# Dictionaries are not Bibles!



## IlPetaloCremisi

Some people ( especially in these forums ) use dictionaries as they are the only key to learn or know a language! And there is a general sceptic attitute towards the colloquial language. I can agree on the fact that it is necessary to defend a correct use of the language but dictionaries are not bibles.
If Im learning a foreign language, I want to know how people speak and how to express my ideas in order to make them understand me. Dictionaries can give me a first help but languages are something really dinamic and they keep on changing, so I would defentely trust more what a native tells me instead of a dictionary. Some people here relate what dictionaries say even if the natives say that none uses anymore those particular expressions or words...so why to keep on insisting in relating what a book says if none speaks that way? It's useless...


----------



## cuchuflete

We had a thread recently that also discussed the limitations of advice from native speakers, who sometimes act more authoritatively than they ought to.  Further to your point, Petalo, there are some very good dictionaries, which are valuable resources, and some really awful dictionaries.  Before using any dictionary, one should read all the fine print in the front of the hard copy edition (and hope there is an equivalent in the online versions!) that explains whether the order of presentation is based on historical or current usage, or on something else.


There are a number of threads about monolingual English dictionaries in the English Only forum.  People should be especially careful with spell checkers, and with some of the more popular online dictionaries.  Not all of these are of good quality.  

I use many dictionaries every day, and then read the forums, and find that—whatever the dictionaries may say—there are far different colloquial meanings for many words in BE and AE.  Likewise, I know words in Spanish that are perfectly correct and polite in some countries, and vulgar and offensive in others.  Not all of these differences in usage are noted even in the most authoritative SP dictionaries.  

Caution:  





> ...so I would defentely trust more what a native tells me instead of a dictionary.


Just as you verify the credentials of a dictionary, you should do the same with a live, native-speaking source.
Not every native speaker knows as much as they think they do.  We all see mistakes by native speakers in these forums every day.  I don't mean errors as defined by a dictionary, but mistakes as perceived by most other native speakers.


----------



## GenJen54

IlPetaloCremisi said:


> If Im learning a foreign language, I want to know how people speak and how to express my ideas in order to make them understand me. Dictionaries can give me a first help but languages are something really dinamic and they keep on changing, so I would defentely trust more what a native tells me instead of a dictionary. Some people here relate what dictionaries say even if the natives say that none uses anymore those particular expressions or words...so why to keep on insisting in relating what a book says if none speaks that way? It's useless...




Hi Petalo,

Perhaps we need to look at the different reasons people are using these forums.  Some people, like yourself, wish to enhance and improve their language skills in order to better understand the many nuances of native fluency. 

Others visit the fora to prepare for ESL or similar exams, which in many ways are much more restrictive.  As we have been experiencing recently in the English Only forums, many of the test questions as presented by our forer@s - as well as those answers, try to pigeonhole language use into a singluar, and very perscriptive, "correct" form.  These tests, their creators, nor administrators, care nothing about idiomatic use.  They only care about a "correct" answer.

As such, the people studying for them rely more heavily on prescriptivist ideals, and specific dictionary meanings, than they do native input regarding colloquial expressions.


----------



## Lombard Beige

Dictionaries may not be Bibles, but many people who use WRITTEN language in their work (accountants, lawyers, etc.) would benefit from consulting a dictionary more often and also from taking advantage of spelling checkers. 

I am amazed at how many people don't, so even important documents are full of mistakes that could easily be avoided, not only in English, but also in other languages. 

regards


----------



## .   1

I would suggest that a dictionary quoting local is preferable to a dictionary thumping beginner.

.,,


----------



## cuchuflete

. said:


> I would suggest that a dictionary quoting local is preferable to a dictionary thumping beginner.
> 
> .,,



Thanks for that stroke of wisdom.  We also see beginners, as well as advanced students, pointing to dictionaries and, far worse, grammar books, to explain to natives how they ought to speak their own language.  It would be amusing if it were not so sad.


----------



## .   1

Grammar Books or, more accurately, Grandma Books. AAAAArrrrrggggghhhhh

Worse still are Grandma Books for language XXXX being smacked into the face of native speaker YYYY by a learner of ZZZZ. I just dozzzzze off.

.,,


----------



## lazarus1907

Useless? I collect dictionaries. I am aware of their limitations and I still love them. No offence, but if I had to chose between a dictionary and a bible, I'd take the dictionary right away. To me, a bible is not useful at all, since I don't believe in what it says anyway.

A dictionary is a very powerful tool that reflects the generally accepted meanings of the words in formal and written contexts, and often, in oral ones. You cannot make a dictionary that pleases everyone and portraits the nuances and variations that exist in every region of the world. A perfect dictionary in this sense would require several volumes (to cover all regional variations), and it would have to be updated every week. Be sensible! If you don’t like dictionaries, don’t use them. Some people, like me, enjoy using them.


----------



## Lombard Beige

*1)* I think that's a good attitude [referring to "winklepicker", who consults a dictionary every day], but a lot of language USERS rather than learners (both native and non native) seem to forget that however much you know, you can still learn something new.
*2)* *OALD*: an excellent tool for anyone in both hard copy and CD formats, but see below.
*3) *Concerning the written language, apart from "correctness", there is also the problem of making one's meaning clear to the widest possible readership. I normally deal with documents of the kind: "_Be it known to all men_". I think that formal correctness helps, although, of course, everyone makes mistakes now and again: _errare humanum est_ ...

