[Draft]Dictionary (Def: A book causing much argument)

[Zentata]

I can't think of validity for this one, so let me know if you think of any.
Dictionary (Def: A book causing much argument)

Preamble:After the "Organisation for Lexicographers in @@NAME@@" refused to put a commonly used slang word, "poogles" in the dictionaries, citizens have been complaining that many other words aren't in the dictionary either, and now they are looking for you to lay down the law. A lot of regional expressions ("steamed hams"), slang, and whatnot are all not found in dictionaries, begging the question if they can be used in the news/in newspapers/in official communication/etc

Validity: Official Language?

Option 1:"Look, I don't wanna throw shade here, my homie," says Soops Daawg, a popular rapper. "But I'm feeling pretty salty, dawg, because the dictios aren't putting my words into the books!" He slams down a petition and asks, "So man, you in the gammme? Are you gonna make those dictionaries play our game?"

Effect:some people say that dictionaries are going totally "extra"

Option 2:"My fellow compatriot [noun-a native or inhabitant of one's own country; fellow countryman or countrywoman.], you must not give in to these young swine." states @@RANDOMNAME@@, the posh chair of the dictionary."These slang words are a disgrace to language, and we should discourage their use from the prepubescent stages of life! After all, the children are the future, and I hope that the future will be full of words like floccinaucinihilipilification [vb-the estimation of something as worthless]
Effect:Children that call each other poopy are given detention for swearing.

Option 3:"Look at this stupid argument!" whispers your valet. "I don't like these overbearing dictionaries, so why don't we get rid of them, and then we can say whatever we want!"

EffectThe government has put aside knowledge for the betterment of the people.

Option 4:"We already can say everything we want! Dictionaries only help to further push an agenda of one standard, official language. In reality, a word can be in a dictionary or not, and it's still a word, as long as we all agree on what it means... which is... what we use dictionaries for. I get that - but at the same time, we can have dictionaries to use in schools and for official purposes, and then the rest of us can go on to use language as it was intended, without all of these filthy prescriptivists telling us that dictionaries are important! @@LEADER@@, dionlize all these luriosume, boogdalacious mootfacies! I don't know what that meant, but if we just keep saying it, one day it'll mean something."

Effectit turns out that science sometimes is the easiest way out.

Dictionary (Def: A book causing much argument)

Preamble:After the "Organisation for Lexicographers in @@NAME@@" refused to put a commonly used slang word, "poogles" in the dictionaries, citizens have been demanding for the dictionaries to be comprehensive, and now they are looking for you to lay down the law.

Validity: Official Language?

Option 1:"Look, I don't wanna throw shade here, my homie," says Snopes Daawg, a popular rapper. "But I'm feeling pretty salty, dawg, because the dictios aren't putting my words into the books!" He slams down a petition and asks, "So man, you in the gammme? Are you gonna make those dictionaries play our game?"

Effect:some people say that dictionaries are going totally "extra"

Option 2:"My fellow compatriot [noun-a native or inhabitant of one's own country; fellow countryman or countrywoman.], you must not give in to these young swine." states @@RANDOMNAME@@, the posh chair of the dictionary."These slang words are a disgrace to language, and we should discourage their use from the prepubescent stages of life! After all, the children are the future, and I hope that the future will be full of words like floccinaucinihilipilification [vb-the estimation of something as worthless]
Effect:Children that call each other poopy are given detention for swearing.

Option 3:"Look at this stupid argument!" whispers your valet. "I don't like these overbearing dictionaries, so why don't we get rid of them, and then we can say whatever we want!"

EffectThe government has put aside knowledge for the betterment of the people.

I can't think of validity for this one, so let me know if you think of any.


Dictionary (Def: A book causing much argument)

Preamble:After the @@DEMONYM@@ Dictionary refused to put a commonly used slang word, "poogles" in the dictionary, citizens have been requisitioning [noun:
the act of requiring or demanding.] and protesting for dictionaries to be comprehensive [adj: of large scope; covering or involving much; inclusive], and now they are looking for you to lay down the law.

Option 1:"Look, I don't wanna throw shade here, my homie," says Snopes Daawg, a popular rapper. "But I'm feeling pretty salty, dawg, because the dictios aren't putting my words into the books!" He slams down a petition and asks, "So man, you in the gammme? Are you gonna make those dictionaries play our game?"

