Re: Discrimination

[Robert O'Brien]

A few remarks on the use of dictionaries:   The word "totally" is an adverb; I could not find it in Webster's New International Dictionary, 2nd ed.,I found it in Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary.  However, "prohibit" is a verb; it has a different function in a sentence.   The name Webster's New International Dictionary is a brand name used by the copyright belonging to the company  Merriam-Webster.  The publisher uses the term "International," but I have not found the publisher's  justification of the term in the title.   Noah Webster, born October 16, 1758, about when Samuel Johnson had written the first dictionary of English (1755), took on the task to write a spelling book, and eventually the Dictionary American of the  English Language.  In the  Webster dictionary he substitutes the spelling of color in the place of the British spelling and theater and meter in the place of theatre and metre.   Clearly, the most important dictionary is the Oxford English Dictionary, commonly called the OED, begun in 1857 and took twenty years to complete the twenty volumes of the first edition.    Note that Shakespeare, the translators of the Bible on order of King James,  Milton, Dryden, Pope, Fielding, and even Johnson did not have a dictionary of English.  (OED has not been equaled in any language.)   The writers long did not have a dictionary.  The editor(s) of the dictionary has/have the task to form the definition to identify the way the word was used by the writer.  Only recently will people raise issues concern whether a user of the language strays from the definition in a dictionary.   By the way, Webster's New International Dictionary, 2nd ed., was produced conflicts when it was published.  Attacks on the edition were published in major newspapers and in magazines.  An anthology was published including the attacks and the responses.   Bob O'Brien         ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 12:18 PM Subject: Re: Discrimination In a message dated 11/22/2005 9:09:05 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Webster's Third International does not contain the word "totally" in either definition of "prohibit". But perhaps that is not the "Webster's" that Madison purportedly "expected" people to use? Well, can Madison be faulted for failing to use a dictionary that wasn't available, even in its first edition?   As a general principle, I would note that the Supreme Court does seem to rely on the Webster's Third Edition International Dictionary for definitions of common and ordinary language.   Is the Court's insistence on use of an international dictionary further evidence of our loss of national boundaries (he queries mischieviously).   Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.

NTMail K12 - the Mail Server for Education

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.