Its name means opposite bear in Greek; which large landmass is it?There is no "Greek anti arkitos"; the OED gives the Greek forms as follows:
(The Antarctic -- in Greek anti arkitos means "opposite bear.")
antarktik-os opposite to the north, f. anti- against, opposite + arktik-os of the Bear, northern, f. arktos bear, the constellation of the Bear.In other words, the direct ancestor of antarctic has nothing to do with bears; furthermore, the phrase for 'opposite (a) bear' would be anti arktou (not "arkitos").
Is there a higher authority?--a meta-dictionary, which even dictionary-makers go to?posted by languagehat at 2:54 PM on December 4, 2004
Yes, there is -- I have seen the meta-dictionary and it is us.
Lexicographers -- i.e., dictionary makers -- get their definitions by observing how we -- the people -- use words. To do this, they collect samples of our discourse and from those samples they compile definitions. These samples are almost always drawn from writing because:
(1) written discourse is easier to collect, organize, and examine than is spoken discourse; and
(2) until this century, writing was the only way to preserve discourse
The result is that when we look up a word's "meaning," what we actually find is a distillation of how people -- especially writers -- have used that word over the years. So, it seems that we have a paradox:
To find the meaning of a word, we consult a book written by people who found the meaning of the word by consulting us.
The paradox is easily resolved, however, by realizing that when we look up a word in a dictionary, we do not find the word's "meaning" -- i.e., we do not find some ideal Platonic definition existing outside human discourse -- rather, what we find is a summary of the ways people use this word to communicate with other people.
The dictionary supplies us with this information by taking a sample -- albeit a non-random and writer-biased sample -- of how people have used it. This explains why different dictionaries can define the same word differently: their samples are different. For example, the COD skews its selection in favour of writers writing thirty or more years ago, whereas Webster's 9th uses more up-to-date written sources, as well non-literary sources; for example, they quote Art Linkletter and Mae West.
« Older Don't believe the hype... | As illustrated by this recent ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by painquale at 12:12 PM on December 4, 2004