Effect:Some people say that dictionaries are going totally "extra" in Zentata.

Option 2:"My fellow compatriot [a native or inhabitant of one's own country; fellow countryman or countrywoman.], you must not give in to these young swine." states @@RANDOMNAME@@, the posh chair of the dictionary."These slang words are a disgrace to language, and we should discourage their use from the bud! After all, the children are the future, and I hope that the future will be full of words like solenoidal [adj: of or relating to a solenoid.] rather then "bogus""

Effect:Children that call each other poopy are given detention for swearing.

Option 3:"Look at this stupid argument!" whispers your valet. "Why don't we just make dictionaries illegal, and focus on more important things like the minimum wage?" He goes back to polishing your shoes, muttering about poverty.

EffectThe government has put aside knowledge for the betterment of the people.

[Ko-oren]

Whether a word is in the dictionary or not, has no correlation to that word's usage. I don't really see how options 1 or 2 would change anything practically, and what does a nation's leader have to say about a dictionary? Languages don't really stop at country borders, so most of the time, this would be a supranational issue as well.

If you're suggesting 'a word that isn't in the dictionary can't be used' then this issue should be aimed at very authoritarian nations (think 1984's Newspeak).

I'm all for language issues (and I'm hoping to write a few myself in the future, starting with my current sign language draft), but this needs some work in the options & consequences department:
- What does a political figure have to say about dictionaries & word usage?
- How strong do the options need to be?

[Zentata]

I thought that the idea was more that the dictionaries were not giving proper representation to the words. Having a word in the dictionary makes it more "official". In short, the people wanted words in the dictionary that are used a lot, and the dictionary is refusing. The second option does in fact do something. It implies that an effort is made in the education system to not use slang, and the government encourages against(or maybe it should be "bans") slang.

[Ko-oren]

Right, I think I get where you're coming from.

Still, a dictionary is its own entity and under normal (normal being most modern democracies and the like) circumstances, adding words is their thing(such as here), not the leader's.

There already is an issue about discouraging slang, but this issue is different enough I think (that issue was about awarding prizes in literature).

There can be an issue here, but I don't think making it dictionary choice is the way to go here.

[Zentata]

Right, I think I get where you're coming from.

Still, a dictionary is its own entity and under normal (normal being most modern democracies and the like) circumstances, adding words is their thing(such as here), not the leader's.

There already is an issue about discouraging slang, but this issue is different enough I think (that issue was about awarding prizes in literature).

There can be an issue here, but I don't think making it dictionary choice is the way to go here.

Yeah, I get where you're coming from with that. The dictionaries are not under the purview of the leader in most cases. I'd still like to use this issue, and it can definitely be altered, but I don't know what to replace dictionaries with as the incentive. Maybe a school report that blew up nation-wide for using slang and getting docked because of it?

[Australian rePublic]

There is no reason whatsoever for me to believe that the guy in option 1 would ever read a dictionary. Ever. For any reason

[SherpDaWerp]

I can't think of validity for this one, so let me know if you think of any.

If it's tracked, the "Official Language" decision would be a good one - you're hardly going to have an official @@DEMONYM@@ Dictionary if you don't have an official language.

Dictionary (Def: A book causing much argument)

The title joke works, but it feels a little bit overused by the end of the issue - using it another 4 times gets a bit grating, and especially in an option as well as the description. It's worth making it either a "quirk of the narrator" and keeping it only in the description, or a "quirk of the option" and keeping it only in option 2. Alternatively, you could use it throughout the entire issue, and just pick the one most stupid word that the option speaker says - define "throwing shade" or something similar.

After the @@DEMONYM@@ Dictionary refused to put a commonly used slang word, "poogles" in the dictionary, citizens have been requisitioning and protesting for dictionaries to be comprehensive, and now they are looking for you to lay down the law.

Some extraneous line breaks in there will mess with submission, but that's not really a draft problem. Aside from that, removing the "definitions" to look at the actual sentence of the description lets you see that it's a little bit off. The big words feel off when they're stuck into the sentence, and they don't exactly fit the definition of the words you're looking for - requisitioning is a bit more commonly used for official orders than something citizens do randomly.

