Mikefule
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 1,282
- Location
- Lincolnshire UK
Not quite a paradox, for the pedants, but it's a snappy title.
I have the sort of brain that makes unexpected connections between ideas, and a thought came to me yesterday.
Many years ago, I read of an author who decided in the final stages of editing that her protagonist should have brown eyes rather than blue.
She used her word processor to "find and replace" and then submitted her manuscript. Some time later, she received a mystified enquiry as to why her novel repeatedly described the sea and sky as brown. Changing one small word made a huge difference, much as altering one chromosome can make enormous changes to how an organism develops.
Except in the special case of technical or legal matters, there is no "official" meaning of any word. The meaning of a word is its use. However, when two people dispute the meaning of a word, or need absolute clarity, one or both may resort to a dictionary.
Meanings are not prescribed by the dictionary, but merely described. Paradoxically, they are described using other words. It is a form of bootstrapping: in order to understand each word, you have to understand each of the words used to describe it, and then each of the words used to describe them, and so on, in infinite regression. Eventually, you may come to a word that is defined using the very word that you were looking up in the first place.
Indeed, in very cheap dictionaries, it is not unknown to see simplistic circular definitions along the lines of
"Big: large, sizeable."
"Large: sizeable, big.
"Sizeable: big, large."
Of course in real life, the dictionary writer has to assume that the reader has a basic familiarity with the language, and an ability to infer meaning from context.
Take a simple word like can. It has two main meanings: a verb relating to the ability to do something; and a container that is usually cylindrical and made of metal.
However, there are further meanings: "can" is the verb meaning to put something into a can," as well as a slang term for prison.
So if the dictionary writer uses the word "can" in the definition of another word, the reader has to know which meaning of "can" is intended.
Most of the time this is not a problem. However, there are many words which have a "formal" meaning, and a much looser general meaning: words that people use in the way they may have have heard others use them. Many people use "anticipate" as a synonym for "expect", or "epicentre" as a posh way of saying "centre".
Over time, the meaning of words changes, and nuances are lost. This means that sometimes tautology becomes necessary. A pet peeve of mine: "co-conspirator" has more or less replaced "conspirator" in news reports, for example.
There was also the recent case of a UK politician making the generally valid point that discrimination against males by females is also bad, but exposing himself to ridicule by referring to "misogyny against men". (The correct word is "misandry".)
Another one that springs to mind: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone was renamed Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. How many people now think that sorcerer and philosopher must mean the same thing?
So my thought, making a tenuous connection in my mind with chaos theory's famous "butterfly effect", is what would happen if the meaning of one word in the dictionary were to be changed?
If that word appeared in the definition of another word, it would change the meaning of that word, and so on in a domino effect. The change of meaning of just one word — assuming it was a sufficiently widespread and important word — would either change the meaning of a large chunk of the language or at least make the dictionary completely invalid.
Have there been real cases where a lexicographer has misunderstood the meaning of a word, defined it incorrectly, and then used it in the definition of other words?
Have there been cases where the meaning of a word has been changed without anyone realising?
What word would make the most difference?
As someone who worked in connection with litigation for many years, I am acutely aware of how even the change of one letter in a word can make an important difference in real life. The long legal letter that was intended to say, "after careful consideration of this new evidence, we can not accept liability" is mistyped as "we can now accept liability," and all hell breaks loose!
I have the sort of brain that makes unexpected connections between ideas, and a thought came to me yesterday.
Many years ago, I read of an author who decided in the final stages of editing that her protagonist should have brown eyes rather than blue.
She used her word processor to "find and replace" and then submitted her manuscript. Some time later, she received a mystified enquiry as to why her novel repeatedly described the sea and sky as brown. Changing one small word made a huge difference, much as altering one chromosome can make enormous changes to how an organism develops.
Except in the special case of technical or legal matters, there is no "official" meaning of any word. The meaning of a word is its use. However, when two people dispute the meaning of a word, or need absolute clarity, one or both may resort to a dictionary.
Meanings are not prescribed by the dictionary, but merely described. Paradoxically, they are described using other words. It is a form of bootstrapping: in order to understand each word, you have to understand each of the words used to describe it, and then each of the words used to describe them, and so on, in infinite regression. Eventually, you may come to a word that is defined using the very word that you were looking up in the first place.
Indeed, in very cheap dictionaries, it is not unknown to see simplistic circular definitions along the lines of
"Big: large, sizeable."
"Large: sizeable, big.
"Sizeable: big, large."
Of course in real life, the dictionary writer has to assume that the reader has a basic familiarity with the language, and an ability to infer meaning from context.
Take a simple word like can. It has two main meanings: a verb relating to the ability to do something; and a container that is usually cylindrical and made of metal.
However, there are further meanings: "can" is the verb meaning to put something into a can," as well as a slang term for prison.
So if the dictionary writer uses the word "can" in the definition of another word, the reader has to know which meaning of "can" is intended.
Most of the time this is not a problem. However, there are many words which have a "formal" meaning, and a much looser general meaning: words that people use in the way they may have have heard others use them. Many people use "anticipate" as a synonym for "expect", or "epicentre" as a posh way of saying "centre".
Over time, the meaning of words changes, and nuances are lost. This means that sometimes tautology becomes necessary. A pet peeve of mine: "co-conspirator" has more or less replaced "conspirator" in news reports, for example.
There was also the recent case of a UK politician making the generally valid point that discrimination against males by females is also bad, but exposing himself to ridicule by referring to "misogyny against men". (The correct word is "misandry".)
Another one that springs to mind: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone was renamed Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. How many people now think that sorcerer and philosopher must mean the same thing?
So my thought, making a tenuous connection in my mind with chaos theory's famous "butterfly effect", is what would happen if the meaning of one word in the dictionary were to be changed?
If that word appeared in the definition of another word, it would change the meaning of that word, and so on in a domino effect. The change of meaning of just one word — assuming it was a sufficiently widespread and important word — would either change the meaning of a large chunk of the language or at least make the dictionary completely invalid.
Have there been real cases where a lexicographer has misunderstood the meaning of a word, defined it incorrectly, and then used it in the definition of other words?
Have there been cases where the meaning of a word has been changed without anyone realising?
What word would make the most difference?
As someone who worked in connection with litigation for many years, I am acutely aware of how even the change of one letter in a word can make an important difference in real life. The long legal letter that was intended to say, "after careful consideration of this new evidence, we can not accept liability" is mistyped as "we can now accept liability," and all hell breaks loose!
