How do dictionaries source attestationAre there dictionaries like Collins COBUILD for other languages than...
Stuck to wireframe
Did ancient Germans take pride in leaving the land untouched?
Minimum Viable Product for RTS game?
What species should be used for storage of human minds?
Calculating the strength of an ionic bond that contains poly-atomic ions
If angels and devils are the same species, why would their mortal offspring appear physically different?
Maybe pigeonhole problem?
How do I narratively explain how in-game circumstances do not mechanically allow a PC to instantly kill an NPC?
Why might frozen potatoes require a hechsher?
What is an efficient way to digitize a family photo collection?
What does an unprocessed RAW file look like?
Are all power cords made equal?
Is it possible to detect 100% of SQLi with a simple regex?
Coworker asking me to not bring cakes due to self control issue. What should I do?
How do dictionaries source attestation
How to not let the Identify spell spoil everything?
Why did Ylvis use "go" instead of "say" in phrases like "Dog goes 'woof'"?
Would water spill from a bowl in a Bag of Holding?
How can I deduce the power of a capacitor from its datasheet?
How do I fight with Heavy Armor as a Wizard with Tenser's Transformation?
Where does documentation like business and software requirement spec docs fit in an agile project?
'DataFrame' object has no attribute 'to_dataframe'
Was there a pre-determined arrangement for the division of Germany in case it surrendered before any Soviet forces entered its territory?
What's the winning box for the King in a Queen against 7th rank Bishop-pawn endgame?
How do dictionaries source attestation
Are there dictionaries like Collins COBUILD for other languages than English?How are meanings of a word ordered in a dictionary?How are dictionaries producedHow can a multi-language dictionary be made?Is there an open source English dictionary that isn't too fine-grained in defining a word?How do native speakers determine a word's literal/basic meaning?an open source lexicographical framework
Some dictionaries source attestation and try to go for the earliest quotes they can find. How do they find them? Without electronic indexing this must have been impossibly difficult.
The reason I'm asking is that many answers on Stackexchange often conclude earliest attestation and imply earliest use, instead of the logical used at the latest in ... That's a slightly different issue to frame the question, not to make it too broad. To be fair, no inference is made because of this in many cases.
lexicography
add a comment |
Some dictionaries source attestation and try to go for the earliest quotes they can find. How do they find them? Without electronic indexing this must have been impossibly difficult.
The reason I'm asking is that many answers on Stackexchange often conclude earliest attestation and imply earliest use, instead of the logical used at the latest in ... That's a slightly different issue to frame the question, not to make it too broad. To be fair, no inference is made because of this in many cases.
lexicography
add a comment |
Some dictionaries source attestation and try to go for the earliest quotes they can find. How do they find them? Without electronic indexing this must have been impossibly difficult.
The reason I'm asking is that many answers on Stackexchange often conclude earliest attestation and imply earliest use, instead of the logical used at the latest in ... That's a slightly different issue to frame the question, not to make it too broad. To be fair, no inference is made because of this in many cases.
lexicography
Some dictionaries source attestation and try to go for the earliest quotes they can find. How do they find them? Without electronic indexing this must have been impossibly difficult.
The reason I'm asking is that many answers on Stackexchange often conclude earliest attestation and imply earliest use, instead of the logical used at the latest in ... That's a slightly different issue to frame the question, not to make it too broad. To be fair, no inference is made because of this in many cases.
lexicography
lexicography
asked 3 hours ago
vectoryvectory
34911
34911
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
I agree with your assumption that the date of the earliest recorded usage of a word does not necessarily correspond to the earliest usage of a word, since words may have been in circulation in spoken language before they were first used in publications, and many old publications have simply not survived.
Before there were digital corpora and digital texts, lexicographers had to read physical books to find usage examples. The editors of the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (which started their work in 1857 or 1858) asked thousands of volunteer readers to submit usage examples, in what was an early example of crowdsourcing. (See the crowdsourcing timeline, which says that 800 volunteers contributed to the first fascicle alone.)
