The Printed Dictionary: An End of an Era?
The third edition of the Oxford English dictionary may not go to print.
Sunday the Oxford University Press said the next edition of the 126-year-old Oxford English Dictionary may not be printed on paper. The publisher said that people would rather go online and hunt down words than dig through a $1,165 set of reference books.
"At present we are experiencing increasing demand for the online product," the publisher said in a statement. "However, a print version will certainly be considered if there is sufficient demand at the time of publication."
The digital version of the Oxford English Dictionary currently receives around 2 million hits a month by subscribers--the service costs $295 a year. The actual physical version spans twenty volumes, weighs approximately 750 pounds, and costs $1,165 for the entire set.
The first full edition was completed back in 1928--individual volumes of the set started to appear in 1884. It was later followed up by the second edition published 1989, the latter selling around 30,000 sets as of this writing.
The third edition--slated to be a complete overhaul of the work estimated to take a decade or more to accomplish--will supposedly contain twice the amount of text found in the previous two editions. As of June, editors had completed just one-quarter of the entire body of work. With that said, the third edition may not ever reach print.
"The print dictionary market is just disappearing," said Oxford University Press chief executive Nigel Portwood. "It is falling away by tens of percent a year."
Portwood added that the Oxford University Press doesn't plan to shut down printing altogether. Schools still rely on the printed versions, and the Advanced Learner's Dictionary is still in high demand by nonnative English learners.
- Sony Wins Injunction Against PS3 Jailbreak USBs
- Google Files for Trademark On SpeedBook Active Computer Hardware
- Logitech Launches Creepy Ad for Google TV Box
- Microsoft Investing Billions in Windows Phone 7
- Gmail Users Make 1,000,000 Phone Calls in a Day
- Better Audio Coming to Xbox Live in November
- Forget Farmville, Playboy is Making Poisonville
- Nike Patents Shoes That Tie Themselves
- Garmin Recalling 1,250,000 GPS Over Fire Hazard
- Google Details GPU Acceleration for Chrome 7
- Trapped Chilean Miners Receive Sony PSPs
- LG to Unveil Slimmest OLED TV Ever, at IFA
- Microsoft Announces Price Hikes for Xbox Live
- Report: Google Launching Pay-per-view Movies
- Man Accused of Using XB Live to Solicit Child Porn
- ViewSonic 7-inch Tablet Will Ship with Froyo
- Jedi Mind Finally Changes Name After Lawsuit
- Froyo FRG22D Hitting Verizon's DROID By Sept. 4
- The HumanCar: Bedrock Hotrod, 2010 Edition
I had no idea that many words existed for one language.
I had no idea that many words existed for one language.
English is WIN! isn't it like one of the most sophisticated languages around? i can't remember which one was..
Tomorrow's Article:
"Your horse and buggy could be obsolete! Click to read further!"
When I read this title, I thought they were talking about not printing any dictionaries, even those quick-reference ones, or even the slightly thicker ones you see in schools or libraries. I had no idea there was a 20-volume, 750 pound, $1200 dictionary set out there. I agree that the market for such a monstrosity must be extremely small.
I have to think that a great percentage of those words are never used in standard conversation. The only people who use those words are probably pompous writers who try to belittle their audience by using large words they suspect the reader won't know off the top of their head. I hate people like that.
English is WIN! isn't it like one of the most sophisticated languages around? i can't remember which one was..
More like the biggest mess of a language. I seem to recall that most languages have regulatory boards and have between 100K-200K words in them. English on the other hand has no regulatory board and has well over a million words commonly recognized as part of the language. Not only that, but words have different meanings in diffrent regions (biscuit, pants, jelly and boot are just a few that come to mind between american and english).
The language really is a giant bucket of fail, but alas, it's the only language I'm fluent in, so I'll stick with it.
They should have seen this coming- it can't play Crysis 2.
I have to think that a great percentage of those words are never used in standard conversation. The only people who use those words are probably pompous writers who try to belittle their audience by using large words they suspect the reader won't know off the top of their head. I hate people like that.
I utterly detest those pompous nitwits who offer credulity to the notion that their selection of confabulation is of prodigious veneration.
But seriously, you're against writers using infrequent words? That is like being against Einstein for using complex math symbols.
