« Just one space, please | Main | All right, all right, keep the extra space »

The sinister vault

Calm yourselves. The Oxford English Dictionary is not run by the Priory of Sion.

Last week the diligent Michael Quinion reported in World Wide Words, a weekly newsletter, on an article in Britain’s Daily Telegraph, “Secret vault of words rejected by the Oxford English Dictionary uncovered.” The “vault,” Mr. Quinion explains, is “a rather boring office filled with filing cabinets housing citation slips.”

Now the estimable Ben Zimmer goes further in a post at Language Log linked to his article in Visual Thesaurus, finding that “the Telegraph's collection of words supposedly rejected by the OED includes ephemeral ad-hoc coinages that would never be seriously considered by any major dictionary, alongside words that could very well enter the OED in the near future.”

Despite the technological advances—huge electronic databases, for example—a good deal of the lexicographer’s work is much the same as when Samuel Johnson balanced himself on a chair missing one leg in a garret in Gough Street or James A.H. Murray sat amid millions of paper slips in a shed in his garden. They comb sources, looking for developments in the language: old words in new senses, words dropping into obsolescence, new words arriving. And when they identify coinages, they have to determine whether the neologism is ephemeral or has lodged in the language. When they are preparing a printed edition, they must winnow ruthlessly to keep the text within the limits that the publisher can stand.

The “secret vault” nonsense in the Daily Telegraph points to the public’s disinclination to take dictionaries for simple indications of how words are commonly used and understood. They want lexicographers to be legislators—hence the silly campaigns that are occasionally mounted to lobby for inclusion of words in the OED. They want to be able to say that something is “not a word,” based on whether a dictionary has supposedly ratified it. They want to be able to use dictionaries to settle bets in bars. They want dictionaries to ratify their preferences and proscribe their dislikes. Even the editors of the Associated Press Stylebook, who are people who ought to know better, for Fowler’s sake, tweeted last week about “preferred” spellings in Webster’s New World.

If you’re looking for a rule book, buy Hoyle’s, not a dictionary.



Posted by John McIntyre at 10:36 AM | | Comments (2)


How many Scrabble players do you think are behind the push to include these "new" words?

In my mind, each of these illicit non-words is kept in a leather-bound, steel-clasped tome that emits golden light upon opening. Like a dragon's hoard, only mustier.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Verification (needed to reduce spam):

About John McIntyre
John McIntyre, mild-mannered editor for a great metropolitan newspaper, has fussed over writers’ work, to sporadic expressions of gratitude, for thirty years. He is The Sun’s night content production manager and former head of its copy desk. He also teaches editing at Loyola University Maryland. A former president of the American Copy Editors Society, a native of Kentucky, a graduate of Michigan State and Syracuse, and a moderate prescriptivist, he writes about language, journalism, and arbitrarily chosen topics. If you are inspired by a spirit of contradiction, comment on the posts or write to him at
Baltimore Sun Facebook page

Most Recent Comments
Sign up for FREE local news alerts
Get free Sun alerts sent to your mobile phone.*
Get free Baltimore Sun mobile alerts
Sign up for local news text alerts

Returning user? Update preferences.
Sign up for more Sun text alerts
*Standard message and data rates apply. Click here for Frequently Asked Questions.
Stay connected