OT: Read The Dictionary?

[Ash]

I do it all the time.

I'm an addict.

I read the dictionary.

I have an enormous Oxford Illustrated Dictionary.
It has tons of cool pictures in it and it's thicker than any phonebook I've ever seen.
You could knock someone out if you hit them over the head with it.

I'll see or hear a word somewhere on TV or in a book and I'll scoop up my dictionary to look it up.
Most times, it's a word that I've heard before but its meaning eludes me.

Once there, I cannot stop looking up words.
I looked up words for almost 45 minutes the other night.
The pictures in it are also cool and quite detailed.

Knowledge is power!

Are you guilty of this too?

[dean]

My girlfriend constantly tells me I am making up words, so I resort to the dictionary to prove her wrong.  Sometimes it's just a threat because I am making them up, but other times I'm pleasantly correct.  

That's fantastical.

[Scott]

I preffer reading non-fiction with a dictionary nearby to increase ones vocabulary instead of reading a dictionary without reason.  My dictionary readings started with my journey into philosophy in the late 80's and early 90's. Though I still read a lot I don't use the dictionary as much, except to maybe check spelling if I feel it's important enough.

Encyclopedias are good reads as I find "subjects" a bit more interesting that "words". Words are very limited. Words never convey truth. Words are important only because that is all we have outside of our own experiences. Words can expand ones mind to a certain rudimentary extent. Maybe if we can get people to understand words we can all advance to the next level, but then again they have been trying that for a long time. Maybe words are the hinderance to perfection.

What's great about words is that after you figure out the fallacy of the written word then you begin to see the fallacy and error of all "subject" matter. Things get more interesting from there.

Having correct spelling is like knowing the exact dates for History. Understanding periods of History are important, but the "exact" dates in History are only important when a pivital part determines some type of larger meaning and then you can simply look it up as needed. Usually you already know the timeline.

Correct spelling and exact dates are usually for those into "impressing" upon a crowd as in directing them towards certain ideas. At least that is what I've found to be true. Otherwise words have no meaning and even take away from the meaning of all things. Words can help for a short while then you must escape from them. They can be used as tools, but not really necessary. Consider the degree of a thing and the size of a moment.

The question is "Why do we read?". Illumination can happen through reading and the use of words. It just takes longer. Use all towards your own advantage with the Divine standard to guide you. All things do indeed aim towards the good in one way or another. Enjoy the dictionary ASHTHECAT.

Now for your viewing pleasure I give you GIGLI.

[Ash]

........

[trekgeezer]

Damn, I hate when Scott gets on tear. It makes my head hurt.

[ulthar]

Scott Wrote:

>> Correct spelling and exact dates are usually for those into "impressing" upon a crowd as in directing them towards certain ideas.

I think correct spelling shows (a) respect for the language and (b) a positive discipline of the mind.

For me, typos and simple misques are easily forgiven (and overlooked), but when one clearly spells incorrectly because they just don't care (don't care to learn, can't be bothered to be correct, etc) it conveys mental/intellectual weakness.  I'll admit to being less likely to give that persons ideas the same consideration as one who uses the language correctly.

Have you read a lot of period pieces (non fiction or historical fiction) from the late 18th early 19th century?  The use of both written and spoken (as conveyed in the writing) language was beautiful.  Every person, no matter of class, took care to express themselves with eloquence.  Poetry in Wales was considered a gift of nearly divine importance.

Now, in contemporary America, the use of language is vulgar, lowest common denomenator laziness.  Everything is shortened (J-Lo for your favorite actress, :), for example), which really bothers me.  I think "soon" we will begin speaking in grunts.  My Mom taught my daughter "huh" during a visit a few months ago, and it literally took my wife and I months to get that out of her vocabulary.

Like it or not, how we speak and write reflects on our education and social (not economic) class. Reading is the fuel for how we in turn speak and write.  So, if we read a lot of prose with poor spelling, I believe that 'essence' of mental laziness seeps into our patterns as well.

It's just my opinion.

As for dates in history, knowing the dates in some contexts is important, but not usually.  I agree that knowing the sense of the sequence of events and an approximate timeline is what counts.  

[Derf]

I don't know whether I should pipe up here or not. As an English Teacher (among other things), proper spelling and grammar are essential to me. I tend to agree with ulthar's views over Scott's in this case; most of the misspellings and poor word choices I come across reflect a lack of respect for the language and an intellectual laziness; the general attitude I encounter is "you know what I mean" or "hear what I mean, not what I say." Both attitudes are dangerous in my opinion. We don't even try to communicate well anymore, and the result is increasing prejudice and violence (no, I'm not saying that misspellings cause gang violence and bigotry, but they are one symptom of a larger problem that contributes to many of our social ills). The only people who seem to demand exacting care with words outside of academia are lawyers, and then only to win a case, not usually to find the truth of a matter. Scott is right that words sometimes come up short, but they are all we've got to work with until we can surgically install thought interpretation screens into our foreheads or develop true telepathy.

That said, I always appreciate it when someone has obviously taken the time to consider what they've written and how it comes across. However, boards like this are informal enough that I don't worry about typos or misused words. I read this board every day, but you won't find anywhere where I've corrected someone's spelling or grammar; this isn't the place for it.

In response to the original question, I used to read the dictionary more than I do now; now, I'm more into reading about word origins. It's always fun to make connections between an Old English word and a modern variation that is used in a totally different context but still retains a semblance of its original meaning. But then again, I may be a bit odd.

