I thought I’d celebrate my hundredth post with a new thread. A long time ago, I remember reading a fact which I took at face value at the time. (I don’t remember where, but I can try to find it, if it comes to that.) Apparently, many major dictionaries include, along with all their real entries, one made-up word and definition. Similarly, major atlases throw in one tiny made-up island. The purpose of these additions is to serve in copyright disputes - if someone rips off your dictionary by copying all the words out of it, you just point to that one say, “Where’d you get this word from, punk?”
Now, I’ve never seen this fact corroborated anywhere, and after a couple of hours with the American Heritage in my left hand and the Merriam-Webster in my right, I began to question its validity. So, has anyone else so much as heard this bit of unsubstantiated information, that there are secret words lurking in the depths of our lexica? Furthermore, (and this is what I really want) if what I read is indeed true, then has anyone ever found an instance of such a secret word?
Yes, definition theft is becoming awfully common nowdays. Back-alley dictionaries are popping up at an alarming rate. If it continues, the public will no longer be functionally illiterate.
Fact is, ALL the words in a dictionary are made up. How would you add one and then claim it didn’t exist. It would be a word de-facto, if not de-jure, simply by having been published in a dictionary.
Since few definitions are exactly the same between dictionary publishers anyway, I would doubt the necessity of doing something like that. But they might…look up ‘sarchasm’.
You wouldn’t need to add a made-up word. No dictionary contains every single meaning of every single word in the English language. If sombody did simply reproduce your dictionary wholesale, it would be pretty easy to spot.
I suspect that a lot of inferior dictionaries are simply compiled by selecting entries from the bigger dictionaries and precising the entries, but I doubt that there’s anything that they can do about it. After all, there’s no copyright on words or definitions.
Really? By, with, in, at, on, to, from, foot, man, and, not, the, fool are all made up? The product of human ingenuity, perhaps, but not “made up” in the sense that Achernar obviously intends.
Err… I don’t know what a de jure word would be. They would be words de facto if they were used in any meaningful context by native speakers of the language in question, but I don’t see how stringing together a load of letters and publishing it with a specious definition makes a word.
“slingen. The contents of TomH’s pockets on any given Wednesday afternoon.”
Have I just invented an English word? Certainly not in any meaningful sense.
Since I am a Cartographer I can tell you that traps DO exist. they are not all that easy to find in most cases. most of the ones that I have come across are misspelled names of streets, I mean really who is going to really care if their street name is slightly misspelled, to the additon of smaller roads. I personally don’t know of anyone who has ever been sued over coping a map though. OTOH though US gov maps are not copywritted and contain no such little catches although they do contain some intersting mistakes. as for dictionaries I really don’t know why someone would want to do that.
I remember hearing that most world atlases use ‘phantom islands’ as copyright traps. Typically, they are tiny flyspecks off the coast of Antarctica, or some similar place that noone in their right mind would want to visit. For example, I’ve heard that Swains Island, in the South Atlantic below Argentina, was originally misreported by some ship captain and doesn’t really exist. However, it is kept on some world atlases as a copyright trap.
Maybe, or maybe the name ‘Swains’ was used more than once. There is at least two Prince Edward Islands around the world, for example (Canada and IIRC the south atlantic. I read about the latter in a book called Uninhabited Ocean Islands.) I’m sure the non-existent island was between South America and Antarctica, and it was pointed out that the island did not really exist. The original ‘discovery’ was the result of a kind of mirage that occurs in polar regions. The illusion involved has a Swedish or Norwegan name that I don’t remember.
My parents have a gazateer (sp?) which plots Lake Wobegone in Central Minnesota. Not only does it list Lake Wobegone but it’s listed on a fictional page. Forget which company puts it out - will find it later, if I remember.
For those of you who don’t know, Lake Wobegone is the fictional town Garrison Keillor talks about in his monologues on A Prarie Home Companion and his several books.
All I can add to this thread is that some guy who publishes trivia books employed this very kind of trap, and caught the Trivial Pursuit folks copying from him.
Everyone here seems to be much more interested in the map aspect of my question than the dictionary aspect, which is what it was supposed to be about. That’s okay, though - thanks, everyone who’s posted so far, but as far as the dictionary copyright traps go, it looks like we’ve got a whole lotta “I don’t know.” I agree, that it probably wouldn’t be worthwhile to put one in, but if they’re doing them in atlases, why not? I certainly wouldn’t put it past lexicographers to do something of no real value. Heck, if I were writing a dictionary, I’d probably do it for fun.
Cecil seems to regard copyright traps in road maps as not without a hint of malevolence, and I can see his point. Surely, though, the same wouldn’t hold true for a dictionary, or even a world atlas, right? I’m pretty sure that I’m in the minority of people who go looking through dictionaries for words they’ve never heard of before.
Although I do appreciate the speculation, if nobody has any facts to back up one way or the other, I may just have to make this an independent research project.
And ricepad, that’s amazing. Do you know which question in Trivial Pursuit is wrong?
“…any gang of bright people with scads of money behind them can become appalling competitors in the American-unabridged-dictionary industry. They can make certain they have all the words the other dictionaries have, and then add words which have joined the language since the others were published, and then avoid mistakes that the others have caught particular hell for.”
Dictionary makers have been plagerizing each other since the second one was published. Even today, lexicographers check what the other guys say when they modify or add an entry. They don’t necessarily copy them, they just want to make sure the changes aren’t totally off in left field.
In the FAQ for alt.usage.english, they quote someone who has worked on a dictionary to the effect that deliberate errors are not introduced as there are plenty of inadvertent ones in every dictionary. Perhaps the most famous is this entry in Webster’s Second Unabridged:
dordn. Physics & Chem Density
The definition is right but the headword was meant to look like this:
D or d
Of course, just because it was an error then doesn’t mean we can’t make it an unerror now. May I suggest to the scientists reading this that you use dord in your next paper, if possible. See if anyone is paying attention.
No, unfortunately I don’t. I do recall that there’s a question in the Canadian version of Trivial Pursuit that was omitted from the US version: “How pregnant was Nancy Reagan when she married Ronald Reagan?”
One notorious error in the original TP was “What planet did Percival Lowell discover?” Their answer was Pluto, but of course he didn’t discover any planets.
I have no idea if this was the error from the copyright trap or not. I believe there were several errors in that original set of questions, although I don’t know what the others were.
That’s what I meant when I said that it would be a word if it “were used in any meaningful context by native speakers of the language in question”. My point was that it would not be a word simply by virtue of being included in a dictionary, as tcburnett asserts.
I realised that it was offered in a spirit of jocularity. What I meant was that it wasn’t terribly funny.