Some people say that dictionaries are going totally "extra" in Zentata.

Forgot a @@NAME@@ macro, and it's been said in the past that you don't actually need to describe things as happening in @@NAME@@ because the start of the sentence - "Following new legislation in @@NAME@@" - implies that the stuff is happening in @@NAME@@ or at least, with relation to @@NAME@@. The effect line doesn't lose anything by dropping the "in @@NAME@@" from the end.

we should discourage their use from the bud!

"Nip it in the bud" is a pretty colloquial phrase for the posh chair of a dictionary to be using - try prepubescence.

solenoidal

Again, odd word choice - there are more relevant "big words" (or more satirical "big words") to use - the ever-common antidisestablishmentarianism comes to mind.

"Look at this stupid argument!" whispers your valet. "Why don't we just make dictionaries illegal, and focus on more important things like the minimum wage?" He goes back to polishing your shoes, muttering about poverty.

Tangentially related option, but I think the majority of "feel-good" countries that like minimum wages won't also like options that ban dictionaries, so this option is in a bit of an odd place. It's salvageable with some characterisation and a re-think of the option - maybe the valet is "sick of these dictionaries telling us how to speak the language" and wants them banned for "the freedom of the people, man".

[Zentata]

I've taken sherps suggestions, thanks!

[Candensia]

I believe this was already mentioned, but watch out for overlap with #1008.

Also, I'm not sure why citizens would care whether a slur or slang word is added to the official lexicon or not. After all, being linguistically proper is not the objective of slang or slurs.

I think the only people who might immediately care would be language experts, and I imagine they'd be the snooty, educated type who would oppose such "poor" language in the first place. But that's just how I see it.

[Australian rePublic]

With English being a very odd exception, most languages have a government body whose job it is to determine how a language evolves. They are the people who write the dictionary. English, being an exception, has the unofficial body which is the Oxford Dictionary

[Zentata]

With English being a very odd exception, most languages have a government body whose job it is to determine how a language evolves. They are the people who write the dictionary. English, being an exception, has the unofficial body which is the Oxford Dictionary

So, perhaps, instead of having the Official Dictionary, it could be the "Academy for @@Demonym@@ Language"?

[Ko-oren]

With English being a very odd exception, most languages have a government body whose job it is to determine how a language evolves. They are the people who write the dictionary. English, being an exception, has the unofficial body which is the Oxford Dictionary

This is something I want to write an issue about. Languages evolve, with or without a government body or Academie Française-like institution. Language change can't be stopped, in terms of coining new words.

Spelling is a different thing, and is influenced by education policy and dictionaries.

Seeing as this issue is about new vocab (but you could file it under spelling too, I guess), I'd probably go for something like "Organisation for Lexicographers in @@NAME@@".

With English being a very odd exception, most languages have a government body whose job it is to determine how a language evolves. They are the people who write the dictionary. English, being an exception, has the unofficial body which is the Oxford Dictionary

So, perhaps, instead of having the Official Dictionary, it could be the "Academy for @@Demonym@@ Language"?

A lot of nations use languages spoken in multiple places, so that would definitely limit autonomy on language use. I'd probably go for something like "Organisation for Lexicographers in @@NAME@@", keeping it national, without cutting into how languages work across borders.

[Zentata]

Done that, thanks!

[Zentata]

/bump

[Zentata]

Sorry for the triple post!

/BUMP

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I don't think there's an "official" dictionary for most major languages in the real world, and most languages have multiple different companies or organisations that produce dictionaries, who do so without government input.

For that reason, this issue doesn't feel like it has verisimilitude.

[Zentata]

I don't think there's an "official" dictionary for most major languages in the real world, and most languages have multiple different companies or organisations that produce dictionaries, who do so without government input.

For that reason, this issue doesn't feel like it has verisimilitude.

Well, I'm not talking about the official dictionary anymore. Instead, I've switched to the Official Organization of Lexicographers. I do see what you mean though. Any way for it to be salvaged?

[Australian rePublic]

With English being a very odd exception, most languages have a government body whose job it is to determine how a language evolves. They are the people who write the dictionary. English, being an exception, has the unofficial body which is the Oxford Dictionary

So, perhaps, instead of having the Official Dictionary, it could be the "Academy for @@Demonym@@ Language"?

No. My language is English not Australian. Not to mention all the indigenous languages This begs the question with how these baueras work in places of the new world, which speak a foreign language as the national language, and have plenty of indigenous languages?

[Ko-oren]

So, perhaps, instead of having the Official Dictionary, it could be the "Academy for @@Demonym@@ Language"?

No. My language is English not Australian. Not to mention all the indigenous languages This begs the question with how these baueras work in places of the new world, which speak a foreign language as the national language, and have plenty of indigenous languages?

That's been tackled a while back by leaving out any suggestion of demonyms or languages.

[Zentata]

So then it could simply be the "Official Organization of Lexicographers, just like I have done. Right?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

The problem remains that dictionaries are reflective, not prescriptive. That is, dictionaries are meant to offer definitions of words in common usage, not to say which words exist. Every dictionary maker is aware that they are always playing catch-up, and making judgements over what usages are now notable and common enough to need to be included in their reference guide.

If the people don't like a word being left out of a dictionary, they'll just say "eh, not a very good dictionary then", to which the dictionary makers would then respond by adding the word in on the next edition.

There's really no role for government here in any nation that doesn't have an official national lexicon.

[Australian rePublic]

The problem remains that dictionaries are reflective, not prescriptive. That is, dictionaries are meant to offer definitions of words in common usage, not to say which words exist. Every dictionary maker is aware that they are always playing catch-up, and making judgements over what usages are now notable and common enough to need to be included in their reference guide.

If the people don't like a word being left out of a dictionary, they'll just say "eh, not a very good dictionary then", to which the dictionary makers would then respond by adding the word in on the next edition.

There's really no role for government here in any nation that doesn't have an official national lexicon.

As languages evolve, there are people whose entire job it is to determine which way of speaking is considered correct.

For example, is "gonna" a word? Is "Imma" a word? Is "couldn't've" correct?
Many, many, many, many English speakers use "would of" "could of" "should of" instead of "would have, could have, should have" Is this an excruciatingly common error, or is the future of the English language?

There are entire people whose entire profession is to answer these question. In most common languages (English being a notable and unusual exception), the people who make these decisions do work for the state. Though, I'm not sure if leader would get involved. Except again for odd cases. For example, the French government authority which oversees that language, has decided that the French should have their own words for things such as "email". Whilst these never caught on, you have to question how much the government government got involved in such a decision. But situations like this are the exception, not the rule. Considering that leader is most likely not a linguist, he'd probably be one of the last persons to be asked to make such a decision (unless leader is a linguist, in that case, well... but even then, these decisions require teams of linguists to argue with eachother, rather than just individuals)

[Ko-oren]

The problem remains that dictionaries are reflective, not prescriptive. That is, dictionaries are meant to offer definitions of words in common usage, not to say which words exist. Every dictionary maker is aware that they are always playing catch-up, and making judgements over what usages are now notable and common enough to need to be included in their reference guide.

If the people don't like a word being left out of a dictionary, they'll just say "eh, not a very good dictionary then", to which the dictionary makers would then respond by adding the word in on the next edition.

There's really no role for government here in any nation that doesn't have an official national lexicon.

As languages evolve, there are people whose entire job it is to determine which way of speaking is considered correct.

For example, is "gonna" a word? Is "Imma" a word? Is "couldn't've" correct?
Many, many, many, many English speakers use "would of" "could of" "should of" instead of "would have, could have, should have" Is this an excruciatingly common error, or is the future of the English language?

There are entire people whose entire profession is to answer these question. In most common languages (English being a notable and unusual exception), the people who make these decisions do work for the state. Though, I'm not sure if leader would get involved. Except again for odd cases. For example, the French government authority which oversees that language, has decided that the French should have their own words for things such as "email". Whilst these never caught on, you have to question how much the government government got involved in such a decision. But situations like this are the exception, not the rule. Considering that leader is most likely not a linguist, he'd probably be one of the last persons to be asked to make such a decision (unless leader is a linguist, in that case, well... but even then, these decisions require teams of linguists to argue with eachother, rather than just individuals)

Nerd hat on:

No, that's wrong. There is no one correct way of speaking.

