PDA

View Full Version : [Dixonary] Dictionaries & definitions


Dodi Schultz
September 23rd, 2005, 05:42 PM
Johnny has tossed a subject out for discussion, and I for one am glad he
has decided to do so, rather then sit there in his ben--or perched up there
on his ben, as the case may be--and stew about it.

First, I'd like to say that I've looked up BEN, Dave's word for round 1646,
in four standard dictionaries on my shelf, two US and two UK. All four say
that the word is Scottish (which Dave didn't indicate--but IMO, he was not
obliged to do so). The individual results:

AMERICAN HERITAGE, 2000 (Dave's source): As a noun, "the inner room or
parlor of a house with two rooms." As an adverb, "inside; within." As a
preposition, "within." Dave used only the noun, which is IMO entirely his
prerogative.

RANDOM HOUSE, 1999 (also US): As a noun, "the inner room of a cottage." As
an adverb or preposition, "within." As an adjective, "inner."

CONCISE OED, 2002: Listed only as a noun, gives two different defs: "a high
mountain" and "the inner room in a two-roomed cottage." Makes it clear, via
etymologies, that these are two totally different words; obviously only the
second appears in contemporary US dictionaries.

CHAMBERS, 1996 (also UK): Also treats as two different words. One is
"especially in place names: a mountain or mountain peak." The other: as a
noun, "the inner or better room or rooms of a house, which used to be
reached through the *but* or kitchen." As an adverb, "within."

Johnny says he feels that he was confronted with three "real" defs on
Dave's list: #4, "son of"; #14, that inner room; #16, the mountain. But he
didn't vote for any of them.

I see his dilemma. I don't agree that #4 is a def--not in the English
language, anyway. That leaves #14 and #16, and yeah, there's a problem.

IMO, if he'd honestly voted for #16 as a guess, despite the fact that the
def appears only in UK and not US dictionaries, he should have received 2
points. Further, if he had DQ'd because he'd seen #14 OR #16 and knew it to
be a real (UK) word, he should also have received two DPs if he did NOT
pick Dave's intended def.

I don't think the above kind of thing happens a whole lot.

But Johnny raises three other questions:

One is: Is any source for a word okay? I think that's covered in the rules,
which specify "any accepted dictionary." I think that excludes words found
solely in the text of poems, novels, rap lyrics, or a note from your
grandmother.

As in Scrabble, it seems to me that if any player questions the
acceptability of a particular lexicon, that question needs to be discussed.
I think that the dealer should as a matter of course state the dictionary
when reporting results (as Dave did).

Another question is: Should the dealer be required to check alternative
sources to see if other dictionaries might offer additional meanings? IMO:
No. The dealer has enough work to do. (Where would it end?)

A third question Johnny raises concerns the apparent omnipotence of the
dealer and has two parts: (a) When there are two or more actual meanings
(as with BEN), may the dealer pick a def and declare the other meaning(s)
invalid? I think that's a case-by-case question and, as observed above, a
rare situation. Dave has stated (in a reply to Johnny) that he mainly uses
standard current US dictionaries (AHD and Random House); he clearly had no
knowledge of the mountain def, which appears only in UK sources. (b) May
the dealer pluck a word from some other source, e.g., a Tolkien glossary?
IMO, no; a glossary covering words existing only within a fictional context
can't be called an "accepted dictionary."

Finally, Johnny cites an example that has me stumped, ABADA (or "AB'ADA"),
saying that an early def in "Webster" later proved wrong and was rewritten
for a later "Webster". I don't know what he's referring to. Dozens of
dictionaries use the word "Webster." The word he cites doesn't appear in
Random House Webster's. Nor does it appear in either edition I have of the
original Webster, Merriam-Webster unabridged (1864 and 1934), or in the M-W
Collegiate on my shelf (1996).

--Dodi


------------------------ 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Tim Bourne
September 23rd, 2005, 08:18 PM
In article <200509231842_MC3-1-AAD3-B16A (AT) compuserve (DOT) com>, Dodi Schultz
wrote:
> The other: as a
> noun, "the inner or better room or rooms of a house, which used to be
> reached through the *but* or kitchen."
>
Now you've mentioned this, Dodi, it occurs to me that I have heard the
expression "but and ben", though I can't remember the context.

