Dictionary Evangelist

Pop!Tech Words!

noreply@blogger.com (Erin) — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:13:00 +0000

Well, it took me much, much, much longer than I thought to update with the great new words created at Pop!Tech ... that's the problem with conferences, the rest of your work doesn't hit the "pause" button while you're at them!

Pop!Tech, as you may or may not know, is a fabulous conference in Camden, Maine, where people talk about (among other things) new technology. But not just in a shiny, trade-show way -- no, this is about technology that helps people live better, healthier, more fulfilling lives. (By the way, if you watch anything from the most recent Pop!Tech, it should be this talk.)

But -- on to the words!

First off, the winner:

-- attachmeant -- the file you have to resend because you forgot to attach it the first time. (from Julie Meyer)

Tied for second and third were:

-- polydundant -- of a phrase that is redundant through the use of words from two or more languages that have the same meaning, e.g., Panera Bread Company. (from Annaliese Hoehling)

-- pretoxicated -- the state in which sufficient alcohol has been consumed to be intoxicated, but before feeling intoxicated. (from Tierney O'Dea)

Some other favorites from the workshop ...

-- forblogen -- unsuitable or unavailable to be blogged about, "don't post about our new beta, it's still forblogen." (Also Julie. :-))

-- techumanitarian -- someone who uses technology to promote social good. (from Michelle Riggen-Ransom, a Pop!Tech blogger -- she should know, right?)

-- sustetic -- achieving sustainability through aesthetics (i.e., the object is so beautiful you don't want to throw it away, you want to reuse it). (from Jens Martin)

Words: Their Roots, Bones, Innards, Piths, Pips, and Secret Parts (Free Tickets!)

noreply@blogger.com (Erin) — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:40:00 +0000

Does that title grab you? Then you should attend the talk of the same name at the New York Public Library this Thursday!

Roy Blount Jr. & Jean Strouse
on
Words: Their Roots, Bones, Innards, Piths, Pips, and Secret Parts

Thursday, October 23 at 7 p.m.

Berger Forum (Room 227), NYPL, Fifth Avenue and 42nd Street

The mischievous and gifted wordsmith Roy Blount Jr. talks with Jean Strouse about his forthcoming book, Alphabet Juice, which has already been dubbed "hilarious, brilliant, provocative and suaviloquent."

Don't miss this rare New York City appearance!

Roy Blount Jr., a regular guest on NPR's "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me!" has written 20 previous books, including Long Time Leaving: Dispatches from Up South and Be Sweet: A Conditional Love Story. Jean Strouse is the Sue Ann and John Weinberg Director of the Dorothy and Lewis B Cullman Center for Scholars and Writers, and the distinguished author of Morgan: American Financier and Alice James: A Biography.

Tickets ar $15 General Admission; $10 Library Donors and Seniors. But they are FREE for students with valid identification AND for readers of this blog who use the discount code "BLOUNT" at checkout to receive free tickets! Visit Smarttix at www.smarttix.com or by calling the Smarttix box office at (212) 868-4444 to reserve your seat today.

Dictionaries in the funny pages ...

noreply@blogger.com (Erin) — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:41:00 +0000

Thanks to Marc for the link!

Some Perfectly Cromulent Words

noreply@blogger.com (Erin) — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 19:55:00 +0000

... are included in a piece I wrote in the Boston Globe, which ran today -- check it out here.

Many thanks to Jan Freeman for letting me keep her chair warm while she's on vacation!

iSummit Sapporo talk

noreply@blogger.com (Erin) — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:10:00 +0000

I'm in Sapporo, Japan, and I talked at the iSummit yesterday ... here's a slidecast of the talk if you would like to hear about the horrible dystopia we'd all be living in if language weren't free.

If Language Weren't a Commons ...

view presentation (tags: isummit08)

Yes, that first slide is blank. Do not adjust your set.

Dictionary piece in the Boston Globe yesterday

noreply@blogger.com (Erin) — Mon, 12 May 2008 16:03:00 +0000

Yesterday a piece I wrote about Johnny Carrera's Pictorial Webster's ran in the Boston Globe ... check it out, if beautiful art books inspired by dictionaries are topics of interest.

Semicolon Followup

noreply@blogger.com (Erin) — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:58:00 +0000

Many thanks for all the kind words about the Semicolon Appreciation Society!