In short, finding early usage examples required a lot of reading.
add a comment |
Typically, you don't ever really know for certain that you have the earliest example. Or even the earliest written example. It's just the best so far.
(As a person who frequently writes answers to etymology questions on ELU, I try to make this clear. "According to the OED", "according to my own research", "dates at least back to X" are all things I say, but I sometimes get sloppy and don't do this all the time.)
There are some exceptions. We can be very certain that "cromulent", for example, was coined in 1996 (or '95 depending on when the episode of the Simpsons was written).
How etymological research is done has varied through time. In the case of the "New English Dictionary" (the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary), work started on it in 1857. Then:
[I]n January 1859, the Society issued their 'Proposal for the publication of a New English Dictionary,' in which the characteristics of the proposed work were explained, and an appeal made to the English and American public to assist in collecting the raw materials for the work, these materials consisting of quotations illustrating the use of English words by all writers of all ages and in all senses, each quotation being made on a uniform plan on a half-sheet of notepaper, that they might in due course be arranged and classified alphabetically and by meanings. This Appeal met with a generous response: some hundreds of volunteers began to read books, make quotations, and send in their slips to 'sub-editors,' who volunteered each to take charge of a letter or part of one, and by whom the slips were in tum further arranged, classified, and to some extent used as the basis of definitions and skeleton schemes of the meanings of words in preparation for the Dictionary.
An Appeal to the English-Speaking and English-Reading Public to Read Books and Make Extracts for The Philological Society's New English Dictionary
The "Reading Programme" is still used by the OED, although the methodology is different. The books are still read all the same but here's what happens next according to a freelance researcher for the OED:
I then consult OED Online to determine whether the word or phrase is in the Dictionary: if it is not, I submit it as a ‘not-in’, and if it is, I decide whether its form or context is important enough to warrant its submission. If it does qualify, I enter the information into tagged fields in an electronic file that has been set up in a standard format. When I have finished the reading, I submit the file to Oxford or New York, where the records are incorporated into OED‘s working database for consideration by the editors, along with thousands of paper citation slips, as they proceed through the current revision. Yes, some of my finds are still submitted as paper slips—a reminder of OED‘s long heritage—but, electronic or paper, I can hardly imagine a better job.
The quotations were collected in a machine readable format for the first time in 1989. The 1990 UK Reading Programme captured material electronically. (Note that the second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary came out in 1989.)
In addition to this, the OED now utilizes several online databases of texts, such as Early English Books Online, Eighteenth Century Collections Online, and some newspaper databases.
If you do your own research with databases (many people use the free Google Books), it's often easy to beat pages that haven't been updated for the third edition of the OED. Updates to the OED3 started in 2000 and continue to this day: it's a huge dictionary and updating takes time.
See also:
- OED: Researching the Language
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "312"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flinguistics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30661%2fhow-do-dictionaries-source-attestation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I agree with your assumption that the date of the earliest recorded usage of a word does not necessarily correspond to the earliest usage of a word, since words may have been in circulation in spoken language before they were first used in publications, and many old publications have simply not survived.
Before there were digital corpora and digital texts, lexicographers had to read physical books to find usage examples. The editors of the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (which started their work in 1857 or 1858) asked thousands of volunteer readers to submit usage examples, in what was an early example of crowdsourcing. (See the crowdsourcing timeline, which says that 800 volunteers contributed to the first fascicle alone.)
In short, finding early usage examples required a lot of reading.
add a comment |
I agree with your assumption that the date of the earliest recorded usage of a word does not necessarily correspond to the earliest usage of a word, since words may have been in circulation in spoken language before they were first used in publications, and many old publications have simply not survived.
Before there were digital corpora and digital texts, lexicographers had to read physical books to find usage examples. The editors of the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (which started their work in 1857 or 1858) asked thousands of volunteer readers to submit usage examples, in what was an early example of crowdsourcing. (See the crowdsourcing timeline, which says that 800 volunteers contributed to the first fascicle alone.)
In short, finding early usage examples required a lot of reading.
add a comment |
I agree with your assumption that the date of the earliest recorded usage of a word does not necessarily correspond to the earliest usage of a word, since words may have been in circulation in spoken language before they were first used in publications, and many old publications have simply not survived.
