics doesn't teach reading; it teaches pronunciation. If a word isn't one that the reader has ever heard before, they can pronounce it (maybe ... through, rough, though, bough?) but what good is it to be able to make a sound that carries no meaning for you? In English, the written language is far richer than the spoken language (due in no small part to its hybrid origins), but teaching people that it is merely a way of transcribing sounds does away with that. "There", "they're", and "their" all sound more or less the same, so ignorant people treat their spellings as interchangeable. They only see them as a way to write down that particular sound, not as the counterpart to "here", a contraction for "they are", and a relative of "our", "her", and so on.

Some people (especially those who taught themselves to read before the schools had a shot at them, and whose education transcended their schooling) can still enjoy the richness of written English. The rest, well, I guess they need a dictionary to read even ordinary books.

In my opinion, the worst thing anyone can do to children is give them "age-appropriate" books with no words they've never seen (or heard, for those taught to pronounce rather than taught to read) before. My parents were pretty clueless on how to raise a kid. And they were both bookworms, especially my father, who was a teacher. So, having quickly gotten bored with Little Golden Books, etc., I just read whatever I found around the house. I read everything from the newspaper to Shakespeare, and since I didn't know that little kids weren't supposed to be able to read any of that stuff, I read it anyway. I read pretty much everything that had words on it, from the classics to the backs of cereal boxes. Since I grew up reading books that were "too old" for me, I learned to read them. And the kids who were given carefully-selected books with no big, scary words in them? I guess they grew up to need dictionaries to help them read.

[GrouchoM]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

And why do you think I'm not familiar with the meaning of a word?

You said you made a list of 200 words you didn't know the meaning of in David Copperfield. I'm sorry, but that's not a problem that someone with a strong reading vocabulary would have. Take it as you wish. I couldn't name any person on this season's American Idol; I suppose to some people that's a very serious lapse in cultural knowledge. But I can read David Copperfield -- or most other books -- without needing a dictionary, or compiling multi-page lists of words I don't understand.

As for Finnegan's Wake, it's not written in English. It just looks like English. And I don't think anyone has ever actually read it, least of all the stuffed shirts who pontificate about how Important and Great and Literary it is, because they know nobody else will read enough of the dratted thing to prove them wrong.

Am I being snobbish about vocabulary? Perhaps I am. But this is a place for people who read and who love books. It's not a place where I would expect to see someone admitting without any trace of shame -- even, it might appear, boasting about -- their inability to understand hundreds of words in a not particularly complicated book which is often assigned to middle school or high school students.

I'd also like to point out that you were the one who started with the snide, sarcastic remarks, like "So people who don't need a dictionary, I'm assuming you know the meaning of every word in the English language?" And you threw in a few assumptions about our reading ability and choices: "...a dictionary would be a prerequisite if you're reading something from the 19th Century or older." You try to insult me by implying that I'm lying about not needing to have a dictionary to look up the big words when I read (as you apparently do), and that I must only read books that are within some limited modern vocabulary, and then you complain when I reply in the same manner?

I'm sure there are plenty of people who need dictionaries when they read. I do not happen to be one of them. Neither, apparently, are some of the other people in this discussion. I gave my opinion, not even directed at you, that dictionaries on ebook readers are just thrown in there to justify a higher price tag. Feel free to disagree, but if you get snide about it, I'll give you the same back with interest. I cannot comprehend how someone in a readers' forum can be proud of having difficulty reading and cast aspersions on people who say they don't.

Okay 200 might've been an exagerration; I didn't actually count, but yes there were many words I had to look up, and some I took down because I wasn't sure but did get out of context. I didn't know you have to be ashamed of admitting you have a limited vocabulary in your second language. Either way, this was about the dictionary function, I simply implied by that "snide" remark that its not a useless feature like you seem to think. You were the one who went off topic to demonstrate your intellectual prowness and assuming everyone who needs a dictionary must be a zombie who grew up watching dumb sitcoms and reality shows.

But please, do keep in mind I admire what you've said here, I just think you're being condescending. A large vocabulary doesn't necessarily make you more intelligent.

