[Dixonary] Rammy question... (Scots question, really)

[Dodi Schultz]

>> Interestingly, every online source I found which uses the 1913 [M-W]
>> Edition as its source repeats the typo in the COOEY def. So the
>> source of the typo is not any individual website, but rather
>> whatever common database all these sites draw from.
>>
>> It would be interesting to locate a paper version of the dictionary!

Sure would, Dan. I'd love to locate a copy of that or, actually, ANY to
fill in that gap between my copies of the 1864 and the 1934.

I just checked the 1864 M-W to check on the entry for "aboringine" and see
how they spelled it, figuring that might give us some kind of clue. They
didn't. The aboriginal people of a place, that edition explained, are
called "aboriginals." (By 1934, as previously noted, the word appears and
is correctly spelled.)

--Dodi

[Toni Savage]

Well, fair warning... not only would I NOT have corrected it, but I might even have chosen it BECAUSE of the typo.

"Daniel B. Widdis" <widdis (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: Dodi wrote:
> BTW, I think I'd have corrected it, because I'd think it would
> send a false message to players.

And I would have, had I recognized it as misspelled. Although isn't the
point of dealing trying to send false messages to players? :)

--
Dan

[Toni Savage]

I THINK I might have that edition at the office... I'll check when i'm there next week!

"Daniel B. Widdis" <widdis (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: Dodi wrote:
> Of course "Webster's" can mean any dictionary at all, although I think
> that specific references to 1913 denote an edition of Merriam-Webster.

You piqued my curiosity. I poked around hyperdictionary.com and see that
they claim their source is WordNet 1.7.1, (c) 2001 Princeton University.
Researching WordNet indicates that the full name for this source is
"Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1913 Edition" and according to
Wikipedia, is indeed a Merriam-Webster publication.

The Wiki indicates the 1913 Edition is used by many online dictionaries
because its copyright has expired.

Interestingly, every online source I found which uses the 1913 Edition as
its source repeats the typo in the COOEY def. So the source of the typo is
not any individual website, but rather whatever common database all these
sites draw from.

It would be interesting to locate a paper version of the dictionary!

--
Dan

[Judy Madnick]

----- Original message ----------------------------------------
From: "Tony Abell" <aabell (AT) compuserve (DOT) com>
<< I wouldn't. Never heard of it.

<< In fact, I have yet to be DQ for any word dealt.

Same here. It's nice to know I'm not alone. <G>

Judy

[Daniel B. Widdis]

Dodi wrote:
> I just checked the 1864 M-W to check on the entry for "aboringine" and see
> how they spelled it, figuring that might give us some kind of clue. They
> didn't.

Interesting. According to the multiple databases based on M-W 1913, they
did have an entry for "aborigine". However, for clarity, the typo was in
the definition for "cooey" in that dictionary. Is cooey in the 1864 M-W?

--
Dan