Before there were digital corpora and digital texts, lexicographers had to read physical books to find usage examples. The editors of the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (which started their work in 1857 or 1858) asked thousands of volunteer readers to submit usage examples, in what was an early example of crowdsourcing. (See the crowdsourcing timeline, which says that 800 volunteers contributed to the first fascicle alone.)
In short, finding early usage examples required a lot of reading.
I agree with your assumption that the date of the earliest recorded usage of a word does not necessarily correspond to the earliest usage of a word, since words may have been in circulation in spoken language before they were first used in publications, and many old publications have simply not survived.
Before there were digital corpora and digital texts, lexicographers had to read physical books to find usage examples. The editors of the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (which started their work in 1857 or 1858) asked thousands of volunteer readers to submit usage examples, in what was an early example of crowdsourcing. (See the crowdsourcing timeline, which says that 800 volunteers contributed to the first fascicle alone.)
In short, finding early usage examples required a lot of reading.
answered 2 hours ago
Christophe StrobbeChristophe Strobbe
3631212
3631212
add a comment |
add a comment |
Typically, you don't ever really know for certain that you have the earliest example. Or even the earliest written example. It's just the best so far.
(As a person who frequently writes answers to etymology questions on ELU, I try to make this clear. "According to the OED", "according to my own research", "dates at least back to X" are all things I say, but I sometimes get sloppy and don't do this all the time.)
There are some exceptions. We can be very certain that "cromulent", for example, was coined in 1996 (or '95 depending on when the episode of the Simpsons was written).
How etymological research is done has varied through time. In the case of the "New English Dictionary" (the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary), work started on it in 1857. Then:
[I]n January 1859, the Society issued their 'Proposal for the publication of a New English Dictionary,' in which the characteristics of the proposed work were explained, and an appeal made to the English and American public to assist in collecting the raw materials for the work, these materials consisting of quotations illustrating the use of English words by all writers of all ages and in all senses, each quotation being made on a uniform plan on a half-sheet of notepaper, that they might in due course be arranged and classified alphabetically and by meanings. This Appeal met with a generous response: some hundreds of volunteers began to read books, make quotations, and send in their slips to 'sub-editors,' who volunteered each to take charge of a letter or part of one, and by whom the slips were in tum further arranged, classified, and to some extent used as the basis of definitions and skeleton schemes of the meanings of words in preparation for the Dictionary.
An Appeal to the English-Speaking and English-Reading Public to Read Books and Make Extracts for The Philological Society's New English Dictionary
The "Reading Programme" is still used by the OED, although the methodology is different. The books are still read all the same but here's what happens next according to a freelance researcher for the OED:
I then consult OED Online to determine whether the word or phrase is in the Dictionary: if it is not, I submit it as a ‘not-in’, and if it is, I decide whether its form or context is important enough to warrant its submission. If it does qualify, I enter the information into tagged fields in an electronic file that has been set up in a standard format. When I have finished the reading, I submit the file to Oxford or New York, where the records are incorporated into OED‘s working database for consideration by the editors, along with thousands of paper citation slips, as they proceed through the current revision. Yes, some of my finds are still submitted as paper slips—a reminder of OED‘s long heritage—but, electronic or paper, I can hardly imagine a better job.
The quotations were collected in a machine readable format for the first time in 1989. The 1990 UK Reading Programme captured material electronically. (Note that the second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary came out in 1989.)
In addition to this, the OED now utilizes several online databases of texts, such as Early English Books Online, Eighteenth Century Collections Online, and some newspaper databases.
If you do your own research with databases (many people use the free Google Books), it's often easy to beat pages that haven't been updated for the third edition of the OED. Updates to the OED3 started in 2000 and continue to this day: it's a huge dictionary and updating takes time.
See also:
- OED: Researching the Language
add a comment |
Typically, you don't ever really know for certain that you have the earliest example. Or even the earliest written example. It's just the best so far.
