For as long as I’ve been associated with National Geographic, our standard dictionary reference has been Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. The reason for this choice is lost in history, but I suspect it’s because it has always been readily available and because 50 years ago there were fewer choices than today. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, which I consider a fine, scholarly publication, did not appear until 1969; Microsoft Encarta College Dictionary even more recently. Another possible reason is that until the arrival of Webster’s Third New International Dictionary in 1961 and its rejection by linguistic purists as way too permissive, Webster’s dictionaries were highly regarded in professional circles.
A member of my style committee here at NGS has been reading Robert Hartwell Fiske’s Dictionary of Disagreeable English, in which he ranks six dictionaries on how each handles 25 words or phrases. Fiske, who edits Vocabula Review, an online magazine that “strives to combat the degradation of our language,” concludes that Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate is the most descriptive—in other words the most permissive—and therefore the worst of the six.
My fellow editor wonders why the Geographic continues to use Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate as our standard reference. Good question. One I plan to ask my entire committee as well as other editors and writers. Should we stay with a dictionary that merely describes how the English language is used by the masses today, or should we switch to a dictionary that attempts to prevent the degradation of our language by prescribing correct usage?
In the meantime, though, I am relieved to point out that for at least half the examples used by Fiske in his rankings, I would make an exception to Merriam-Webster’s and stick with the more formal, prescribed usage over the popular nonstandard form. I would insist on accidentally and not accidently, all right and not alright, home in and not hone in, and would distinguish between the meanings of flaunt and flout, enormity and enormousness, reticent and reluctant.
What do you readers think?
My Shot
Daily Dozen
Voting Machine
Puzzles
Desktop Wallpaper
Buy NG Photos
Special Issues
Comments
Aug 10, 2007 2PM #
Hey, Lesley!
Guess what Bob just asked me the other day? He wanted to know why we use Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary as our standard reference. I couldn't really answer. Now I can. So thanks!
And since you asked, I'd vote for switching to a different dictionary—one that's a bit less permissive.
la
Aug 10, 2007 2PM #
If I received a dime each time I heard "reticent" and "reluctant" used as though they meant the same thing, well, I'd have a lot of dimes.
Aug 10, 2007 2PM #
I am fortunate, I use The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, New College Edition.
I say fortunate because my copy, though heavy and cumbersome, has been lovingly abused by family since my grandparents gave it to my Great-Uncle back in 1977.
The binding is taped, original tabs have been replaced with handmade ones, many pages are dog-earred, and wrinkled pages galore from use. Yes, this book has been lovingly abused.
It is the 1976 version, and if you can find one, it has an interesting article in the Special Articles section titled: Good Usage, Bad Usage and Usage, by Morris Bishop.
Mr. Bishop, deceased, was a writer; Professor Emeritus of Romance Languages, Cornell University; past President, Modern Language Association.
Sure, I have newer dictionaries, but they lay gathering dust, while "The Big Red Book" has more abuse heaped upon it. I suspect that the pages will have disintegrated long before we are ready to give it up.
Aug 10, 2007 2PM #
Dear Lesley Rogers: Now I know why the National Geographic is so readable.
I want to review "Edible" in my garden column, "Grow it In Maine", which appears weekly in The Downeast Coastal Press of Cutler, (Washington County), Maine. To who should I apply for a review copy? I have no address for such a question.
I'm interested only in the content, not necessarily the eyewash of a DeLuxe edition. Sincerely yours, Carol Howe, garden writer
Aug 10, 2007 2PM #
Dear Carol,
Thanks for you nice words.
Penny Dackis in our marketing department is the one who would send out review copies for "Edible." You can reach her at pdackis@ngs.org.
Hope you like the book.
Lesley
Post a Comment