Perhaps we should dumb down the rest of society for you as well? Heck, Apple has already started on this endeavor.
Yeah my professor told me about this today. It's sad to see this happen but at the same time happy. We are pushing towards the digital age. However i like my physical things. I have 3 dictionary that i don't use anymore, I stop using them since 2005. I am going to take an Exam soon and i'll have to bring my pocket dictionary to help aid me in this Exam just incase i need it. And bringing a dictionary to this exam is permissible.
If Oxford print their 3rd edition ill buy it and keep it as a collection so i can show my grandkids i used to use this.
surprised dictionary survived THIS long...
with advent of Google and Library of Congress going digital, people don't really need physical reference books...
encyclopedia died back in 90's...the memories of watching Encyclopedia Britannica commercials on TV telling people their child can be a doctor with a set....
Hence forward we shall use the phrase "Throw the PDF at them!" instead of "Throw the book at them!"
What happens when google changes their name to skynet, takes over the world, and deletes the Internet? All kidding aside I think most people like a tangible object compared to just a fee.
In about fours years I've spent enough money for access to the online version that I could have just bought the hard copy and kept it for life. If it was $10 per year, that would be a different story, but $300?!
And what I hate is looking in a book that calls itself a dictionary and not being able to find the word I'm looking for. As a result of that experience happening repeatedly over the years, I've coveted an OED of my own for most of my life.
I think its better to have the dictionary online and carry one of those small 5 dollar dictionaries around. No way in hell that Im gonna throw away $1,165 on 750 pound set of books.
The change from print to digital makes all the more sence when your talking about a 750lbs, $1165 set of books. Even in a school setting this seems to be more practical, online version can be updated, and dosent need to be taken care of like a physical copy.
+1 for the trees :-)
I utterly detest those pompous nitwits who offer credulity to the notion that their selection of confabulation is of prodigious veneration.But seriously, you're against writers using infrequent words? That is like being against Einstein for using complex math symbols. Perhaps we should dumb down the rest of society for you as well? Heck, Apple has already started on this endeavor.
That's a rather elitist view. I'm not saying we stop talking about complex ideas, I'm saying we do so in a language every understands, and using words everyone can comprehend.
Do you really think laws need to be written in language only a lawyer can understand? Language YOU and I and everyone else is expected to understand, since we're supposed to follow these laws. How about medical texts, why do doctors use words like neonate instead of newborn or thrombosis instead of blood clot? Using these complex words adds no extra understanding, it only serves to segregate those who understand the words from those who don't, and make the writer feel more important or intelligent. The object of language, speaking, writing, is to spread ideas and convey meaning. You fight directly against that goal when you knowingly use overly-complex terms.
The title is misleading. This isn't about no more printed dictionaries. This is about no more "complete collection of the English language" type things. With something that big, it makes MUCH more sense to just put it on disc.
That's a rather elitist view. I'm not saying we stop talking about complex ideas, I'm saying we do so in a language every understands, and using words everyone can comprehend.Do you really think laws need to be written in language only a lawyer can understand? Language YOU and I and everyone else is expected to understand, since we're supposed to follow these laws. How about medical texts, why do doctors use words like neonate instead of newborn or thrombosis instead of blood clot? Using these complex words adds no extra understanding, it only serves to segregate those who understand the words from those who don't, and make the writer feel more important or intelligent. The object of language, speaking, writing, is to spread ideas and convey meaning. You fight directly against that goal when you knowingly use overly-complex terms.
I think he's talking more about words that are higher level and deemed "part of a good vocabulary" not technical terms or dead words that no one uses nor has any reason to use.
Good for trees, but will have unknown impacts on the language itself. This is so weird. From a linguistic perspective, having an ever changing medium (internet) will have HUGE impacts on the language itself. The words of Marshal McCluhan are becoming more and more relevant as the years pass. "The media is the message." seems absolutely prophetic.
I had no idea that many words existed for one language.
The OED is a bit more than just a dictionary. It details how the usages and meanings of words have changed throughout history, with full examples and more.