(As a person who frequently writes answers to etymology questions on ELU, I try to make this clear. "According to the OED", "according to my own research", "dates at least back to X" are all things I say, but I sometimes get sloppy and don't do this all the time.)
There are some exceptions. We can be very certain that "cromulent", for example, was coined in 1996 (or '95 depending on when the episode of the Simpsons was written).
How etymological research is done has varied through time. In the case of the "New English Dictionary" (the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary), work started on it in 1857. Then:
[I]n January 1859, the Society issued their 'Proposal for the publication of a New English Dictionary,' in which the characteristics of the proposed work were explained, and an appeal made to the English and American public to assist in collecting the raw materials for the work, these materials consisting of quotations illustrating the use of English words by all writers of all ages and in all senses, each quotation being made on a uniform plan on a half-sheet of notepaper, that they might in due course be arranged and classified alphabetically and by meanings. This Appeal met with a generous response: some hundreds of volunteers began to read books, make quotations, and send in their slips to 'sub-editors,' who volunteered each to take charge of a letter or part of one, and by whom the slips were in tum further arranged, classified, and to some extent used as the basis of definitions and skeleton schemes of the meanings of words in preparation for the Dictionary.
An Appeal to the English-Speaking and English-Reading Public to Read Books and Make Extracts for The Philological Society's New English Dictionary
The "Reading Programme" is still used by the OED, although the methodology is different. The books are still read all the same but here's what happens next according to a freelance researcher for the OED:
I then consult OED Online to determine whether the word or phrase is in the Dictionary: if it is not, I submit it as a ‘not-in’, and if it is, I decide whether its form or context is important enough to warrant its submission. If it does qualify, I enter the information into tagged fields in an electronic file that has been set up in a standard format. When I have finished the reading, I submit the file to Oxford or New York, where the records are incorporated into OED‘s working database for consideration by the editors, along with thousands of paper citation slips, as they proceed through the current revision. Yes, some of my finds are still submitted as paper slips—a reminder of OED‘s long heritage—but, electronic or paper, I can hardly imagine a better job.
The quotations were collected in a machine readable format for the first time in 1989. The 1990 UK Reading Programme captured material electronically. (Note that the second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary came out in 1989.)
In addition to this, the OED now utilizes several online databases of texts, such as Early English Books Online, Eighteenth Century Collections Online, and some newspaper databases.
If you do your own research with databases (many people use the free Google Books), it's often easy to beat pages that haven't been updated for the third edition of the OED. Updates to the OED3 started in 2000 and continue to this day: it's a huge dictionary and updating takes time.
See also:
- OED: Researching the Language
add a comment |
Typically, you don't ever really know for certain that you have the earliest example. Or even the earliest written example. It's just the best so far.
(As a person who frequently writes answers to etymology questions on ELU, I try to make this clear. "According to the OED", "according to my own research", "dates at least back to X" are all things I say, but I sometimes get sloppy and don't do this all the time.)
There are some exceptions. We can be very certain that "cromulent", for example, was coined in 1996 (or '95 depending on when the episode of the Simpsons was written).
How etymological research is done has varied through time. In the case of the "New English Dictionary" (the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary), work started on it in 1857. Then:
[I]n January 1859, the Society issued their 'Proposal for the publication of a New English Dictionary,' in which the characteristics of the proposed work were explained, and an appeal made to the English and American public to assist in collecting the raw materials for the work, these materials consisting of quotations illustrating the use of English words by all writers of all ages and in all senses, each quotation being made on a uniform plan on a half-sheet of notepaper, that they might in due course be arranged and classified alphabetically and by meanings. This Appeal met with a generous response: some hundreds of volunteers began to read books, make quotations, and send in their slips to 'sub-editors,' who volunteered each to take charge of a letter or part of one, and by whom the slips were in tum further arranged, classified, and to some extent used as the basis of definitions and skeleton schemes of the meanings of words in preparation for the Dictionary.