[MovieBird]

I'm curious Worldwalker, what your beef is with dictionaries. It seems you have an issue with the way reading is taught in schools, which is a different issue.

Now, recognize that the vast majority of people on this site are out of school, and will never go back, let alone study reading skills. If they come across a word they don't know, as everyone, even you, will at some point, what is wrong with educating themselves by *gasp* looking it up? Should they go on in ignorance because only plebes use dictionaries? Should they embarrass themselves in a meeting by pronouncing a word incorrectly because only plebes look up pronunciations in the dictionary?

Why do you want to restrict education? Should not everyone be encouraged to better themselves, in the way that takes the least energy because it is most likely to occur if it takes little effort?

A truly intelligent person recognizes how little they know, and the need for continuing education.

[Laine]

When I used Microsoft Reader on my iPAQ I did download a free dictionary but deleted it after a few weeks. It didn't have any words I looked up. I've never spent the time researching which dictionary would be useful. I do think I have a wide vocabulary. I used to read 2 books a day in primary school. Dictionaries, unless they are huge seem to have all the words I know and none of the words I want to look up. The useful physical dictionaries are heavy and expensive, and I doubt the memory of an ereader is big enough.

What I'd actually like is several small dictionaries. Not containing ordinary English words I know, but those relevant to reading certain genres. e.g. The Historical Romance Readers Dictionary containing words like gunna and bliaunt, The Science Fiction Readers Encyclopedia with explanations for all those spaceship engines. The Fantasy Readers Dictionary with all the different kinds of swords etc.

[AprilHare]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

In a lot of threads I read that people consider having a dictionary in their ereader a necessary item. I don't happen to have one in mine and I don't miss it at all; I rarely have to look up words when I'm reading to begin with.

So I was wondering, for those of you who mainly just read books in your own language, how often do you really have to look up words? I can understand the need for dictionary translation when you're reading something in a language other than your native one, but for everyday reading, is a dictionary really such a critical item?

I didn't think I needed one - after all, my PRS-500 didn't have one and I got along fine.
But with my PRS-600 and a copy of The Lord of the Rings, I find it indispensible.
It always depends on the book, and how many words are in your cranium.
But I didn't know quite a few words in LOTR and it helped. (Some were antiquated and foreign to me.)

[Worldwalker]

I don't have a beef with dictionaries. I own many, in several languages, both general-purpose and various specialized ones (medical, legal, etc.). I have a beef with GrouchoM, or at least with the way he responded to my first post.

I said I saw no need for one as an essential feature in an ebook reader -- specifically, I thought it was thrown in as an added feature to justify the price -- and GrouchoM decided that was a reason to insult me, suggest that I'm lying about not needing a dictionary at my fingertips whenever I read, sneering about how anyone who doesn't need such a dictionary must have every word in the English language memorized, etc.

And you are doing no better. "Why do you want to restrict education?" I'll answer that when you tell my whether you've stopped beating your spouse yet.

I use my ebook reader almost entirely for pleasure reading -- specifically, to read fiction. I do not need to use a dictionary for that. If someone else does, a dictionary would be useful to them. Here is precisely what I said:

I've never seen the need for a dictionary. I don't keep one at my fingertips when I'm reading a printed book, so why should I need one for an ebook? That has always struck me as a feature thrown in just because it was easy and made the device sound more sophisticated, plus it gives the feature-counting sort of reviewers more to count.

I said nothing about education. I said nothing about people not using dictionaries. Note that I said I, I, I, I -- I'm not talking about what anyone else needs or doesn't need, I'm talking about my own personal experience and my need, or lack thereof, for a dictionary while reading for pleasure, and how, as a result of that experience, I feel about dictionaries as features of ebook readers. My freaking opinion. It seems unnecessary to me to have a dictionary on my ebook reader because it's not a feature I would be likely to use. If you can't read without a dictionary, buy an ebook reader that has one. That's why they make them. But I, me, myself, yo, moi, the person sitting at this computer typing right now, *I* do not see it as an essential feature.