[Scott]

Let me add a few words : )

Well stated Ulthar and Derf. Grunts and four letter words are indeed vocabulary. Everything people do these days are nothing but grunts and four letter words. People are crude and lazy. I understand your frustration with the whole thing Ulthar. The main thing is the world as a whole doesn't really have a goal and the reason for learning that follows having a real goal. The world will no doubt learn this sooner or later. Why should they learn when the world moves by a never ending series of weak impulses and meaningless pursuits. Something inside doesn't motivate them to even read. They consume the earth outside the Divine will. Even the earth itself has it's own way of cleansing itself. Truth will prevail in the end.

No doubt they should read 18th century literature for what it is. It is very well written and except for some of the sciences of the age it is the very best for literature and philosophy. Words have served only a few. Words serve to civilize society at one level and also restict the world depending on how "words" are interpreted and used.

There is a time and place for everything under the sun. Even "words" from a dictionary.

[Derf]

Scott,

When you talk about "Divine Will," are you speaking in Aristotelian terms, where every physical thing has a divine "ideal" form and a corrupted "worldly" form, and what we see is corrupted and therefore "less" than the ideal, or are you talking in some other terms? You (almost) quote Ecclesiastes 3 in your concluding remark, which could point toward a Christian ideology, while your other remarks point toward a more New Age, "Gaia"-esque pseudo-spirituality. I don't really like to put people into strict categories like that, but I'm trying to understand your posts a bit better. Depending on your base outlook, I may agree more or less with you. As a Christian myself, I see a definite purpose in life, and sometimes that encroaches on my ability to understand others (like those you mention) that have no purpose but to live day to day.

[Scott]

Well I did make both a Ecclesiastes reference and a Aristotelian reference. If I start with my theology right here then this could take a while and everyone would prabably take it the wrong way. It's an extremely strong revelation that really needs a second person to write it down. I'm just the messenger.

Actually looking for a scribe of sorts to write it all down Derf. Any volunteers? I garantee that you have never heard this before as I have only told a few people.

[Derf]

I'm not really sure where to go with that, Scott. I've sworn myself off of talking religion on this board unless asked a question (I was sounding too much like the proverbial wet blanket, and I got tired of hearing myself; I can only imagine what others thought--no need to elaborate, people). I have my own very strong beliefs, so I think I'll let this discussion go before it turns into an unwinnable debate. And if you start preaching the Gospel of Gigli, I'm afraid I'll have to join the others in ridiculing it.

[dean]

Maybe it's the fact that I'm really tired and not really taking this all in, but this thread has certainly become quite different.  I'm all for theological discussions, however my mind at the moment is kind of confused by all this talk.  I guess when I'm more conscious I'll pay closer attention and understand what's going on!

Although I understand people's hesitations when it comes to talking religion and theology and what-not [it can be quite the touchy subject]  I was having a discussion with a friend about Aristotle and Socrates last night and am kind of interested in exactly what Scott is on about, just as a curiousity thing.

But like I said, maybe now is not the right time for me to do that considering my frame of mind at the moment.

[Neville]

I did it all the time when I was a kid (I was an early reader and sort of a bookworm), much less now, where I prefer to interpret words' meanings from their context (sorry excuse for being a lazy f**k, I know). I have become sort of addicted to Wikipedia, though, whenever I enter it for anything I ened up opening half a dozen links, and sometimes they teke me far, far away from my starting topic.

[AndyC]

Neville Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wikipedia, though, whenever I enter it for
> anything I ened up opening half a dozen links, and
> sometimes they teke me far, far away from my
> starting topic.

Me too. Actually, I'm a terrible one for any kind of reference material, and always have been, whether it be a dictionary, encyclopedia or the internet. I'm too curious. On my way to finding the bit of information I need, I see too much interesting stuff on the way. I just have to stop and read, then it leads me to something else, and then I have to remember what I wanted to look up initially. While I'm looking that up, I try not to forget the three or four things I've decided I really want to look up as a result of my wandering.

Of course, I generally only use the dictionary when I want to use a particular word in a story and want to be entirely sure of its meaning. Sometimes, there is a thought that requires just the right word, and there is some doubt as to whether I intend to use it correctly. In general, my vocabulary is pretty good, and I only turn to the dictionary for confirmation. For learning new words, I prefer reading good fiction and talking to people -- picking it up naturally. For the most part, I try not to use fancy words for their own sake. Simple English is the best way to go, unless you want to express something very specific.

[dean]

AndyC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Me too. Actually, I'm a terrible one for any kind
> of reference material, and always have been,
> whether it be a dictionary, encyclopedia or the
> internet. I'm too curious. On my way to finding
> the bit of information I need, I see too much
> interesting stuff on the way. I just have to stop
> and read, then it leads me to something else, and
> then I have to remember what I wanted to look up
> initially. While I'm looking that up, I try not to
> forget the three or four things I've decided I
> really want to look up as a result of my
> wandering.
>
> Of course, I generally only use the dictionary
> when I want to use a particular word in a story
> and want to be entirely sure of its meaning.
> Sometimes, there is a thought that requires just
> the right word, and there is some doubt as to
> whether I intend to use it correctly. In general,
> my vocabulary is pretty good, and I only turn to
> the dictionary for confirmation. For learning new
> words, I prefer reading good fiction and talking
> to people -- picking it up naturally. For the most
> part, I try not to use fancy words for their own
> sake. Simple English is the best way to go, unless
> you want to express something very specific.


That whole 'using fancy words just because' idea is something that really annoys me.  I only really come across it via the movies, but it still really bugs me since it's such a pretentious attitude to have.  

The only other time I've really come across it is in academia, and that's not so bad because it sometimes has a place [such as if somebody is explaining something and uses a big fancy word which sums the argument up more than explaining it in plain english.]


As for the whole wikipedia/too much information thing, that was my biggest problem when researching essays at uni: I'd get too interested in my topic and just read things that led off from my original topic too often and get bogged down in non-essential reading [and thus taking more time to do an essay, which could be a problem sometimes]