DICTIONARY IDEALS

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 85, 7 October 1933, Page 22

DICTIONARY IDEALS

A WORD-BOOK

OR "A OWE DICTIONARY" ?

ffiy"Ajax.'") Chambers's Twentieth Century Die- ' tionary of the English Language. Hditca toyi&tov.- Thomas Davidson. Loa'doniiuML Edinburgh: W. and E. Chttßibßiß Ltd. 1903. 8 x 51, . viii-f-120.7 :&>. 2'ho same.' Tknrtiughly Brought Up to Date, with '28 Now Pages containing Hundreds of Words, Terms, and Thrums of Kecenfc Coinage and Currency. 1924. sTho same. Thoroughly Eevised with Supplement containing Hundreds, etc. [as jftßwe]. 1933. 1264 pp. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Adapted by H. -W. Fowler ana T. G. Fowler from the Oxford Dfoiionary. Oxford: At the Cl»reffifttm Press. 1911. 7-i x 5, sii -t 19*1 pp. ■„.',, (The same. UewlEdltion. Revised by H. W. Itawter. 1929. 7J x 5, xv +, 1446 pp. Tho strong joint of Chambers's Twentieth GeatMiy Dictionary is, as I mentioned last week, the inclusion, along with *11 tie common words in literary, conversational, sporting, and scientific EngliA, of words which are obsolete except** the pages of Spenser, Shakespeare, JEtton, and the Authorised Version :«f tho Bible. Scotch and provincial sswrds are also included from Bnrai, SoWtt, the Brontes, and George Elirt, ***»d even the coinages of TWwa-marters like Carlyle, Browning ,aad Mereffith." It is worth a passing note that whereas, with tho exception of tie Bible, which combines both prote ani verse, all of the 16th ani 17th. sectary writers in this list are poets, fire «•£ the eight of later dat© aTe either 'stolely or principally prose-writers, fire orf them are novelists, three'of -them aie Scotsmen, and three are women.

This special attention thus paid to obsolete, literary, fibotch, and provincial ■words ii »■ T«y valuable featuro of Chambers'* Dictionary; but, as I only discovered last -week when examining the obsolete words mentioned in the preface to the "Cfenciso Oxford," it « a very periww »«t-off to this advantage that Chambersf's editor sometimes gives the obsolete or Shakespearean meaning of a Trord without any warning of its limitation. To say without that "coil" means "tumult," that "scotch" means' "to tut or wound silently," and that "buxom" means '^yielding, and elastic" is seriously misleading. The most dangerous of these blunders is the definition of "owe" as "to possess or to be the owner of." ConTersely, it is wrong "to say that "sad" in the' Mate of "ponderous, heavy," is obsolete. "We cannpt say with Wiclif (Luke vi, 48):

And irhann a greet flood was maad, the flood was hurtlid to. that hous, and it mighte pot move it, fjor it was founded on a sad stoott.

But aa applied to a cake the term "sad" in the sense of heavy is equally familiar in the kitefcen and in the- din-ing-room.

It amuses me to recall that twenty years ago, when the "Concise Oxford" was a new book, I was shocked to learn from, a controversy in the "New Zealand Times" in "which Mr. Tregear was engaged that esven under tho letters preceding "S," which then marked the furthest limit of th.c great Oxford Dictionary's progress, the "Concise Oxford" had not always the weight of that supremo authority behind it. And partly on that account, and' partly on account of the familiar merits of "Chambers's Dictionary" to which I have icferred, I jgave it the preference—in defiance, if 1 remember rightly, of the example set by the Prince of Wales of that day--as my companion on a long sea voyage on which I hoped to get a good deal mare profitable rea.ding done in a few weeks than.in as many months of the»iielativc captivity of shore life.

Even then I could'hardly have made the mistake if I had not been relying on a complete escape from, the drudg-«i-y of writing, but knowing tho "Concise Oxford" as I know it now, I could not possibly repeat the mislake under any conditions. And, i£ •by any chance the "-(Concise Oxford" were not available, it is not to any larger or rival worik but to tho "Pocket Oxford" by; the same hands that I would turn for a travelling companion. A volume that measures 64 inches by 3J and is less than 1$ inches thick, includes 1016 pages and costs in ■London 3s 6d, shouldfnot be beyond the capacity of the emptiest pocket or tho most crowded suitcase. Apart from tho question of sine,- you might easily spend six or ten times as much, and fare worse.

The object "which the editors of "Tho Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English" had in view -when they pub T lished their first edition, in 1911 is thus described by the sutrvivor of them, Mr. H. W. Fowler, in his preface to tho second edition:—

The object we act before us, hinted at by the word "currant" on our title-page, was to present a* /vivid a picture as the small dictionary could be made to give of the English that was being spoken and written at the time. The vividness was to be secured by. allotting space to words more, nearly in proportion to the frequency and variety of their use, and consequently to their practical value, than had been the custom; and further by on unprecedented abundance of illustrative quotation; define, and your reader gets a silhouette; illustrate, and he has it

"in the round." That at least was our belief; and we hailed as confirmation of it one or two letters from persons unknown congratulating us on having "pro<luced a live dictionary," or "treating Euglish at last as a living language."

But n, living language, as Mr. Fowler proceeds to point out, "does not remain unchanged through twenty years and a great -war."

Out picture has needed, and received, '«, good deal of retouching before being again exhibited in public; and its owners, the Clarendon Prew, have thought it worthy of a sligWly larger and more handsome frame, for 'which I thank them. The original preface follows. . . .

In tho dictionary itself, the object and the methods are what they were, but detailed alteratioos are numerous, fenpages being without them.

The difference between the mere English word-book and this ideal of

a dictionary which treats English as a living language is substantially the difference bctweeii the statics and tho dynamics of speech. That the same difference represents in largo pleasure that between "Chambers's Dictionary" and the "Concise Oxford" is also indicated by tho different interpretations which their respective editors have placed upon the responsibilities of revision. Judging from tho facsimile and the particulars of the paging included in the prospectus, what is called in 1933 a "thoroughly revised edition" of the Chambers Dictionary consists merely in a verbatim reprint of tho edition of 1903, with tho addition to tho original 1207 pages of a supplement of new words, terms, and phrases extending to 49, or possibly to 57 pages.

The revision' of tho "Concise Oxford" hasj on the other hand, extended the 1053 pages of 1911 to 1459 pages in 1929 by a process.in which "detailed alterations arc numerous, few pages being without them." To represent tho changes that have taken place in a living languago in thirty years by the mere addition of a supplement is a sheer impossibility. To apply the term "thorough revision"- to such a procedure is a double misnomer, for it is neither thorough nor is it a revision.