If the new form (lexeme or meaning) seems to be more than an ephemeralism or if it is a prominent item at the moment (such as executiveprivilege in 1968), it is a good candidate for inclusion. In such circumstances, one area where less than a complete record of the language has to be given is neologisms. What to Include and What to Omit Lexicographers who do not have at their disposal all of the space, time, money, and personpower they would like are obliged to be selective. Happily, it is a fresh work which in almost every respect meets the highest standards of contemporary monolingual lexicography. Were Webster's Ninth (W9) but a retouched version of its predecessor, it could be dispatched in a few lines. Publishers still in the precomputer age who do not want to spend the money to have an entire dictionary reset for a "new" edition do indeed merely snip here and there in order to add new material, but in mentioning this stratagem as the epitome of lexicography the Times has trivialized our work (the obituary says no more about dictionary-making). He explained that to fit cybernetics in the American College Dictionary it was necessary to take a line from the definition of cyanide, reduce the cycloid illustration, delete an example of the usage of cut, and shorten the space between the end of the C and D listings" (June 25, 1984, p.
In its obituary of Jess Stein (1914-1984) The New York Times wrote that he "once noted that many words were omitted from dictionaries and that the methods of gathering words were not perfect. Mish et al., Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Springfield, MA, Merriam-Webster, Inc., 1983, 1563 pp.
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:
0 kommentar(er)