Here are some followup links, in case you just can't get enough semicolon in your online diet:

Some letters to the NYT about the original story [Thanks to RLE for the link]

Trevor Butterworth sent me a link his longer article in the Financial Times, back in 2005, in which he outlines a purported American bias against the semicolon. (I believe Americans use fewer semicolons per capita, but more as a nation, in a kind of reverse image of our carbon footprint ...)

The Semicolon's Dream Journal [exactly what it says on the box]

Semicolon Appreciation Society

noreply@blogger.com (Erin) — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:30:00 +0000

After all the recent discussion of the semicolon (in the NYTimes and other places) I couldn't resist the urge to make Semicolon Appreciation Society T-Shirts. Because, really, if a thing is worth talking about, it's certainly worth wearing.

Here's the back (on the white/light shirts only, no back printing on dark shirts):

I also made some 3x5 stickers, so you can edit signs to add semicolons where they ought to be:

And, of course, a membership card:

Although I'm not happy with the wording of it. Anyone want to suggest new wording that actually, you know, includes a semicolon?

I was thinking that the Semicolon Appreciation Society's bylaws should be like those of humorous WWII servicemen's associations, with riddles and having to forfeit the price of a drink if you can't write a sentence including a semicolon on demand. Suggestions for further bylaws entertained in the comments.

Thanks are due to Garth, who recklessly encouraged me, and India Amos, who suggested the completely wonderful Cooper Poster font as the one that included the platonic ideal of the semicolon form.

Ask The Dictionary Evangelist

noreply@blogger.com (Erin) — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:55:00 +0000

A Mr. John Shakespeare [I know! Isn't that perfect?] had a question for me, and kindly gave his permission for me to share my answer with all of you.

I just read your interesting and amusing piece, Neologizing 101, in the NY Times. [I did not ask him to say this. —Ed.] Neologizing is the invention of a word; invention seems (to me, at least) to imply copyright. So my questions are: How does one prove invention of a new word? And, how does one copyright that invention, and make royalties (ie; /moolah/) from it?

I realize I'm not the first person to ask you such questions. I've been having a lot of trouble finding the answers on the net, though. So, I would be very grateful of any hints you could throw my way.

Respectfully,

John Shakespeare

First off: IANAL (I am not a lawyer), trademark or otherwise. Real lawyers should feel free to weigh in, that's what blog comments are for.

The short answer, though, is that a word is not copyrightable; you can register a
word as a trademark, connected to a product or service, but you can't copyright it.

This is, I think, because a copyright is a very limited right, and not an absolute property right. Copyrights came about to encourage authors to write by allowing them a limited monopoly over their work; as you can well imagine, that doesn't quite work for words. A word, once created, belongs to the language, not to you. You must share it for it to be effective as a word. (And most neologizers need no encouragement to share, whether monetary or any other sort!)

And even though a word is invented, you can't patent it -- again, because the point of a new word is to get it into use, not to restrict its use. Patents are less about granting a right for YOU to use something and more about keeping OTHER people from using it -- which doesn't make sense for words: "Here's my new word, sorry, you can't speak, read, or write it." Words have no value when kept apart from the language as a whole. More practically, there is no mechanism for charging a fee for the use of any particular word. (How on earth could you? Even if you could do it for print & broadcast media, you couldn't do it for casual speech ... )

Trademarks are the association of a word with a particular product, so as to protect the consumer (who wants to know that their Bon Ami powder is, in fact, Bon Ami, and not some other thing). They are not a license to control the use of a word in all situations. The fact that we have Apple Computers and Apple Records and Apple Tours doesn't mean we are suddenly barred from calling the fruit an apple, too. And you can Google things and get spam in your inbox and Roomba your living room ... trademark owners don't like the use of their trademarks as verbs but they cannot FORBID it.

It's better to look at your new word creation as a gift you give back to the language as a whole, rather than as a land-grab you can monetize. The English language has (ostensibly) been good to you; why not give something back?

[Have a question for the Dictionary Evangelist? There's an email link up there on the right ...]

Happy Valentine's Day!

noreply@blogger.com (Erin) — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:24:00 +0000

Many thanks to Jen who sent me the link to this:

(The stockist is sold out of it (sadly) but they'll let you know when it's back if you ask them nicely.)

