[HN Gopher] Dictionary Facts: Oxford English Dictionary
___________________________________________________________________
Dictionary Facts: Oxford English Dictionary
Author : dcminter
Score : 41 points
Date : 2022-05-11 11:02 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.oed.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.oed.com)
| aaronvonbaron wrote:
| I have been using WordWeb Pro for years now, which pops up when
| you hover over a word and ctrl + right click. One of the many
| references available for purchase is the shorter Oxford English
| Dictionary. Others include their own dictionary with audio
| pronunciation, Chambers Dictionary and Thesaurus, New Oxford
| American Dictionary, and Collins English Dictionary. I have
| purchased all except Collins which I have in print. Since I work
| in patent prosecution and litigation, I use WordWeb many times
| per day. I also have print additions of many older dictionaries
| and other resources to ascertain the meaning of a word at the
| time the invention. It's amazing to look at multiple definitions
| and realize that each resource can have slightly or very
| different meanings.
| AdamN wrote:
| Why is there no OED app (just the Shorter one ... which is
| awful)? How much would it cost to open source the OED and put it
| inside a proper foundation? That dictionary was built by
| volunteers and it's time for it to be free.
| [deleted]
| leoc wrote:
| > Why is there no OED app (just the Shorter one ... which is
| awful)?
|
| It's some combination of OUP wanting to push the Oxford
| Dictionary of English and OUP wanting to go on charging $100 a
| year for individual OED access https://public.oed.com/help/how-
| to-subscribe/ . Though indeed for that kind of money you might
| think you were owed an app instead of just a web interface.
| There can't yet be a free version because no edition of the OED
| is fully out of copyright yet ... not just yet, at least.
| mdaniel wrote:
| From the linked page, they allege the data itself would be
| 540M, plus another 60M or so for app-framework (and 300M for
| social media trackers) so that'd likely be bigger than one
| might wish for an app
|
| > Number of megabytes of electronic storage required for
| text: 540
|
| _It 's likely they're using "pdf scan size" or such, because
| I find their number suspicious_
| Bud wrote:
| On the contrary, if the OED were available as an app for
| any reasonable price, or even a somewhat-unreasonable
| price, I would download it instantly for my phone and
| tablet.
|
| 600MB or even 900MB of storage would be well-spent.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| At 8 characters per word, plus a space, and 59 million
| words, 540 MB checks out: You have: 540 MB
| / 59 million You want: bytes *
| 9.1525424 / 0.10925926
|
| I have a considerable collection of digital books, many in
| PDF form. A typical book tends to run 1--5 MB in straight
| text. Scanned pages or image-heavy content can run to 30--
| 300 MB for 200--1500 pages or so.
| linguae wrote:
| At one point it was possible to purchase the OED on a CD-ROM
| (https://www.oed.com/page/buy/loginpage), though in recent
| years the CD-ROM version has been discontinued in favor of
| subscriptions to the Web version. Every now and then I search
| eBay to see if anybody is selling their copy of the OED on
| CD-ROM.
|
| For now I have the Shorter OED app for Windows 10, which
| suffices for me.
| runlevel1 wrote:
| PSA: You can often access the full OED via your local library's
| website.
|
| For example, folks in Denver can search it for free at:
| https://www.oed.com.ezproxy.denverlibrary.org/
| sivers wrote:
| I came here to say this, too. Please don't overlook this
| comment if you're interested in having the full OED online.
|
| I've lived a few places, and my local library has given full
| free access to OED to all members. Just enter your library card
| number and library-given-password, and you are sent to an OED-
| hosted web app with full access to everything, all historical
| information - really deep rich full entries.
|
| For example here in Wellington New Zealand, my local library
| access is at https://www-oed-com.wcl.idm.oclc.org/
|
| If you're interested, just look up your local library's
| website, and find if they give members access.
|
| Strangely enough, I was living in Oxford England for two years,
| and that was the only public library that didn't have OED
| access! But they had a free 3D printer, so fair trade.
|
| Anyway - whenever I set up a new browser, putting in my local
| OED link is the first bookmark I create, and I use it every
| day. Highly recommended.
| J_cst wrote:
| Seems that it's accessible from the Pisa university too? I've
| not deepen the subject, but that's the link if anyone's
| interested:
|
| https://www.sba.unipi.it/en/resources/databases/oxford-engli...
|
| -\\_(tsu)_/-
| cbfrench wrote:
| One of my goals since I was in college has been to own the OED. I
| finally have the bookshelf space and have saved up for it, so I
| think this is the year I achieve my personal pinnacle of literary
| nerd-dom! There's nothing like a stroll through the forgotten by-
| ways of the language.
