Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You’re probably using the wrong dictionary (2014)

jsomers.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 90 posts

Re: You’re probably using the wrong dictionary (2014)

#71

Post by bryal »

aasasd wrote: post #68
bryal wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wiktionary is great! I'm interested in etymology, and my mind frequently wanders to thoughts like "I wonder what the origin of the 'pseudo-' prefix is." or "I wonder if the english word 'sea' and the swedish word 'sjö' are related - they seem quite similar.". More often than not, wikitionary has the answer - and a good, detailed one at that!

In case Wiktionary fails, you can try https://www.etymonline.com ― it's especially has more info on figurative phrases instead of individual words, and has dates when a word or a phrase entered the usage (according to records).

That looks like a nice second source. I miss the IPA pronununciations though, among other things, so wikitionary will remain my go-to.

Re: You’re probably using the wrong dictionary (2014)

#72

Post by dreeves »

I believe the definitions you get by googling "define $WORD" are especially horrible. In fact I have a whole diatribe about this...

http://doc.dreev.es/dicked

As a teaser, here are some of the google definitions I've come across that I believe are all wrong:

  mitzvah
  mercenary
  bemused
  waif
  ancillary
  hinky
  quiescent
  commentariat
  poignant
  orthogonal
  dibs
  come out in the wash
  kibitz
  cull
  elide
  gird
  comport
  confabulate

Re: You’re probably using the wrong dictionary (2014)

#73

Post by urubu »

xtracto wrote: post #41

Back when I was writing my PhD thesis (in English, as a non-native English speaker) I remember looking for a more efficient way to find synonyms for certain word. Usually when you are looking for synonyms, you know you already know the word but you just cannot find it. So the Idea I had was to make some kind of "graph" representation of Word relationships given their meaning. I remember finding a huge list of words w…

Sounds a bit like what the Wordflex app does: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/wordflex-touch-dictionary/id...

Re: You’re probably using the wrong dictionary (2014)

#74

Post by sandspar »

"Merriam-Webster's New Dictionary of Synonyms" is devoted to explaining shades of meaning among synonyms. For example, it explains why you might choose to use defer, postpone, intermit, suspend, or stay. Interesting if you're a writer, or if you're generally interested in suggestion, implication, and denotation. It's very browsable.

Re: You’re probably using the wrong dictionary (2014)

#75

Post by antris »

CGamesPlay wrote: post #17

The dictionary linked in this post has some formatting issues, so a kind soul improved upon it (Mac Dictionary.app dictionary): https://github.com/mortenjust/webster-mac

And the installation instructions on the GitHub page are much simpler than the complicated thing that TFA suggests

Re: You’re probably using the wrong dictionary (2014)

#76

Post by jacobolus »

hammock wrote: post #67
lisper wrote: post #60

> Recall that the New Oxford, for the word “fustian,” gives “pompous or pretentious speech or writing.” I said earlier that that wasn’t even really correct. Here, then, is Webster’s definition: “An inflated style of writing; a kind of writing in which high-sounding words are used, above the dignity of the thoughts or subject; bombast.” Do you see the difference? What makes fustian fustian is not just that the languag…

>using fancy language where fancy language isn’t called for That's not what "pompous" means but it is exactly what "pretentious" means. For some reason OP ignored that part of the definition.

“fustian” and “pretentious speech” and “pompous speech” can be similar/related but they don’t map 1:1 to each-other.

Fustian is a type of cloth which was used as padding. If I say I just listened to 10 minutes of fustian from a politician that means they were filling time far beyond the direct content. I would characterize many business books as fustian. (Or at least, this has always been my understanding of the word.)

If I say the speech was pretentious that means it was artificially pretending to be something it wasn’t, e.g. as if it were written by someone who looked up every word they wanted to use in the thesaurus and then chose the most obscure quasi-synonym without knowing its meaning and without bothering to check that the new word actually meant what they wanted to say. (There might be other types of pretension. For instance, someone might say that a highly-educated upper-class politician’s speech is pretentious when he talks like a manual laborer, or that a political scientist’s writing is pretentious when it reads like a physics paper.)

If I say the speech was pompous, that means it was affectedly grand; imagine someone giving a speech at a city council meeting about whether to add some bike lanes to a local street but sounding like a king’s eulogy.

“Fluff”, “stuffing”, “padding”, “bombast”, “hot air”, etc. are ways of expressing more or less the same metaphor as “fustian”.

Re: You’re probably using the wrong dictionary (2014)

#77

Post by antris »

mmjaa wrote: post #24

I like to make my own dictionaries for texts I'm studying. I sort all the words, uniq them, and create a word list containing every word in the text I'm studying. Then, I pipe each word entry through sdcv, with my favourite dictionaries enabled, and create a glossary specifically for the text in study. Then as I study the text, and encounter strange and unfamiliar words, I use my glossary to gain understanding. If so…

Wow. This is super interesting. TFA and hearing methods like these and how people who write and read a lot work with language is mind-opening to me. I have recently fallen into the habit of browsing YouTube all day long and listening to some podcasts or documentaries while playing video games. I'm now reminded how much more writing and reading evokes thoughts than just blasting something from TV or a streaming service.

Reading is not just background noise. It demands your attention, or you will fall out of the text quickly.

Re: You’re probably using the wrong dictionary (2014)

#78

Post by ppod »

specialist wrote: post #46
greggyb wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you find it fustian?

ppod wrote: "prescriptive aesthetic paternalism" Made my day.

I'm not criticising it for being overwrought, rather that it is self-consciously attempting to be "elegant" in an unnatural way.

Re: You’re probably using the wrong dictionary (2014)

#79

Post by blago »

neosat wrote: post #63
blago wrote: post #51

Back in 2014, this article inspired me to write an iOS app. I took a few weekends putting most of my efforts into formatting and readability. Just when I was ready to release, I got really busy at work. Weeks became months, and months became years. By the time I got back to it last year, Xcode wouldn't compile it anymore. To my dismay, I also discovered that a number of other apps had been launched. After fretting a…

Thanks for putting this together. Downloaded and like it quite a bit so far! Will rate 5 on the app store too.

Thank you neosat! Much appreciated.

Re: You’re probably using the wrong dictionary (2014)

#80

Post by nihalot »

aparks517 wrote: post #34

This is a truly delightful dictionary! I put together a tool to improve the formatting somewhat the last time this went around: https://github.com/aparks517/convert-websters And also an iOS app: https://itunes.apple.com/app/id943993346 I’ve also been collecting patches to correct typographical errors which I’ve been meaning to post somewhere. I’ve met lots of neat folks through this project!

The app is unavailable in the Indian App store.
Post reply on HN