Enjoy your virtual alphabet-themed chocolate. More new lexicographical content shortly.

Cheat at Scrabble!

noreply@blogger.com (Erin) — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:31:00 +0000

Yes, yes, you heard me. But it's for a good cause. (And anyway, I've posted this too late for you to actually sign up to cheat at Scrabble; now you can just go watch other miscreants cheat at Scrabble. I meant to post this Monday ... but I suppose you can just consider this as me being over-protective.)

826NYC.org, a non-profit that encourages young writers, is having a fundraiser Scrabble tournament TOMORROW, January 19, at their offices at 372 Fifth Avenue in Brooklyn.

The tournament is a benefit for their writing programs, and it has a twist: teams sign up and raise sponsorship money. Each team is allowed a certain number of "cheats" that they buy with the money they raised. So the more money a team raises for 826NYC, the more likely they are to win. Genius!

Here's the price list:

1. Trade out a letter—$25
2. Wheel of Fortune: buy a vowel—$50
3. Flip a letter over and make it blank—$100
4. Add 10 to any letter’s value—$150
5. Add Q, Z, or X to any word, anywhere—$200
6. Passport: play a word in any language—$250
7. Consult the dictionary for one turn—$300
8. Consult the Scrabble word list for one turn—$400
9. Reject another team’s word—$450
10. Invent a word (must have a definition)—$500

Obviously, I'm most interested in #s 7 and 10. For #7, which dictionary are they going to use? A big dictionary is going to be much more valuable than a little one, and a dictionary of abbreviations would be excellent for humorous effect ... And for #10 -- I hope they record the new words and definitions!

I'm also very pleased that inventing a word is the priciest cheat. Just as it should be ...

If any of you gentle readers attend, would you leave a report in the comments? I'd go myself, save for the trifling inconvenience of living in Chicago ...

What Would James Murray Do?

noreply@blogger.com (Erin) — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:57:00 +0000

Many thanks to Judah, who just sent me this link to the webcomic Bathos, which includes the new words "Oxfording" and "resoneged". Go. Click.

I suppose it's worth mentioning that for YEARS I had and wore a t-shirt that said "I never should have used the word bathos", huh? It's a long story, but no, I don't have any connection with the folks behind this comic (other than having thoroughly enjoyed it).

Not really dictionary-related, but ...

noreply@blogger.com (Erin) — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 14:46:00 +0000

I had a piece in the Boston Globe's Ideas section yesterday about Christmas Superstitions.

If you love reading about old superstitions (and I really do), hie yourself to Google Book Search and look for British Popular Customs, Present and Past. Be warned, though, that reading aloud from this to others is something that can be done only in very small doses. There's a limit to how many "Did you know"s? most people want to hear ....

Sleazy and Restoring

noreply@blogger.com (Erin) — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:11:00 +0000

[picture from Flickr -- thanks, bradlauster!]

David Smay sent me a link to a lovely long article in the Guardian about using unusual words: From albedo to zugunruhe, in which the author, James Meek, talks about words he hasn't known and his own uneasiness about using rarer (but more exact) words.

It also has this great quote in it:

The point at which a man starts finding discrepancies in dictionaries is probably the point at which he should go for a long holiday to a place that is sleazy and restoring.

My take (and yes, I know it's self-serving, in that I make dictionaries) is that, in belletristic writing, when presented with an otherwise-equal choice between a fun, unusual word, and a boring, commonplace word, you should always choose the unusual one. Why deny your readers the "aha!" moment of finding a perfectly apt, elegantly descriptive word?

(Of course, I also think "when in doubt, wear orange," so you perhaps should take this with a grain of salt.)

Literary writing is a way to introduce readers not just to facts and ideas and emotions but to beautiful words: imagine writing a guidebook to a place that left out the best restaurants because they weren't on the subway line ... if something is worthwhile, people will find a way to get there. If a word is perfect, people will figure it out.

I am NOT suggesting that technical or workaday writing should be full of fifty-cent words; "This way to the egress" is a scam, not an invitation to learning. (Or, at least, not an invitation to learning that is received gratefully!) But literature, long-form journalism, and essay writing allow for more lexical scope, and you should take advantage of it, to the best of your ability. Why not?