Maybe most people have to have dictionaries next to them when they read; I don't know, because the only people whose reading habits I'm familiar with are those of my extended family. They seem to read without needing to look words up all the time. I wasn't trying to report on some comprehensive survey of people's dictionary-while-reading needs. I said *I* saw no need for one, and felt that it was just an added feature thrown in by manufacturers because they could. As I said, to give the feature-counting reviewers something to count.

And I still don't think they're very useful in an ebook reader. At least, not unless they're the OED (and you don't need to look up "siphon").

Originally Posted by April Hare

But I didn't know quite a few words in LOTR and it helped. (Some were antiquated and foreign to me.)

I read LotR for the first time in math class when I was about 12 or 13 (paperback concealed by math textbook, and sitting in the back row). Needless to say, trying to look anything up would have given me away. So I had to figure out weird words or remember them to look up later. Come to think of it, this may have a lot to do with why I read a whole lot better than I do math.

[AprilHare]

Speaking of beef, I didn't know what 'kine' meant until I checked it up with my Sony Reader Real life dictionaries can be incomplete or just a hassle to use sometimes! Well, to be exact, this one is *more* complete than my little real-life Collins dictionary at home. It still doesn't know a word or two (at the least).

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

I don't have a beef with dictionaries. I own many, in several languages, both general-purpose and various specialized ones (medical, legal, etc.). I have a beef with GrouchoM, or at least with the way he responded to my first post.

I said I saw no need for one as an essential feature in an ebook reader -- specifically, I thought it was thrown in as an added feature to justify the price -- and GrouchoM decided that was a reason to insult me, suggest that I'm lying about not needing a dictionary at my fingertips whenever I read, sneering about how anyone who doesn't need such a dictionary must have every word in the English language memorized, etc.

And you are doing no better. "Why do you want to restrict education?" I'll answer that when you tell my whether you've stopped beating your spouse yet.

I use my ebook reader almost entirely for pleasure reading -- specifically, to read fiction. I do not need to use a dictionary for that. If someone else does, a dictionary would be useful to them. Here is precisely what I said:


I said nothing about education. I said nothing about people not using dictionaries. Note that I said I, I, I, I -- I'm not talking about what anyone else needs or doesn't need, I'm talking about my own personal experience and my need, or lack thereof, for a dictionary while reading for pleasure, and how, as a result of that experience, I feel about dictionaries as features of ebook readers. My freaking opinion. It seems unnecessary to me to have a dictionary on my ebook reader because it's not a feature I would be likely to use. If you can't read without a dictionary, buy an ebook reader that has one. That's why they make them. But I, me, myself, yo, moi, the person sitting at this computer typing right now, *I* do not see it as an essential feature.

Maybe most people have to have dictionaries next to them when they read; I don't know, because the only people whose reading habits I'm familiar with are those of my extended family. They seem to read without needing to look words up all the time. I wasn't trying to report on some comprehensive survey of people's dictionary-while-reading needs. I said *I* saw no need for one, and felt that it was just an added feature thrown in by manufacturers because they could. As I said, to give the feature-counting reviewers something to count.

And I still don't think they're very useful in an ebook reader. At least, not unless they're the OED (and you don't need to look up "siphon").

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by AprilHare

Speaking of beef, I didn't know what 'kine' meant until I checked it up with my Sony Reader Real life dictionaries can be incomplete or just a hassle to use sometimes!

That made me chuckle, because I'm playing CivIV, and just got the Animal Husbandry tech, for which the quote (read by Leonard Nimoy) is: "Blessed be the fruit of thy cattle, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep."

[SameOldStory]

I just skim over this thread so others may have said the same thing. But...

Some people read as a diversion. They don't want "hard to understand" books. They want "the familiar". I like to read those books too.

BUT

Some read books to enrich their understanding of the world and its people.
Some read books focused on the past, lets say about the Sepoy Rebellion.
And, as I saw in a few places, some read books by Terry Pratchett.

I read a lot of the above.

I'll be getting the Sony PRS-600 reader because it has TWO dictionaries in it - US and British.

Some people don't want to interrupt their reading to look up a new word. They will "assume" an understanding based on context.

But using a built in dictionary while reading can hardly be called an interruption.

