Webster Newspeak Dictionary -- NOT

[George Porter]

Elisabeth Roche called our attention to the CNN article on Merriam
Webster's response to a months long controversy surrounding
derogatory/inflammatory words and definitions
<http://www.cnn.com/books/news/9805/05/word.fight/index.html>.

I've been following the evolution of this situation since it first
flared up in March
<http://cnn.com/books/news/9803/17/offensive.books.ap/index.html>.  I
think that MW is taking a very reasonable approach.  They are not caving
in to strident pressure groups.  They have decided to move their proviso
that particular definitions are considered offensive from the end of the
definition to the beginning.  

American Heritage Dictionary has been doing this for more than 20 years.
I found it VERY educational, as an adolescent, to be able to scan the
pages of a dictionary and have the vulgar slang highlighted for easy
retrieval.  AHD has taken little heat over the years, according to the
March story, because of the notice at the beginning of the definition.

I don't think that MW is in Orwellian peril.  There are very real
threats to freedom of speech and freedom of discourse (more
web-applicable terminology), but this is not an example of the forces of
political correctness overwhelming the battlements, although to be sure,
the PC troops were giving it a try.

I hold no stake in CNN, Merriam Webster, or any other megaconglomerates
which might make me rich and comfortable.

George S. Porter
Technical Reference Librarian
Sherman Fairchild Library of Engineering & Applied Science

California Institute of Technology
Mail Code 1-43, Pasadena, CA  91125
Telephone (626) 395-3409 Fax (626) 431-2681
george at library.caltech.edu


> -----Original Message-----
>