Re: density vs. "Webster's" Dictionaries

[brian whatcott <inet@INTELLISYS.NET>]

At 09:32 5/2/99 -0400, John Denker wrote:
> If you want a good laugh, go down to the library or bookstore and look up
> the alleged definitions of scientific terms such as
> * quantum
> * elastic
> * field
> * ...
> in a large number of dictionaries.  Some of the definitions look like they
> would have been out-of-date in Samuel Johnson's time.  Others look like the
> result of the parlor game "operator"; that is, an orignally-reasonable
> definition was apparently passed through a dozen people who, with no
> knowledge of the subject domain, made successive "improvements" to it.

I took up the challenge in John Denker's judiciously written note.
 Here's what I found:

Quantum: n. (pl.quanta)
1 Physics  discrete amount of energy proportional to
the frequency of radiation it represents
2 A required or allowed amount [Latin quantus how much]

Elastic adj.
1. able to resume its normal bulk or shape
after contraction dilation or distortion
2. springy
3. flexible, adaptable
....[Greek elastikos propulsive]

Field n.
(of the thirteen numbered definitions, I will mention
only the one prefixed Physics)
9. Physics
a region in which a force is effective (gravitational field)
b force exerted in this.
...[Old English]

These do not seem at all bad for a recent paperback dictionary
with only 140,000 entries.
 But then, I avoided choosing a dictionary with "Webster's" in
the title.    :-)


John goes on to advocate this:

> b) Use terminology the way thoughtful experts use it.

Though this might seem to be full-blooded advocacy of the
"descriptive" approach, I remind you that when at least one great
investigator needed a neologism, he consulted a word man first.
   Now THERE was a thoughtful expert!


brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net>
Altus OK