I checked webster, I typed 'webster none<cr>' into a shell and the shell spits out the definition. Looking at the source which I had never really done before, it queries http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/netdict?book=Dictionary&va=$word . As for descriptive vs prescriptive, I do use it as descriptive. The real usage of a word is what is used by the majority of people in the belief that it is correct. I have not done that research while I suppose that m-w.com has gotten its information from someone who has. When this group did their research they concluded that both forms were commonly used and thus neither was more correct than the other. That is all I meant.
Brian Heinrich wrote: > It seems that we're still trying to come to grips with the function of a > dictionary. Ideally, dictionaries are descriptive (that is, describe > how the language is used at any given point in time or /over/ time), but > most people tend to use them as though they were prescriptive. > > BTW, saying you 'checked Webster' is meaningless: the name 'Webster' > has been used by so many companies as to make it virtually meaningless, > unless you're using a dictionary published by Merriam-Webster; they are > also the publishers of one of the two great English-language > dictionaries, /Webster's Third New International Dictionary/. (The > other great English-language dictionary is the /much/ more compendious > /OED/ -- that would be the full, 20+-volume version.) > > Further, languages evolve. Possessives are a case in point. The > addition of -s (without an apostrophe) was usual in English at one point > in time, but it was later expanded to its (supposed) full form (/e.g./, > /Purchas His Pilgrimages/), contracting which gives you the apostrophe > that you get with any other possessive. It's almost impossible to > control the development of a language, though Noah Webster did have a > profound influence on the direction of the American language as it is > written. > > Brian >