So

Originally Posted by Xanthe

..., is a dictionary really such a critical item?

If you only read works that don't challenge you? No.

[BookCat]

I haven't read all of this thread, but for those without a built-in dictionary on their reader, I thoroughly recommend one of the Sharp electronic dictionaries. Mine's a PW500A. It's a dictionary, thesaurus, quotation, and spellchecker. I always have it with me when I'm reading or writing away from the computer.

For the computer, I recommend downloading Word Web, an amazing bit of freeware.

[Sydney's Mom]

I rarely used the dictionary on my K1, because it was slow, and took me away from my reading. I use it sporadically with my K2. For instance, I was reading a book by a British author, and I looked up several of the words I was unfamiliar with (didn't work with "jumper" though, although I have figured out that that is a sweater). I rarely come across words I don't know with modern authors, although there are words that I know, but may not know the precise definition. Sometimes I will look them up, but it wouldn't bother me if I couldn't. It is just nice to have.

[rebarnmom]

I've wanted the built-in dictionary on my Sony 700, ever since they included them on their newer readers! I love my 700, so I keep hoping that they will add that feature.

I certainly don't have the vocabulary I would like to have and sure a lot of words can be understood in context, but I know that I would use an integrated dictionary quite often to expand my knowledge, if it were an option. I do have the Webster's 1913 downloaded from Mobileread's free ebooks and I do use it and am grateful for it. It's just not as convenient as highlighting a word and bringing it up without having to leave my reading to search it out. Knowing how to pronounce a word correctly is also very important to me!

[SameOldStory]

That seems to be a case of the device being the problem.

Using the Sony 600 in the store all I have to do is tap on the word (even works with a finger).

If it is something that you want to do, or like to do, you may pick out a reader that lets you do it easily.

One of the problems with the Kindle is that we can't hold it in our hands and try it out.

But like you I do not need a dictionary often. But I do want it there when I need it.

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

I don't know every word in the English language, but I know most of the ones likely to turn up in books. The ones I don't know, I can usually dig out by their roots or figure them out from context.

Ditto.

You see, back before someone invented "phonics" and taught children to read by teaching them to sound out the word, then figure out which word from their speaking vocabulary matched it, we were taught to understand the written word, not its sound. We learned to deconstruct words down to their roots, to pick up clues from context, and so on. That way, unlike today, our reading vocabulary could be much greater than our speaking vocabulary. We weren't limited by just the words we had heard and had explained to us; in fact, it used to be common for a well-read person to make goofy mistakes in trying to pronounce a word, because they'd read it for years but never heard it spoken.

That's a good observation. My reading vocabulary is much, much larger than my speaking vocabulary. My speaking vocabulary was shaped by the conversations held with my elders and peers, who did not use the more esoteric phrasings. My reading vocabulary, though, was formed by all the books I've read over the course of my life. There are still words that I don't use in everyday speech because I'm unsure of the pronunciation, even though I know what they mean when I read them.

I happen to like paper dictionaries, especially old ones. They make fascinating reading, and I can get lost in them. I don't find that to be true of electronic dictionary functions, where you're just given the definition of the word you queried and there's nothing else to catch your attention and let your mind stray. I tend to use them only to verify spelling, not meaning.

This thread was not meant to be an "us vs. them" type of confrontation. I'm finding it interesting to learn of the differences in our approaches to reading: how some of us will stop to look up words, or make lists of unknown words, how some of us will just try to puzzle them out, and how some will just pass over words they don't know.

Regarding the English language, The Teaching Company has an excellent course called "The History of the English Language", that really explains how the language evolved from numerous roots and dialects. It wasn't merely a combination of the Saxon and Norman French languages. There is no one language that is "better" than another; English just happens to be a language that keeps actively evolving and growing because it easily absorbs words from other languages and readily incorporates them, in addition to constantly giving new meanings to words. The result being that archaic past tenses are retained, archaic spellings are retained even though pronunciations have been streamlined by the dropping of certain vocal sounds from the pronunciations (e.g. we no longer use the sounds from the back of our throats for words like "bought" and "thought").