From: Graeme Thomas <graeme@graemet.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 14:11:52 +0000
Subject: Onwords comments on SOWPODS
Message-id: <pYKBxIBoMNu0EwMR@graemet.demon.co.uk>

Dan Pratt queried privately my comment that only one person had written to _Onwords_ with negative views about SOWPODS, and suggesting support for expugating OSW of obsolete forms. I've done a bit of research. My comments are in brackets [like this]. Everything else is from _Onwords_. It would appear that my memory for such articles fades rather rapidly.

[Issue 85, August '96, has a brief article on a proposed Australian dictionary (Redwood). It quotes an article from _Across the Board_, and then finishes with the paragraph:]

Could the following Onwords mockup (not to scale) be the ideal format for a World Scrabble Dictionary, reflecting the unambiguous list format of OSW combined with minimal definitions for stand-alone readablity akin to OSPD? What do readers think of the format? Such a book would be more voluminous than the existing OSW so it might also be necessary to be ruthless on word lengths, perhaps a clear cut-off at 9 letters irrespective of grammatical extensions. Dare we also suggest a clear-out of the attic of those obsolete words to create some space?

[There follows an except from a page which starts:]

        AA      n. a lava
        AAS     pl. AA
        AAH     v. to exclaim surprise
        AAHED   vf. AAH

[Issue 86 (November '96) had a few replies to this. Most of them concentrated on the idea of definitions, which I'll ignore in this summary. Other comments were:]

Terry Kirk: I certainly would not wish to see obsolete words being dropped. Trying to unlearn words from OSW2 was bad enough.

Martin Reed: Also, never, never, never drop any words from either book. Use them all. If anything, use other sources as well. be as complete as possible.

Phil Appleby: Like Martin (and others) I'd hate to lose words. I'd suggest simply combining the latest OSPD and OSW, warts and all.

[Issue 87 (March '97) saw a few more replies. Again, I've dropped comments which were concerned with other topics.]

John Cakebread: I also like the suggestion that we should lose more of those obsolete words. Graeme Thomas (Onwords 82, p14) seems to regard such words as part of the "riches of the English language". Perhaps Graeme would like the inclusion of Chaucerian oddities too - heaven forfend!

Barry Grossman: May I disagree with Messrs Simpson and Reed. In pre-OSW days there were all sorts of rules like no obsolete words, no foreign words, no Shakespeare, Spenser, or Milton. These caused lots of problems with people misreading the dictionary, compounded by the dictionary's inadequate labelling. When OSW came in, which would have done away with all these problems, the rules werre changed anyway and all these words were allowed. If we expand our word-base by combining with our US friends, I say get rid of obsolete foreign, Will, Eddy, and John-boy. If Shakespeare used a word 400 years ago and it hasn't caught on, let's face it, it never will. Allow anything Scottish, Irish, US, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand as these are basically forms of English, but not true foreign words such as French, German, or Welsh. AMI and TWP are not English words and nobody will convince me that they are. Yes, it would be a massive unlearning exercise, but we would be left with a leaner, fitter word-base which would have at least a passing relevance to twentieth-century English as most people know it.

Editor: Of course, if "foreign" words were dropped in combining OSW and OSPD for a World Dictionary such words would have to be dropped from OSPS as well, which is equally guilty (cf JEU, DE).

Andrew Cook: I cannot agree with Terry Kirk's argument for not dropping words from a dictionary. Benefits to Scrabble players is not a sensible criterion for inclusion. Having obsolete words may help people who are struggling with Shakespeare, but if a word s no longer in use, how can it be part of the language?

[Issue 88 (July '97) contains one letter on the subject:]

Graeme Thomas: John Cakebreas assumes that I would like Chaucer to be included with the other authors' words. In fact, I agree with John that their exclusion is a Good Thing. My criterion of inclusion is "likely to be encountered in normal use". This certainly means keeping Shakspearean words in the dictionary, as that author's works are still being read and taught. Indeed, they are still making blockbuster films from his plays! I am less concerned about the works of Spenser and Milton, although I believe that the _Faerie Queen_ is still taught. However, I also believe that the right people to judge these matters are trained lexicographers such as those at Chambers, and not amateurs such as me. Your comment about foreign words raises many more disputable points. The degree of naturalization of a word is always open to debate, and the dictionaries are always likely to be some time behind common usage. I am still amused by the tale from one of the very early National Championships, where a player walked out because his opponent was allowed IXTLI, and yet his CHEF was disallowed. I gather that TWP is in common use in South Wales, (where Welsh is hardly spoken), which means that it is very likely to become part of a regional dialect of English, in precisely the same way that many Gaelic words have invaded Scottish dialect. I trust that this will help convince Barry [Grossman] of its Englishness. I tend to agree with him, though, over AMI.

[ I appear to have mislaid my copy of Onwords 89. ]