Following Up from Ignite ...

noreply@blogger.com (Erin) — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:23:00 +0000

I keep meaning to post versions of the various talks I've given (the ones that are not videos) but I haven't yet, for myriad reasons ... including trying to get actual work done. But the Ignite talk I gave was pretty short (five minutes!), so I thought I'd try to put it up here.

Slide 1: I always include a definition of 'lexicographer' when I talk; keeps people from elbowing their neighbor and asking 'what did she say she did again'?

Slide 2: Because this was a tech talk, I also pointed out that I was a geek. (I wore this skirt, by the way, for visual reinforcement of the concept.)

Slide 3: We all think of dictionaries as very concrete, solid objects. (You wouldn't want to drop one on your foot, would you?) But actually ...

Slide 4: Dictionaries might be solid, but their innards are really collections of ABSTRACTIONS. Definitions are made by taking a lot of specific datapoints (uses of a word in context) ...

Slide 5: ... and averaging them out to a more general meaning.

Slide 6: This may seem really obvious to YOU ... [note: this is my favorite Flickr image EVER]

Slide 7: But many people think that lexicographers just "decide" what a word means. Nope! That would be really hard work ... it's easier (and more accurate) to look at examples of use.

Slide 8: What can you tell about this word [pirgate] from these examples? Well, I bet you know it's a verb, that you can do it TO something, and that it's something you might not want to do. This is all information you know implicitly because you know how English works.

Slide 9: How about now? Now you know this use is a noun, and it's a kind of person -- the kind of person you don't want to be, probably.

Slide 10: The truth is that "meaning" is created by lots of little points of data, in the same way that persistence-of-vision effects are created by lots of little points of light. A diffuse set of data can look pretty solid if it moves fast enough ...

Slide 11: But you really do have to have ENOUGH data for this persistence-of-vision effect to work. If I say a guy is wearing a tux and holding a martini, is he a waiter, or is he James Bond? You don't have enough data to tell.

Slide 12: So lexicographers in their labs try to distill all those usage data points into high-octane liquid definitions.

Slide 13: Now, if you want to brew your own, and want a lot of examples of use, there are more places than ever to try to find them ...

Slide 14: Although it doesn't work for every word ... (especially not 'pirgate', since I made it up).

Slide 16: And, of course, the examples you DO find might not be helpful.

Slide 16: The big question, though, isn't really WHERE to find enough examples -- that's pretty straightforward. The big question is: if we agree that dictionary definitions are abstractions of meaning, is there a better way to represent those abstractions than this:

Slide 17: ... the boring old print dictionary?

Slide 18: Could we show relationships between examples in a less-linear way?

Slide 19: Could we convey those abstractions in a more powerful way?

Slide 20: That's the problem I'm working on every day ... [go visit my blog, yadda yadda, big plug for Creative Commons and the awesome nice sharing people on Flickr.]

(All my presentations are Creative Commons-sharealike, by the way, so if you ever want to remix me into a rap song or create a dictionary-talk novel or whatever, go right on ahead. If you see me speak somewhere and want a copy of my slide deck, just email and ask.]

And that's what I talked about at Ignite last Thursday. More or less. I didn't make any notes, so this is from what I remember of what I said off the top of my head!

Tonight, Chicago Ignite

noreply@blogger.com (Erin) — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:57:00 +0000

I completely forgot to post that I'm talking tonight at the Chicago Ignite!

I'll be talking about dictionaries. (Whoa! Surprised you there, did I?) I'll also be bringing the estrogen to the geek potluck (in other words, I'm the only woman speaking).

It's at the Debonair Social Club, 1575 N. Milwaukee Ave. Event starts at 6 p.m., I'm talking at the end of the first block (so close to 9 p.m.)

If you're Chicago-local, hope to see you there! (If you're not Chicago-local, it's not too late to move here, y'know. I mean, it is for TONIGHT, but not in the larger context of your life plan. I'm just sayin'.) Don't let the four inches snowfall predicted for this evening put you off, or anything.

I finally found a use for Twitter

noreply@blogger.com (Erin) — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 12:46:00 +0000

Don't get me wrong -- I loved the *idea* of Twitter, I just didn't think a constant stream of messages such as

12:02 "Reading New Scientist"
12:11 "Still reading New Scientist"
12:45 "In front of computer, reading the Internet"

would be interesting. To me, or to anyone else.

