[Dixonary] Re: 1646 BEN results!

[Bill Hirst]

Eek! I didn't expect that one. New woid up shortly.

...now where did I put that bag of Scrabble letters?.

-Bill





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/kTUslB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

[John Barrs]

I'd like to open something up for discussion if I may

Dave said:

>The AHD only gives the one -- and I knew about "Ben Nevis" and "Judah ben Hur" as well <g>.
>So a bunch of the "attempted DQs" were well off-track this time!


As I understand the rules - and I have just re read them and am still confused - If I know the meaning of the word I should DQ.
Right ? - apparently not.

I attempted a DQ ( as rule 3d and rule 6) becase I knew at least 5 meanings to this word... and 'know' means 'know' in this case not
merely vaguely cognisant of. I subsequently checked and several reasonable and common dictionaries gave 3 of the the defintions I
had suggested a DQ on.

On receiving my attempted DQ Dave said not to bother - the reason was, I found out when the defs were published, that 3 of my
'reason for DQ' suggestions were included as definitions. In the list of defs were 4,14,16 - all actual and real defs. As I
understand it anyone voting for 4, 14 or 16 actually voted for a right definition.

So... My questions are... 1. When do the DQ rules apply, if ever?

It appears to be dependent not upon the word but the dictionary the dealer is using and by recent discussion that appears to be
anything the dealer wants it to be, yet it was gently suggested to me right back when I first joined in that specialist dictionaries
were discouraged under rule 1a) (Encyclopadia of Gardening was the item under discussion) : Real rules 1 a) says 'a trustworthy
source' - As an aside, personally I would question the trustworthiness of a source that did not include 'mountain' and 'son' for BEN


So... Question 2: Is any source for da woid OK?

And Question 3: What is a 'right' definition? if using a specialist dictionary <is not the dealer required>/<should not the dealer
be required> to check at least some common alternate sources to view other possible definitions?

Or question 4: is the dealer so much 'god' that he can in effect define any word exactly as he would like to (if he or she can find
some obscure definition) and and eliminate all real-world definitions as invalid? (sorry, 'not true').

Could I use ORCH from Tolkein's glossary? Or how about AB'ADA, n. A wild animal of Africa, of the size of a steer, or half grown
colt, having two horns on its forehead and a third on the nape of the neck. Its head and tail resemble those of an ox, but it has
cloven feet, like the stag.
The latter comes from Webster -pasted- without a hint that it doesn't exist, can't exist [[ Revised Webster says 'female rhinoceros'
]]

JohnnyB [using email; via corypaheus/yahoogroups]



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/kTUslB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

[Dave Cunningham]

I only use major dictionaries (in fact mainly RHD and AHD) -- it was highly unusual that "BEN" had no many "real definitions" in other dictionaries but it has happened before in Dixonary. I think it would be reasonable to limit dictionaries to ones which would ordinarily be found in the reference section of a small-town library -- and not allow highly specialized slang dictionaries etc.

[Dave Cunningham]

I only use major dictionaries (in fact mainly RHD and AHD) -- it was highly unusual that "BEN" had so many "real definitions" in other dictionaries but it has happened before in Dixonary. I think it would be reasonable to limit dictionaries to ones which would ordinarily be found in the reference section of a small-town library -- and not allow highly specialized slang dictionaries etc.

[Paul Keating]

> I think it
> would be reasonable to limit dictionaries to ones which would
> ordinarily be found in the reference section of a small-town library

I don't. That would rule out the OED.

--
Paul Keating
The Hague



--
This message was checked before sending and is believed to be virus-free.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.5/110 - Release Date: 2005-09-22



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/kTUslB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->