An Appeal to the English-Speaking and English-Reading Public to Read Books and Make Extracts for The Philological Society's New English Dictionary
The "Reading Programme" is still used by the OED, although the methodology is different. The books are still read all the same but here's what happens next according to a freelance researcher for the OED:
I then consult OED Online to determine whether the word or phrase is in the Dictionary: if it is not, I submit it as a ‘not-in’, and if it is, I decide whether its form or context is important enough to warrant its submission. If it does qualify, I enter the information into tagged fields in an electronic file that has been set up in a standard format. When I have finished the reading, I submit the file to Oxford or New York, where the records are incorporated into OED‘s working database for consideration by the editors, along with thousands of paper citation slips, as they proceed through the current revision. Yes, some of my finds are still submitted as paper slips—a reminder of OED‘s long heritage—but, electronic or paper, I can hardly imagine a better job.
The quotations were collected in a machine readable format for the first time in 1989. The 1990 UK Reading Programme captured material electronically. (Note that the second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary came out in 1989.)
In addition to this, the OED now utilizes several online databases of texts, such as Early English Books Online, Eighteenth Century Collections Online, and some newspaper databases.
If you do your own research with databases (many people use the free Google Books), it's often easy to beat pages that haven't been updated for the third edition of the OED. Updates to the OED3 started in 2000 and continue to this day: it's a huge dictionary and updating takes time.
See also:
- OED: Researching the Language
Typically, you don't ever really know for certain that you have the earliest example. Or even the earliest written example. It's just the best so far.
(As a person who frequently writes answers to etymology questions on ELU, I try to make this clear. "According to the OED", "according to my own research", "dates at least back to X" are all things I say, but I sometimes get sloppy and don't do this all the time.)
There are some exceptions. We can be very certain that "cromulent", for example, was coined in 1996 (or '95 depending on when the episode of the Simpsons was written).
How etymological research is done has varied through time. In the case of the "New English Dictionary" (the first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary), work started on it in 1857. Then:
[I]n January 1859, the Society issued their 'Proposal for the publication of a New English Dictionary,' in which the characteristics of the proposed work were explained, and an appeal made to the English and American public to assist in collecting the raw materials for the work, these materials consisting of quotations illustrating the use of English words by all writers of all ages and in all senses, each quotation being made on a uniform plan on a half-sheet of notepaper, that they might in due course be arranged and classified alphabetically and by meanings. This Appeal met with a generous response: some hundreds of volunteers began to read books, make quotations, and send in their slips to 'sub-editors,' who volunteered each to take charge of a letter or part of one, and by whom the slips were in tum further arranged, classified, and to some extent used as the basis of definitions and skeleton schemes of the meanings of words in preparation for the Dictionary.
An Appeal to the English-Speaking and English-Reading Public to Read Books and Make Extracts for The Philological Society's New English Dictionary
The "Reading Programme" is still used by the OED, although the methodology is different. The books are still read all the same but here's what happens next according to a freelance researcher for the OED:
I then consult OED Online to determine whether the word or phrase is in the Dictionary: if it is not, I submit it as a ‘not-in’, and if it is, I decide whether its form or context is important enough to warrant its submission. If it does qualify, I enter the information into tagged fields in an electronic file that has been set up in a standard format. When I have finished the reading, I submit the file to Oxford or New York, where the records are incorporated into OED‘s working database for consideration by the editors, along with thousands of paper citation slips, as they proceed through the current revision. Yes, some of my finds are still submitted as paper slips—a reminder of OED‘s long heritage—but, electronic or paper, I can hardly imagine a better job.
The quotations were collected in a machine readable format for the first time in 1989. The 1990 UK Reading Programme captured material electronically. (Note that the second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary came out in 1989.)
In addition to this, the OED now utilizes several online databases of texts, such as Early English Books Online, Eighteenth Century Collections Online, and some newspaper databases.
If you do your own research with databases (many people use the free Google Books), it's often easy to beat pages that haven't been updated for the third edition of the OED. Updates to the OED3 started in 2000 and continue to this day: it's a huge dictionary and updating takes time.
See also:
- OED: Researching the Language
answered 22 mins ago
LaurelLaurel
2715
2715
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Linguistics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flinguistics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30661%2fhow-do-dictionaries-source-attestation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown