Reading the Dictionary

Reading the Dictionary

What does "it" mean?

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

In a recent post, we pointed out that when it comes to abbreviations, we prefer to use ones we are familiar with. In particular, we mentioned that we try to avoid using “n” for “new,” which we’ve only ever seen in cryptic crosswords and in state abbreviations. Solver Dan Chall checked a bunch of dictionaries, and found that many did list “n” as an abbreviation for “new.” He writes:

I suppose that if N is widely used to mean “new” in many geographical references and other contexts, to the point that it gets its own entry in several dictionaries, then it’s not exactly idiosyncratic in the same way J=Jersey.

Fair enough. Claiming an equivalence between “n” for “new” and “J” for “Jersey” was a weak argument on our part. (For one thing, “n” for “new” appears in four state name abbreviations, while “J” for “Jersey” appears only in one.) But we stand by our point that dictionaries are not a good way to adjudicate questions about abbreviations. Dictionaries include some very obscure abbreviations such as “s” for “label” (we kid you not—check Merriam-Webster), and omit some very common ones, such as “S” for “salt.” The reason is that dictionaries are based on the written language, and “S” for “salt” occurs only on salt shakers.

Indeed, the MO of the OED and Merriam-Webster is to collect citations of word usage in written English, and base their definitions on the accumulated data they assemble. In other words, these dictionaries are based on the English language as it actually appears in edited prose. Other dictionaries base their definitions on the opinion of experts. Word nerds are free to prefer one approach or the other, but in any case, there is broad agreement between different dictionaries. When in doubt about a definition, we consult two or three dictionaries. This, alas, does not prevent us from being wrong; when we’re not in doubt, we don’t consult any references at all.

Some solvers of the Nation puzzle object to our occasional inclusion of words they deem obscure, and see it as evidence of our deficiencies. Well, they are not entirely wrong, as we sometimes include obscure words simply because they fit. But to be honest, the other reason is that we tend to construct puzzles we’d like to solve. When we come across a word we don’t know in a puzzle, we appreciate the encounter. (One of us saw SCOTOPIC in a puzzle recently. Nice, no?) We enjoy taking a trip into one or more dictionaries when that happens. (Scotopia is “vision in dim light with dark-adapted eyes believed to be mediated by the rods of the retina—opposed to photopia.”) If you looked at our bookshelves, computers, tablets, and phones, you’d find many, many dictionaries. We consult them often. We love dictionaries, because we love words.

This week’s clueing challenge: WEBSTER. To comment (and see other readers’ comments), please click on this post’s title and scroll to the bottom of the resulting screen. And now, four links:
• The current puzzle
• Our puzzle-solving guidelines | PDF
• Our e-books (solve past puzzles on your iOS device—many hints provided by the software!)
• A Nation puzzle solver’s blog where every one of our clues is explained in detail. This is also where you can post quibbles, questions, kudos or complaints about the current puzzle, as well as ask for hints.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read, just one of the many incisive, deeply-reported articles we publish daily. Now more than ever, we need fearless journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media.

Throughout this critical election year and a time of media austerity and renewed campus activism and rising labor organizing, independent journalism that gets to the heart of the matter is more critical than ever before. Donate right now and help us hold the powerful accountable, shine a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug, and build a more just and equitable future.

For nearly 160 years, The Nation has stood for truth, justice, and moral clarity. As a reader-supported publication, we are not beholden to the whims of advertisers or a corporate owner. But it does take financial resources to report on stories that may take weeks or months to properly investigate, thoroughly edit and fact-check articles, and get our stories into the hands of readers.

Donate today and stand with us for a better future. Thank you for being a supporter of independent journalism.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x