| Veen wrote:
| I have a Compact Edition--a micrographically reduced two-volume
| edition of the full dictionary--and it's one of my favorite
| possessions. Unfortunately, I don't think I could justify the
| space or the money for the full multi-volume version.
| Agamus wrote:
| The Compact Edition is excellent, but be warned - it's quite
| big! You'll need an oversized shelf for it. My version came
| in a box with a pull-out drawer at the top to hold a
| magnifying glass. In my home, we sometimes race to see who
| can get random information quicker, from the internet or from
| the OED; the OED is often more efficient.
| Bud wrote:
| I have the compact OED as well. I will never give it up. The
| wonderful magnifying glass included with the set is still in
| perfect condition after thirty years of ownership.
|
| You can still find these in used bookstores. If you're very
| lucky.
| leoc wrote:
| Yes, used copies of the first-edition Compact OED are a great
| option. They don't take much space or cost much money:
| https://www.ebay.ie/itm/304361514092 . They only give you the
| first edition of the OED and the first, 1933, Supplement, but
| that's really a solid 80%+ solution to the not-having-an-OED
| problem. Used copies of the current compact edition are
| significantly dearer, but for many people not unthinkably
| expensive.
| jasomill wrote:
| Not unthinkably expensive at all, at least compared to
| retail: Amazon lists several _new_ copies of the second
| compact edition at $400-500.
|
| Adjusting for inflation, that's comparable to the $273
| retail I paid Amazon for my copy in 2002.
|
| As with many other commenters, it remains one of my most
| prized possessions, and something I still use on a regular
| basis.
|
| I'd personally be wary of used copies purchased sight
| unseen, as the paper is quite thin and easily torn, even
| under arguably "moderate" use, and would probably save up
| for a new copy if buying today. If nothing else, the used
| copies tend to be missing the supplementary materials
| (slipcase, magnifying glass, user's guide).
| jll29 wrote:
| I would be interested to provide a new home to the 1989
| edition in 20 vol. of the OED, if a reader owns it or know
| someone who does.
| hodgesrm wrote:
| I had that same goal for many years and was fortunate enough to
| get the 1989 edition (20 volumes) "on sale" for a mere $999. It
| came in four boxes of 5 volumes each. It was a chore just
| carrying them to my car outside the bookstore.
|
| The OED is a marvellous human achievement. The thing I find
| most amazing is the confidence it represents that the meaning
| of language, despite its mindboggling complexity and ambiguity,
| can be captured in writing and transferred to others. It seems
| very much of a piece with the Enlightenment view that the
| universe is fully susceptible to human reason. I still find
| that outlook admirable, however imperfectly achieved.
|
| Besides, the OED is great for games. My favorite is "find the
| oldest quote." It's not hard to find quotes from before 1000,
| for example.
| leoc wrote:
| Hmm. Since 1928 is the "Year of the Dictionary",
| https://public.oed.com/blog/1928-year-of-the-dictionary/ all of
| the first edition should be out of copyright on or after 2023,
| no? OTOH the first supplement is from 1933 so it will presumably
| still be in copyright for a while yet. That first supplement is
| important, so I'm surprised that the OP doesn't mention it. It's
| included in the first edition compact OED
| https://www.ebay.ie/itm/304361514092 which sold lots of copies,
| and it contains the first OED entry for many words which you
| couldn't imagine not finding in a dictionary.
| nomilk wrote:
| The first edition (1884) had 252,200 words. Counter intuitively,
| I think that's _less_ than modern versions. I wonder if that 's
| because we speak more homogenously these days, leading to fewer
| synonyms, and hence a smaller dictionary.
| Veen wrote:
| The Oxford English Dictionary is a historical dictionary. It
| aims to be a complete lexicon of the English language over
| time. It doesn't aim to reflect modern usage, except by adding
| new words. In contrast, the Oxford Dictionary of English (ODE,
| not OED) does aim to reflect modern usage.
| nomilk wrote:
| Very interesting, I hadn't come across the term _historical
| dictionary_ until today.
|
| From wikiepdia:
|
| > A historical dictionary or dictionary on historical
| principles is a dictionary which deals not only with the
| latterday meanings of words but also the historical
| development of their forms and meanings. It may also describe
| the vocabulary of an earlier stage of a language's
| development without covering present-day usage at all. A
| historical dictionary is primarily of interest to scholars of
| language, but may also be used as a general dictionary.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_dictionary
| bloak wrote:
| Yes, and the criteria for inclusion are interesting.
| According to
| https://www.oed.com/public/oldenglishintheoed/old, any word
| that survived in English after 1150 qualifies for inclusion,
| but once it is included examples of its usage may be taken
| from the earliest Anglo-Saxon literature, so back to about
| the year 600. So some of the usage examples are not very easy
| for a typical modern reader to understand, to put it mildly.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-13 23:02 UTC)