221–230 of 286 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> I can confirm that "boiling water" definitively is "water that's boiling" and that two words Which are the two words? ["water that's", "boiling"] ["water", "that's boiling"] ["water that", "s boiling"] Something else?
I'm currently reading Cormack McCarthy's Suttree (my first of his novels) — just an exceptional polymath capable of painting complicated scenery with words dozenly scattered throughout paragraphs [0]. My favorite adjective he's coördinated is "burntwing", used to describe moths spiraling downwards after passing through candleflames . If I had crafted such a descriptive contraction, my former styling would've been "bu…
Another contemporary writer who worked with new words in a very creative way was Gene Wolfe in The Book of the New Sun. Some were inventions using Greek, French, or Latin roots. Others were forgotten terms which he resurrected. Someone compiled a dictionary, Lexicon Urthus, which discusses the origins of certain terms and their placement within the series.
On languages other than English: in general, different languages do word division very differently. At least in German and Dutch, many of those phrasal verbs are separable, meaning that they are one word in the infinitive but are multiple words in the present tense. So for example, where in English you would say "I log in to the website", in Dutch it would be "Ik log in op de website". "Log in" is two words in both cases, but in Dutch it's the separated form of the single-word separable verb inloggen ("I must log in now" = "Ik moet nu inloggen"). The verb is indeed separable in that the two words often don't end up next to each other: "I log in quickly" = "Ik log snel in".
Dutch, like German, has lots of compounds. But there are also agglutinative languages, which have even more complex compound words, perhaps comprising a whole sentence in another language. Eg (from Wikipedia) Turkish "evlerinizdenmiş" = "(he/she/it) was (apparently/said to be) from your houses" or Plains Cree "paehtāwāēwesew" = "he is heard by higher powers"; and these aren't corner cases, that's how the language works.
If the first example was "monkey wrench" instead of "boiling water", we'd never have seen the article.
The article is questioning why some words don't meet the bar for inclusion in the dictionary. The word "boiling water" is one such word that it sees as being on the fence. The comments here demonstrate exactly why it is on the fence, but it remains unclear exactly what would be necessary for it to tip towards inclusion.
> “Boiling water” isn’t “water that happens to be boiling.” It’s a hazard, a cooking stage, a state of matter I guess we'll have to disagree then, because "boiling water" is "water that's boiling" to me. It's not a different state of matter to "water", that would be "steam". It being a hazard doesn't mean it's a singular concept, same as "wet floor"
Boiling water is mostly same as boiling anything. So I would just have "boiling". No need for "boiling water". I see no reason why boiling water could not just be covered by whatever general boiling entry covers.
The word "boiling water" is not currently found in the dictionary because the meaning has not been considered widespread or significant enough to justify inclusion. The article is pondering what line exactly defines widespread or significant.
Wiktionary doesn't need to make that distinction between MWEs and Idioms and tends to conflate MWEs and Idioms as there is no separate "Wikidiom". Arguably, that multi-book confusion runs deep on the internet because Urban Dictionary should probably be fully titled the Urban Dictionary of Idioms and Slang.
It's not just page limits but also categorical limits and classic lexicographers would build multiple books/volumes, not just settle on one "dictionary". Classic scholars would often have a "reference shelf" with multiple dictionaries, books of idioms, thesauri, and more. The CD-ROM and then the internet has kind of tunnel visioned that this entire shelf can be merely "one app".
> “Boiling water” isn’t “water that happens to be boiling.” It’s a hazard, a cooking stage, a state of matter I guess we'll have to disagree then, because "boiling water" is "water that's boiling" to me. It's not a different state of matter to "water", that would be "steam". It being a hazard doesn't mean it's a singular concept, same as "wet floor"
To me it boils down to (pun intended) > Traditional dictionaries skip almost all such phrases, because they contain spaces. Yes, because they're phrases, not words. I don't even understand what's surprising about this. Sure, the entire article talks about how dictionaries contain _some_ phrases; but it's clear it's not many of them. Dictionaries are for words, not phrases.
I'm currently reading Cormack McCarthy's Suttree (my first of his novels) — just an exceptional polymath capable of painting complicated scenery with words dozenly scattered throughout paragraphs [0]. My favorite adjective he's coördinated is "burntwing", used to describe moths spiraling downwards after passing through candleflames . If I had crafted such a descriptive contraction, my former styling would've been "bu…
Wait til you read Blood Meridian . The imagery he created with words, some of them his own creations, is just ... beyond compare. I'm reading The Road now, which comes from the same place. I can only read either in small doses. It's very intense, and the passages deserve to be read carefully. Another contemporary writer who worked with new words in a very creative way was Gene Wolfe in The Book of the New Sun . Some…
Absolutely. Similarly, I read the Tao Te Ching 4x annually, by reading the same single passage both before and after bed, daily. Both Laotzi's and McCarthy's density of construction is just soooooo human condition.
[Suttree book world] Harrington just found the eyeball in the junkyard vehicle — in a single paragraph humanity just oozes, including his toying with viscosity and shock, and re-toying again. Washes hands. The drunk boss having previously joked "yeah the driver only scraped his shinbones."
I am hooked. McCarthy's books jumped to the top of my bookqueue after reading a HN article a few months ago about his library/collections being catalogued, post-humously.
----
I've just read Dave Wallace's three major novels (Jest & King & Broom, ~2000 pages) and McCarthy is absolutely the better author, not requiring hundreds of footnotes to say less with more esoteric bullshit [0]. DFW just seems like a bully to me ("wow I'm so smart"—DFW, probably), and honestly his samizdat is about 800 pages too long (myself a former bored addict prodigy with poor family comms) [1].
Mostly I read DFW because he's my judge-brother's favorite fiction author — it felt like a challenging obligation/chore, much like our personal relationship. With both, I've felt mostly emptiness. For powerful shortform pieces, both are quite capable of emotional stirring (This is Water).
I laugh when I see this book on others' shelves, because they probably haven't read it and it isn't really worth the time to read [all of] it. A few simple questions of the "reader" verifies this. My own bullying is that "I have" [snooty], however much I wish for all that reading time back. Bullies making bullies =D
----
By page 100 of Suttree you are hooked. By page 100 of Jest you are bored [2]. I've yet to read more than six pages of McCarthy in one day. For Wallace my eyes would constantly glaze over dozens of pages and just think: what happened here?! why did author include [all of] this!?
Although I am tired after reading either author for twenty minutes, McCarthy's doesn't feel like the author is just wasting my time.
----
My McCarthy readlist is structured so: Suttree (current); Blood Meridian; The Road — is this advisable?
----
[0] DFW's footnotes == even more of his esoteric bullshit
[1] If you do read Infinite Jest, absolutely use a study guide(s) (specifically Aaron Swartz's incredible breakdown... which can reduce the book just just a few hundred pages). If you've ever suffered an addiction (whether yourself or crazybestfriends's), you probably don't need to suffer through any longform DFWallace.
[2] I understand this is part of DFW's "style" : the frenzied passages of speed addicts, thirty pages into killing a dog (e.g.) when three pages would have done better, more respectful of reader's time (addict or not).