But (and there's always a 'but'), Twitter is perfect for a task that I've been having trouble managing: immediate new-word filing. If I'm at my desk, sure, I can append any new-to-me words I find in my reading to a file. And if I'm out and about, I can make a note on my Treo, or in my Moleskine. But they aren't all in the Same Place, and so consolidation has to happen. (Note: I am not so good -- actually, frakkin' terrible -- at consolidation, of any sort.)

Twitter lets me post a WOTD (word-of-the-day) from anywhere, and then it is nicely stored ALL IN ONE PLACE. The limit of 140 characters per 'tweet' keeps me from rambling on and on. And it's semi-public (you can follow my messages if you like, I'm emckean on Twitter) which allows for the possibility of feedback.

If you really want a reliable, highly structured WOTD -- my Twitter feed is not for you. (What you want is Double-Tongued Dictionary.) But if you just want to ride shotgun while I read, go ahead and add me to your "follow" list.

If *you* want to do the same thing with the words you notice, go ahead and use the tag "wotd:" -- Twitter has a 'track' function, so if you prefix your messages with this tag, I'll be able to follow your new words easily. Fun, no? (BTW, Twitter is free.)

I'll try to keep my Twitter feed just for the WOTDs -- although a few rollerskating or "seeing-cool-music" tweets might make it through. Just a warning.

And the word of the year is ...

noreply@blogger.com (Erin) — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 00:18:00 +0000

Locavore.

Oxford announced its Word of the Year today, plus the list of runners-up (which included, in alphabetical order: aging in place, bacn, cloudware, colony collapse disorder, cougar, MRAP vehicle, mumblecore, social graph, tase (or taze), previvor, and upcycling).

It's always fun to be involved in picking the word of the year, although after two years of researching, arguing, persuading, and negotiating (not to mention the concentrated application of some world-class Google-fu) to promote my candidates for Oxford's WOTY (2005: podcast, 2006: carbon neutral), it was a relief to let Ben Zimmer take over the heavy lifting ... and it means I can do a little second-guessing and show you some of the words on my list that didn't make it to the short list. Call them the runners-up to the runners-up, a sort of semi-honorable mention.

There weren't many, but the ones too good to let get away include:

brick: to cause an electronic device to become permanently nonfunctional (this word got a lot of play when people's cracked iPhones were bricked by the firmware update)

hypermiler: someone who uses various driving strategies to maximize fuel efficiency

griefer: someone who deliberately promotes discord, especially in online environments

jatropha: a plant whose nuts can be used to produce biodiesel

unconference: a conference where the agenda or schedule is set by the attendees

There you have it ... if you're hungry for more Word-of-the-Year (or as we call it, WOTY) action, there's always the American Dialect WOTY vote in early January. (This year it's in Chicago!)

Pop!Tech, how I miss you

noreply@blogger.com (Erin) — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:38:00 +0000

Last year I was lucky enough to go to Pop!Tech and give an incredibly geeky talk (you can see it here). How geeky was it? Well, it was called "All Your Text Are Belong To Us." (If you don't get the joke, you can rest comfortably in the knowledge that You Are Not A Geek.)

Although I wish I were in gorgeous Camden, Maine, listening to the talks in the equally gorgeous Camden Opera House, I can, like a good little blogger, watch the 2007 live webcast at home while sitting on the exercise ball that pretends it's my office chair.

I'm really looking forward to some of the presenters in particular -- Nina Jablonski sounds fascinating, and I'm a huge fan of Jonathan Harris already ...

If you haven't heard of Pop!Tech -- check it out!

[The image is a poster that was drawn during my talk by Peter Durand of Alphachimp.]

A perfect example

noreply@blogger.com (Erin) — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:27:00 +0000

I often talk about how some words seem to hover in the ether (or aether, if you prefer) and will themselves into being, often by jumping into multiple brains near-simultaneously. And now I have a great example of this phenomenon, which I can share with you.

I just (and by 'just', I mean 'in the past several weeks') got a lovely email from Anthony Durity, in response to my TED talk, and letting me know a word he invented, ygology. Ygology, is, of course, the study of palindromes.

Now, I thought, that's a cool word. Let's Google it. So I did, and found some competing coinage claims.

Which, frankly, only makes sense. Knowing what a palindrome is, and knowing the suffix -ology, ygology was inevitable. It had to be born; English almost demanded it.