Tim B





------------------------ 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Hugo Kornelis
September 24th, 2005, 03:59 PM
Dodi, John, others,

>Johnny says he feels that he was confronted with three "real" defs on
>Dave's list: #4, "son of"; #14, that inner room; #16, the mountain. But he
>didn't vote for any of them.

No, of course he didn't. That's because he had previously mailed Dave about
the five (IIRC) definitions of "ben" that he was aware of, and received a
reply that he was not DQ. So he knew for sure that son of, inner room,
mountain, and two other definitions were not the "real def". So why waste a
vote on them?

I think that this is the real dilemma. John thought he was DQ, but he was
not. But by informing Dave of his DQ-ness and Dave's negation of said state,
he had gotten confirmation that the 5 defs he "knew" were all incorrect.
That gave him an unfair adavantage at guessing the correct def, and if gave
the submitters of #4, #14, and #16 an unfair disadvantage at attracting
votes. Personally, I can't care less about such perceived advantages or
disadvantages (it's just a game, remember), but I can imagine how John felt,
and I'd probably feel uneasy myself if I were in his situation.

After reading John's mail, I figured that this was just one of those things
that can happen from time to time. Too bad, but there's nothing to be done
about it. After all, having the dealer check alternate dictionaries (as Dodi
suggested) is no solution. It's not only an extra burden for the already
quite busy dealer, but also quite hard to do for some - me, for instance. I
live in the Netherlands and I don't have a paper copy of any English
dictionary (though I do have an English-to-Dutch / Dutch-to-English
dictionary). There *might* be an English dictionary in the local library,
but there might just as well be none. And even if there is, I'd have to wait
for the opening hours of the library to double-check words. The only
dictionaries that I have good access to are online dictionaries (of which
there are, luckily, quite a few!).

But after giving it a second thought, I now think that there is a possible
solution. And in fact, it's even backed by the rules! Here's a quote from
the original rules:

>>6. IF AT *ANY* TIME BEFORE YOU VOTE YOU COME, BY *ANY* MEANS, TO KNOW
THE
>> DEFINITION OF *THE WORD*, YOU ARE DISQUALIFIED FROM VOTING AND FROM
>> OFFERING COMMENTARY. If you have submitted a definition, you should
>> advise the dealer by Easyplex of your disability.

There's nothing in this rule that says that the dealer should inform you if
your DQ is correct or not. I do agree that this has become the custom (in
fact, on my last deal a player who DQ'ed sent me a follow-up mail to ask for
an explicit confirm or deny), but it's not in the rules. And even the
unofficial "real" rules that Paul proposed last month do not include
anything about conforming or denying a DQ.

I think that this situation would have been avoided if we stopped the habit
of confirming or denying a DQ. Let's examine how that would have affected
this round. Let's also, for arguments sake, imagine that I was convinced
that the real meaning of the word BEN was "a ballad, made famous by the
child star Michael Jackson". So both John and I would have informed Dave
that we were DQ. We might have included why, or not. Dave might have read
our reasons (and chuckled at them) or not. But he would definitely NOT have
reacted to it. He would simply have acknowledged the receipt of our DQ, and
the receipt of our fafke def. Come the voting, John would have recognised
three of his known meanings, and refrained from voting. I'd have noticed
that none of the defs refers to Michael Jackson, so I'd have retracted my DQ
and voted.


>But Johnny raises three other questions:
>
>One is: Is any source for a word okay? I think that's covered in the rules,
>which specify "any accepted dictionary." I think that excludes words found
>solely in the text of poems, novels, rap lyrics, or a note from your
>grandmother.

If I deal, I always take a word from one of the dictionaries that is linked
to in the "English Dictionaries" subgroup of the Links collection in the
Yahoo group
(http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/coryphaeus/links/Dictionaries_001102847
656/). Though I do double-check some other if the word's from one of the
more obscure links (like double-tongued word wrester, Logorrhea, or
Phrontistery).

>A third question Johnny raises concerns the apparent omnipotence of the
>dealer and has two parts: (a) When there are two or more actual meanings
>(as with BEN), may the dealer pick a def and declare the other meaning(s)
>invalid?