According to the publishers, it would take a single person 120 years to 'key in' text to convert it to machine readable form which consists a total of 59 million words of the OED second edition, 60 years to proofread it, and 540 megabytes to store it electronically.[3] As of 30 November 2005, the Oxford English Dictionary contained approximately 301,100 main entries. Supplementing the entry headwords, there are 157,000 bold-type combinations and derivatives; 169,000 italicized-bold phrases and combinations; 616,500 word-forms in total, including 137,000 pronunciations; 249,300 etymologies; 577,000 cross-references; and 2,412,400 usage quotations. The dictionary's latest, complete print edition (Second Edition, 1989) was printed in 20 volumes, comprising 291,500 entries in 21,730 pages. The longest entry in the OED2 was for the verb set, which required 60,000 words to describe some 430 senses. As entries began to be revised for the OED3 in sequence starting from M, the longest entry became make in 2000, then put in 2007.
aber Ich kein spreche English =(
Will there still be a paper based "backup" in case of the global computer dark-age?
Wise observation by Oxford. I think it would be much better to focus on the electronic product.
That's a rather elitist view. I'm not saying we stop talking about complex ideas, I'm saying we do so in a language every understands, and using words everyone can comprehend.Do you really think laws need to be written in language only a lawyer can understand? Language YOU and I and everyone else is expected to understand, since we're supposed to follow these laws. How about medical texts, why do doctors use words like neonate instead of newborn or thrombosis instead of blood clot? Using these complex words adds no extra understanding, it only serves to segregate those who understand the words from those who don't, and make the writer feel more important or intelligent. The object of language, speaking, writing, is to spread ideas and convey meaning. You fight directly against that goal when you knowingly use overly-complex terms.
So you expect a writer to lower himself so a texting tween can understand? lol
makes sense. though I wouldn't necessarily stop print, schools, libraries and private collectors may still want copies. perhaps it would be best to produce very limited supplies to fill orders unless the cost of mainaining the facilaty and staff has outweighed money you would get back from such an endeavor. will be sad though , ironically thoguh it will make the value of existing copies go up and in a few years may make it so that when they rerelease a limited run print edition cause more market intrest resulting in more sales... could be brilliant
It would be best if they still had the paper and people knew how to use it. It would be best because if Oxford's power goes or or something crazy like that happens, Students could still use a the paper books to help them with there studying.
Has anybody seen an introduction to contract work institution statutes from 1865 to 1923?
(Silence)
Anybody seen a big-ass book?
People actually read better from books and the eye actually picks up words slower on screen.
Books are great things and it is a shame that this edition may not go to print - as I love books and have a lovely library where I go and muse there and read.
When Archaeologists do their digs, they find something tangible, most times with script that they can even read. What will they find 1000 years from now if everything goes digital? I can see how our whole society could be lost.
I think he's talking more about words that are higher level and deemed "part of a good vocabulary" not technical terms or dead words that no one uses nor has any reason to use.
That's what I am talking about. Christ, maybe I need to use smaller words to get this point across. Here, let me quote my original post:
See. This is what I was talking about. I never said scientists need to use Ebonics or that every thought needs to be expressible within 144 characters. I said I hate it when people unnecessarily do so for the sole reason of belittling the reader or to make them selves feel more intelligent (neonate vs. newborn). My point was that many of these words have lost their meaning in modern society and their existence in this dictionary only serves the elitist who laughs when you don't know the meaning of "dram" or "beek" (todays words of the day from Merriam Webster and Dictionary.com).
So you expect a writer to lower himself so a texting tween can understand? lol
Oh God no. We are definitely getting stupider, no question about it.
More like the biggest mess of a language. I seem to recall that most languages have regulatory boards and have between 100K-200K words in them. English on the other hand has no regulatory board and has well over a million words commonly recognized as part of the language. Not only that, but words have different meanings in diffrent regions (biscuit, pants, jelly and boot are just a few that come to mind between american and english).The language really is a giant bucket of fail, but alas, it's the only language I'm fluent in, so I'll stick with it.
I grew up learning both english and german and I always felt the american language was easier. In the german language as well as others every word is either male, female or gender neutral. Consider this, in german the word star is male, sun is female and moon is gender neutral. How much sense does that make? I might just be biased though since I've always liked america better than germany.
wow!!! i didn't knew there were 37.5 lbs dictionaries around