It's probably possible (with some taking of depositions) to determine exactly who first used ygology, and when, and in response to what ... but why bother? We have the word, which is the important thing, after all. I think coining claims should be like Nobels; nobody minds if two or three people win one together.

The illustration above is an ambigram, a kind of visual palindrome, done by John Langdon. Check out his website!

"What Came First" in the Globe

noreply@blogger.com (Erin) — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:31:00 +0000

I got to sub for the wonderful Jan Freeman and camp out in her usual space at the Boston Globe today -- here's the column I wrote about antedating. (Registration may be required, or you can try BugMeNot.com for a password if you prefer not to register.)

Thanks again to Grant Barrett and Ben Zimmer for all their help and great examples ...

(Don't worry, it doesn't have anything to do with the Geico Cavemen.)

RIP Ned Sherrin

noreply@blogger.com (Erin) — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 13:55:00 +0000

I was very sorry to hear that Ned Sherrin had died; he is the genius behind one of my favorite magazine features of all time, the funeral-review column in The Oldie, a magazine for British senior citizens. Yep, he would attend memorial service and review them -- was the eulogy fitting? Where was it held? Did anyone unusual turn up? Were the hymns and readings appropriate?

I can't seem to find a link to one of his columns, but you can take my word for it -- they were tremendously entertaining, even when you had no idea who any of the people mentioned were (which happens quite a bit with me and The Oldie -- seeing as how I am at least thirty years younger than their target audience and American to boot, I have little to no recollection of B-list British celebrities and politicians of the 1950s and 60s).

I wonder who will review his memorial?

Weird Words -- ossicusp

noreply@blogger.com (Erin) — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:33:00 +0000

Last week I got a query (directed to my other blog, but really more suited to this one), about whether or not there was a special word for someone who studies giraffes, the way people who study reptiles are called herpetologists.

Odd and disappointing as this may seem, this was not something I knew off the top of my head, so I went into research mode. First I did an "advanced search" in the OED, searching for any entry that contained the word giraffe in the definition. That didn't turn up any likely words, so I went to Google Book Search, looking for various strings including the words giraffe, scientist, zoologist, study etc.

That turned up Pursuing Giraffe: A 1950s Adventure, which looked amazing ... and whose author, Anne Innis Dagg, was living and teaching in Canada.

So, a few more searches and I had an email address for Professor Dagg, and she replied, very graciously, that there were so few people studying giraffe (giraffe can have the same form for singular and plural, like deer) that there wasn't a special term that she knew of, although people have jokingly used giraffologist.

So that's one word query down (and roughly 500,000 still outstanding). The best parts of this query, as always, were the things I learned along the way: I've added Pursuing Giraffe to my to-read list (books on women's struggle to be taken seriously as scientists are always gripping reading) and I learned the word ossicusp -- which is a very rare term for the skin-covered horns on the head of a giraffe (or an okapi).

How many times have you looked at a giraffe and never wondered if those funny horns had a special name? Now you know, and you'll never look at a giraffe (or, presumably, an okapi, should you run across one) the same way again.

[SECRET MESSAGE TO LITERARY SOJOURN ATTENDEES: The secret word is ossicusp. Write it down!]

What's a Define-A-Thon, You Ask?

noreply@blogger.com (Erin) — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:42:00 +0000

Your question is answered here, and it's (most likely) coming to a bookstore near you.

So if you want to walk away with a prize from the American Heritage Dictionaries (and have the vocabulary-chops to do so) I'd call your favorite local bookstore and ask them to participate sometime during National American Heritage Dictionary Define-a-Thon Week. It has to happen during the official week for you to get a prize ... otherwise you'll just get a certificate [PDF] and the joy of winning.

Has anyone participated in one of these yet? I really want to see one. I guess I'd be disqualified from entering, though. :-)

Guestblogging Alert

noreply@blogger.com (Erin) — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:58:00 +0000

I tried to post this all day yesterday and was THWARTED by Blogger, so it's hardly an alert by now, but I'm guestblogging all this week at The Volokh Conspiracy (only their style is to hyphenate, so there I am guest-blogging).

Check it out if you are so inclined; I'm discussing Dictionary Myths. Yesterday's myth is that lexicographers are word-judging super-aesthetes. Today I talked about why the word inartful isn't in dictionaries.