Check out this beauty of a dictionary that I bought for just five dollars from the Santa Ana Library. It was published in 1976 and smells just as good as you would imagine ... mmmm ... that old library book smell.
When you open it, there is a wonderful and grand picture of Mr. Noah Webster ... the person who laid the broad foundations upon which this dictionary was originally built.
When you turn the pages, the entries are just so inviting. There are lovely illustrations throughout ... like this one of a woman playing the concertina. But what's interesting is that the entry for "concertina" explains that the word was "coined by Sir Charles Wheatstone, an English physicist who invented it." But when I look up the same word online through www.merriam-webster.com, a much more concise definition with a much less rich history is provided. Not a peep about Sir Charles Wheatstone.
All of this makes me wonder about how our knowledge of things evolve. We may think we've accumulated more knowledge throughout the generations but how do we know that for sure? How can we be sure that in the quest for speed, we haven't actually lost some of the rich details along the way? When kids looked up "concertina" in 1976, what they learned is different than what kids learn today through the Internet — not only in what is presented as definitions, but the entire experience of looking up a word.
I sure do hear you on this one. It seems that the beauty of most things are taken out by simplyfing, modifing, condensing, parafrasing, The more direct one can be, the more power the words cary. I can do that! However, I prefer, when ask what time it is, to tell the listener how to build a watch.
stitches-n-stuff@blogspot.com
Posted by: Cindy Geilmann | July 14, 2009 at 02:57 AM
Great find. When I was teaching public speaking, I insisted that my students limit their sources to one Internet source. The rest needed to come from books, face to face interviews, and other resources where they could obtain more knowledge. Thank you for this wonderful post.
Posted by: Ludid | July 14, 2009 at 05:14 AM
I am so with you on this one. In fact, I would take it one step further especially when it comes to history books. All one needs to do is compare a modern version to one that was written at the turn of the century. Incredible difference. The vintage books are often written in a very eloquent fashion filled with words I've rarely seen before...let alone know their precise meaning. Words, that once I look them up I discover the depth of their meaning. A richness far beyond what is found in contemporary writings. But even more troublesome to me, is that historical accounts seem to be altered, or depicted in such a way that they no longer resemble earlier writings. Is it just me?
Great post and a topic worth some reflection.
Posted by: Sue | July 14, 2009 at 07:04 AM
You may have hit on the difference between the printed word and the Internet word. For me, the printed word invites you to slow down, whereas the Internet fosters fast, fast, fast, reflecting the times we live in.
Posted by: Colette | July 14, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Interesting indeed! I also read this today:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
Posted by: Julie Prichard | July 14, 2009 at 05:17 PM
Mmmm, I love old dictionaries. *swoon*
Posted by: Carmen Torbus | July 14, 2009 at 09:18 PM