If the dealer knows of other meanings before opening the round, he/she
should either choose an other word (prefered course of action), or clearly
state that "it's not ...". (I think I once dealt the word "PAT", but made it
clear right from the off that it was NOT the well-known verb, nor it's
objectified noun).

If the dealer gets to know other meanings during the round, she/he should
just continue the round. In most cases, players who DQ because they know a
different meaning will retract their DQ when the voting starts because
"their" definition is not in the list after all. The situation we had in
this round, that a different definition than the chosen definition is known
by one player, but submitted as fake def by another player should be rare.

Best, Hugo




------------------------ 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Tony Abell
September 24th, 2005, 05:17 PM
On 2005-09-24 at 16:59 Hugo Kornelis wrote:

HK> I'd have noticed that none of the defs refers to Michael Jackson,
HK> so I'd have retracted my DQ and voted.

I never realized one could retract a DQ. True, the rules don't say you
can't. I have noticed a few times that players have suggested that one
wait until the defs are up to decide if one is DQ, which at least
seems to go against part of what rule 6 was about: allowing the dealer
to decide whether there are too many DQs.

Perhaps a work-around would be for those submitting DQs to state the
meaning they think they know in their DQ message: "If the meaning is
such-and-such, then I'm DQ". That way, if the dealer sees that the
meaning is the wrong one, he can ignore the DQ and expect that the
player may in the end retract it when the defs are up (assuming
someone else hasn't submitted the supposed-known definition, of
course, in which case the player would have refrained from voting
needlessly, but them's the breaks).

On second thought, I'm sure most people would prefer that I DQ myself
from commenting on the rules.




------------------------ 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
September 24th, 2005, 05:26 PM
In point of fact I did not say that none of his potential defs could be the real def -- I only pointed out that if he really felt one def was right that he could avoid voting for it -- since I had more than two fake defs which he thought would be real, that was a safe option!

Tim Bourne
September 24th, 2005, 07:44 PM
In article <004301c5c14a$e449ce30$2101a8c0@HUGO>, Hugo Kornelis wrote:
> Come the voting, John would have recognised
> three of his known meanings, and refrained from voting. I'd have noticed
> that none of the defs refers to Michael Jackson, so I'd have retracted my DQ
> and voted.
>
I also declared myself DQ, knowing that ben meant a mountain. As it happened,
that was one of the definitions, but not the "real" one. I voted, having been
told I was not a DQ, but not for that one. I suppose from your reasoning above
I should not have voted, but that would have depended on the accident that one
of the invented definitions happened to coincide with the real one I knew.

I think I'm sorry we started this discussion!

Tim B





------------------------ 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Tim Bourne
September 24th, 2005, 09:12 PM
In article <499149029.20050924181719 (AT) compuserve (DOT) com>, Tony Abell
wrote:
> Perhaps a work-around would be for those submitting DQs to state the
> meaning they think they know in their DQ message: "If the meaning is
> such-and-such, then I'm DQ".
>
That's what I do ( and did on that round); doesn't everyone?

Tim B





------------------------ 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Tony Abell
September 24th, 2005, 11:43 PM
On 2005-09-24 at 22:12 Tim Bourne wrote:

TB> In article <499149029.20050924181719 (AT) compuserve (DOT) com>, Tony Abell
TB> wrote:

>> Perhaps a work-around would be for those submitting DQs to state the
>> meaning they think they know in their DQ message: "If the meaning is
>> such-and-such, then I'm DQ".
>>

TB> That's what I do ( and did on that round); doesn't everyone?

On the only occasion I thought I might be DQ, I informed the dealer in
just that way, and the dealer responded that the real definition may
or not be of the nature I thought it might, and that it was up to me
to decide whether or not I was DQ without qualification. I ultimately
decided I wasn't, because I didn't *know* the word; I just thought I
might have had an unfair advantage by knowing a seemingly related
word. (It turned out it was not related.)

From that experience, I assumed that putting a qualification on your
DQ was against the (unwritten) rules. I didn't suspect the
possibility of withdrawing a DQ.




------------------------ 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->