# Do you wordnik? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 4, 2015, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-wordnik/716842 "2015-04-04T23:13:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Little\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c57346/32.png) [@Little\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Pig)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2015, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-wordnik/716842/1 "2015-04-04T23:13:10Z")
Do you use wordnik? If so, do you find this to be a useful resource? ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Strangelove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.strangelove/32/6613_2.png) [@Dr.Strangelove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Strangelove)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2015, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-wordnik/716842/2 "2015-04-04T23:59:42Z")
I’d never heard of it, but looks to be very useful. I like seeing definitions, etymologies, and thesaurus results all on one page. ---
**Author:** ![scootergirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e99b99/32.png) [@scootergirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scootergirl)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2015, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-wordnik/716842/3 "2015-04-05T00:23:50Z")
I didn’t know about it until now. Thanks! I’ll use it. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2015, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-wordnik/716842/4 "2015-04-05T04:39:54Z")
For simple definitions that a developing writer might want to see, it’s fine–just as good as looking up several online dictionaries separately. But the examples can fail miserably. Try putting in the word _don_, and see what examples you get. Similarly, for an English learner, it lacks information that a good dictionary should have, especially without reliable examples. If you look up the verb _run off_, for example, it doesn’t indicate which meanings are transitive or intransitive (or both), and it doesn’t indicate the respective prepositions which collocate with the different meanings. So while it has the various definitions for _run off_, it wouldn’t help an English learner to employ the verb correctly in these different ways: _I’m sorry your dog ran off. I’m sorry they ran off your dog. Henry ran off **with** the mayor’s daughter. His house ran off **of** solar power. We ran off some copies of the contract before the meeting. We ran some copies of the contract off before the meeting._(seperability) ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c57346/32.png) [@Little\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Pig)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2015, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-wordnik/716842/5 "2015-04-05T12:33:27Z")
> [@guizot](#): > > For simple definitions that a developing writer might want to see, it’s fine–just as good as looking up several online dictionaries separately. But the examples can fail miserably. Try putting in the word _don_, and see what examples you get. > > Similarly, for an English learner, it lacks information that a good dictionary should have, especially without reliable examples. If you look up the verb _run off_, for example, it doesn’t indicate which meanings are transitive or intransitive (or both), and it doesn’t indicate the respective prepositions which collocate with the different meanings. So while it has the various definitions for _run off_, it wouldn’t help an English learner to employ the verb correctly in these different ways: > > _I’m sorry your dog ran off. > I’m sorry they ran off your dog. > Henry ran off **with** the mayor’s daughter. > His house ran off **of** solar power. > We ran off some copies of the contract before the meeting. > We ran some copies of the contract off before the meeting._(seperability) guizot. Would you submit your analysis to wordnik to make it better? Just asking… ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2015, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-wordnik/716842/6 "2015-04-05T14:17:53Z")
I had never heard of it, but I tried it and was not impressed. I entered “cleave” and the two distinct meanings (with distinct etymologies and distinct conjugations–one strong and one weak) were thoroughly mixed without serious explanation that they were separate words that happened to be homonyms as well as homographs. ---
**Author:** ![usedtobe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ec9cab/32.png) [@usedtobe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/usedtobe)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2015, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-wordnik/716842/7 "2015-04-05T22:07:45Z")
Looks like it could be handy but easily confused. I tried “mete”. It found it, but under “Examples” it found two versions of God ordering “to ete no mete”. Bizarre. How it managed to take the ‘ete’ from the subject and substitute it for ‘eat’, I don’t want to know. Yeah, I know I typed in ‘ete’ where you thought I should have typed ‘eat’, but you don’t need to do this.