"For example, is "gonna" a word? Is "Imma" a word? Is "couldn't've" correct?" -> Yes, they're all correct.
"Is this an excruciatingly common error, or is the future of the English language?" -> It's the future of the English language. You might not like it, and people have been prescriptivists and conservative about language since ancient times, but this is what it is.

"For example, the French government authority which oversees that language, has decided that the French should have their own words for things such as "email"." -> True, but that has no bearing on what word people actually, practically use.

Linguists do not decide on the correctness of words. Linguists aren't prescriptivists. That's why I had the word 'lexicographers' added way at the start of this thread.

The furthest you could push "As languages evolve, there are people whose entire job it is to determine which way of speaking is considered correct." is "there are people who concern themselves with determining which is the prestige way of speaking, which is then often used as 'standard' accent (which is a very strange term tbh) and as standard, correct orthography. Spelling is treated differently from the rest of language, because it can be controlled and called correct/incorrect.

To relate this to the issue: there can be people employed as lexicographers who decide on what is in a standard dictionary, but whether or not a word is added is, in 99% of cases, related to its use and its longevity. Whether or not a word is in a dictionary has absolutely nothing to do with whether the word is allowed to exist (of course it is), whether it's correct (of course it is), or if it can be used (of course it can). Whether it's part of the prestige dialect is a different matter - but again, these are all things that have nothing to do with orthography. The issue could be about a prestige dictionary that only adds words that can be used in a certain context (on the news, in newspapers, official communication, etc) but then that dictionary would have nothing to do with how language is used in society. The issue could be about a widely used dictionary, in which case any often used word has a place. At least, that's what the issue is about.

I think we've proven that the issue title is spot on though.

[Ko-oren]

So here'd be my suggestion for the issue, given the above discussion:

Dictionary (Def: A book causing much argument)

Preamble:After the "Organisation for Lexicographers in @@NAME@@" refused to put a commonly used slang word, "poogles" in the dictionaries, citizens have been complaining that many other words aren't in the dictionary either, and now they are looking for you to lay down the law. A lot of regional expressions ("steamed hams"), slang, and whatnot are all not found in dictionaries, begging the question if they can be used in the news/in newspapers/in official communication/etc

Validity: Official Language?

Option 1:"Look, I don't wanna throw shade here, my homie," says Snopes Daawg, a popular rapper. "But I'm feeling pretty salty, dawg, because the dictios aren't putting my words into the books!" He slams down a petition and asks, "So man, you in the gammme? Are you gonna make those dictionaries play our game?"

Effect:some people say that dictionaries are going totally "extra"

Option 2:"My fellow compatriot [noun-a native or inhabitant of one's own country; fellow countryman or countrywoman.], you must not give in to these young swine." states @@RANDOMNAME@@, the posh chair of the dictionary."These slang words are a disgrace to language, and we should discourage their use from the prepubescent stages of life! After all, the children are the future, and I hope that the future will be full of words like floccinaucinihilipilification [vb-the estimation of something as worthless]
Effect:Children that call each other poopy are given detention for swearing.

Option 3:"Look at this stupid argument!" whispers your valet. "I don't like these overbearing dictionaries, so why don't we get rid of them, and then we can say whatever we want!"

EffectThe government has put aside knowledge for the betterment of the people.

Option 4:"We already can say everything we want! Dictionaries only help to further push an agenda of one standard, official language. In reality, a word can be in a dictionary or not, and it's still a word, as long as we all agree on what it means... which is... what we use dictionaries for. I get that - but at the same time, we can have dictionaries to use in schools and for official purposes, and then the rest of us can go on to use language as it was intended, without all of these filthy prescriptivists telling us that dictionaries are important! @@LEADER@@, dionlize all these lombined, cattersome framations! I don't know what that meant, but if we just keep saying it, one day it'll mean something."

Effectit turns out that science sometimes is the easiest way out.

Still far from perfect, but it has some prescriptive elements, and it gives two options for the descriptive/linguistic side. Still struggling with the description though. I wish I could make an issue about this, maybe I will, but it'll have to be a very different angle.

[Trotterdam]

Peer pressure can control language change. If everyone makes fun of you for making an error, or corrects you every time you try to do it, then you're more likely to try to stop.

Dictionaries do not control language change. If you and your friends all understand what a word means, you're not going to stop using it just because it's not in the dictionary.