Technically, a definition should include not only the term to be defined,
but the class of things it belongs to and what it is that differentiates it
from all others of that class. Thus,
TERM: dime
CLASS: a coin of the U. S.
DIFFERENTIUM: worth 1/10 of a dollar.
Beyond that, dictionaries generally offer the category (i.e. part of
speech), pronunciation, etymology, and date the word entered the language.
The order and style of these items differ from dictionary to dictionary (and
perhaps even within dictionaries). Rather than use a dictionary as a model,
however, I suggest you check the style and format used in a glossary of
terms put out by a professional organization such as the one used by
geologists, for example. (I think it is published by AGI--which I assume is
the American Geological Institute, but I'm not sure about that--and in the
30 years since I looked at one, it may have been taken over by the US
Geological Survey.)
Sue Webb
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roberto Perez" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 9:17 PM
Subject: dictionary entries


> Hi all,
>
> Although this is not specifically grammar related, maybe you could offer
> some good ideas on this:
>
> I'm working on the development of an online dictionary for ISD
> (Instructional Systems Design), and right now I'm trying to establish how
> dictionary entries are "treated". So far, after analysing several
> paper-based dictionaries, I've identified 4 main ways: words are defined,
> described, explained, or exemplified (and I'm sure there's more, I'd like
> to hear of others).
>
> Now, some of those dictionaries use those strategies inconsistently:
> sometimes, when they have similar categories of words (e.g., 2 nouns),
they
> would define one of them, but they would describe the other.
>
> However, most of them are consistent in the use of conventions for word
> types, e.g., noun, adj., etc. A few of them would still be sort of "lax"
in
> their categories, and they would mix "noun", with "plural", and call all
of
> it "word types", when actually "plural" is a characteristic of the word,
> but not a "word type" in itself.
>
> So, I guess my question is: for a specialized dictionary of this type
> (which is more similar to a glossary than a dictionary), how detailed
> should the meaning be? How extense? Would it be ok to include word types
> and pronunciation (given that acronyms could be tricky if you haven't
heard
> them before)?
>
> What other strategies could be used, apart from the 4 mentioned above?
> Which categories of words would you say belong with each strategy (e.g.,
> descriptions could be better for physical objects, while definitions would
> work better for abstract ones, etc.)
>
> Any other idea, suggestion, or advice you would offer for a project like
> this to produce a good result?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Roberto Perez
> [log in to unmask]
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
>      http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/