36
Examples
The
New Oxford American Dictionary contains many more examples of words in
use than any other comparable dictionary. Generally, they are there to show typical
uses of the word or sense. All examples are authentic, in that they represent actual
usage. In the past, dictionaries typically have used made-up examples, partly
because not enough authentic text was available and partly through an assumption
that made-up examples were somehow better in that they could be tailored to the
precise needs of the dictionary entry. Such a view finds little favor today, and it is
now generally recognized that the “naturalness” provided by authentic examples is
of the utmost importance in giving an accurate picture of language in use.
Word Histories
The etymologies in standard dictionaries explain the language from which a word
was brought into English, the period at which it is first recorded in English, and the
development of modern word forms. While the
New Oxford American Dictionary
does this, it also goes further. It explains sense development as well as morphologi-
cal (or form) development. Information is presented clearly and with a minimum of
technical terminology, and the perspective taken is that of the general user who
would like to know about word origins but who is not a philological specialist. In this
context, the history of how and why a particular meaning developed from an
apparently quite different older meaning is likely to be at least as interesting as, for
example, what the original form was in Latin or Greek.
For example, the word history for the word
oaf
shows how the present meaning
developed from the meaning ‘elf,’ while the entry for
compass
shows how the sense
‘magnetic compass’ may have been influenced by Italian.
Additional special features of the
New Oxford American Dictionary include “internal
etymologies” and “folk etymologies.” Internal etymologies are given within entries to
explain the origin of particular senses, phrases, or idioms. For example, how did the
figurative use of
red herring
come about? Why do we call something a
flash in the
pan
? See the internal etymologies under
red herring
and
flash
.
The
New Oxford American Dictionary presents the information in a straightforward,
user-friendly fashion immediately following the relevant definition.
In a similar vein, folk etymologies—those explanations that are unfounded but
nevertheless well known to many people—have traditionally simply been ignored in
dictionaries. The
New Oxford American Dictionary gives an account of widely held
but often erroneous folk etymologies for the benefit of the general user, explaining
competing theories and assessing their relative merits where applicable. See the
folk etymologies at
posh
and
cherub
.
Researching word histories is similar in some respects to archaeology: the
evidence is often partial or not there at all, and etymologists must make informed
decisions using the evidence available, however inadequate it may be. From time to
time, new evidence becomes available, and the known history of a word may need
to be reconsidered. In this, the
New Oxford American Dictionary has been able to
draw on the extensive expertise and ongoing research of the
Oxford English
Dictionary.
Usage Notes (
)
Interest in questions of good usage is widespread among English speakers
everywhere, and many issues are hotly debated. In the
New Oxford American
Dictionary, traditional issues have been reappraised, and guidance is given on
various points, old and new. The aim is to help people to use the language more
accurately, more clearly, and more elegantly, and to give information and offer
reassurance in the face of some of the more baffling assertions about “correctness”
that are sometimes made.
This reappraisal has involved looking carefully at evidence of actual usage (in the
Oxford databank, the British National Corpus, the citations collected by the Oxford
North American Reading Program, and other sources) in order to find out where
mistakes are actually being made, and where confusion and ambiguity actually
arise. The issues on which journalists and others tend to comment have been
reassessed and a judgment made about whether their comments are justified.
From the 15th century onward, traditionalists have been objecting to particular
senses of certain English words and phrases, for example, “due to” and “hopefully.”
Certain grammatical structures, too, have been singled out for adverse comment,
notably the split infinitive and the use of a preposition at the end of a clause. Some
of these objections are founded on very dubious arguments, for example, the notion
that English grammatical structures should precisely parallel those of Latin or that