Also, in this kind of context users of multinational languages (English, Spanish, French, Portuguese) should be aware that their particular version may differ in some ways. An example is "*backlog*" which, according to Norman Moss (British-American  dictionary): US: "a comfortable reserve; an American businessman who says he has a backlog of orders is is likely to say it in a tone of satisfaction".  UK: "a pile-up of something that cannot easily be cleared and has implications of a log jam. A [British] businessman might say woefully, 'I've got a backlog of work,' as an apology for late delivery."

So, when I see in an _international accounting document _intended for worldwide use "order backlog" with no explanation, I conclude that the writer did not consult a dictionary. I've just looked  at *OALD* and I see it gives the UK meaning only: "a quantity of work that should have been done already, but has not yet been done". My smaller *Webster's *says: "a reserve that promises continuing work and profit", but also "an accumulation of tasks unperformed or materials not processed". So if the writer had consulted Websters, he/she would have found out that "backlog" has at least two meanings (plus the original meaning: "a large log at the back of a hearth fire").  

Lastly, I think the tendency to quote dictionaries and grammars is a bit "continental", reflecting the "normative" approach, for example to law. You find the applicable text and make reference to it. The approach is in fact similar to that of English-speaking "Bible punchers": "In Jeremiah XXX: 21, the Lord says ....". Similarly, Larousse says ... or the OALD says ...

regards


----------



## olivinha

As a translator I could not work without my friends, the dictionaries. And the good thing about them is that they are available 24/7, unlike most natives I know. Another advantage, if I don´t "agree" with one of them, I just open another one, and the former will never take that personally.

O


----------



## roxcyn

You take it for what it's worth.  Sometimes the dictionary provides a good explanation.  Sometimes the native speaker provides a good explanation.  It just depends, my friend.  And of course if you are a translator then dictionaries are going to be very useful for technical terms.  Have a nice day.

Pablo


----------



## Etcetera

People learn languages not only to chat with other people. 
For example, I am a future specialist in English language and literature. How can I avoid using dictionaries? Of course, natives can help a lot, but when I am writing an essay, a good dictionary would be very helpful.
It all depends on why are you learning a language, I think. But anyway, you can't do without knowing standard language.


----------



## loladamore

I recently had an unfortunate computer mishap in which, although no files or programs were lost, my "favourites" (links/bookmarks) were removed from my browser, meaning that links to countless online monolingual, bilingual and multilingual dictionaries and glossaries were eliminated. I nearly cried. I'm only back up to 20, which in my book (which is a dictionary, of course), is a mere drop in the ocean. 

A dictionary is an invaluable reference tool. No single dictionary provides the ultimate truth, but provides an excellent starting point. It is important to learn which one(s) will help you in a given context and I often compare several before making a comprehension or translation decision. Know your tools!

I suppose I could live without them, but I couldn't work without them. I have a few bibles (helpful when discussing matters with Jehovah's witnesses or analysing translation problems) but dozens of dictionaries. And I want more. MORE. MORE!!!


----------



## Lugubert

I own a score of Bibles in a dozen languages. Lots of fun and extremely useful in discussions. But in my job as a translator, it's dictionaries. I own the very best English to Swedish Technical Dictionary there is. Sometimes, it gives five suggestions for a term that I have encountered. I might find that none of them matches the context, but they help me to realize the sixth one to use.

Any amount of dictionaries won't help you in translating a chemical text if you don't know how a chem lab smells and know how a German (or Swedish) Vollpipett or Erlenmeyer flask feels in your hand. Today, I had "a Mayer flask" in a text. Try finding that in a dictionary!


----------



## danielfranco

I like the comparison:

Dictionaries are not Bibles.

Well, maybe we ought to consider them so. I mean, at least in the tradition of my non-Catholic upbringing, the Bible was considered a venerable text of which the most recent thing was written - oh heck I don't know, maybe - 1700 years ago but which we took very seriously. However, it's a book full of ageless wisdom and advice, if only you wish to live according to its precepts and find a present-day application of its words to your personal situation.
So, instead of considering the dictionaries as the very last word restricting the way a language MUST be spoken, maybe we can consider them a trusty guide in the present-day world.
Or not.


----------



## maxiogee

Why are Dictionaries not Bibles?
They contain many words which some people could profit by reading.
They both aim at suggesting a degree of 'correctness' among their readers.
They are both - generally - collaborative works.
Many people own one but don't open it from one year to the next.
Users of both will find that certain 'behaviours' they thought to be acceptable are actually not.


----------



## Lombard Beige

loladamore said:


> ... A dictionary is an invaluable reference tool. No single dictionary provides *the ultimate truth*, but provides an excellent starting point. ...



Exactly, and as we have discussed elsewhere, the same applies to every other reference tool (grammars, style books, language books, Wikipedia, etc.). They are all useful, and should be consulted as need be, but do not (perhaps cannot) provide the *ultimate truth*. 

regards


----------



## EmilyD

On one occasion when my car was stolen, it was found abandoned in the same city the next day.  *The only item stolen from it, was a Spanish-English dictionary*,that had been in the glove compartment.

oh yes they removed the little light bulb from the inside.

It didn't really bother me.  Do you think the car-borrowers still use it?

_Nomi_


----------



## Hakro

EmilyD said:


> On one occasion when my car was stolen, it was found abandoned in the same city the next day.  *The only item stolen from it, was a Spanish-English dictionary*,that had been in the glove compartment.
> 
> oh yes they removed the little light bulb from the inside.
> 
> It didn't really bother me.  Do you think the car-borrowers still use it?
> 
> _Nomi_


Do you mean the dictionary or the light bulb?

When did it happen? Light bulbs have a limited life time. Dictionaries can be used practically forever.

When I was in Spain with my own car somebody broke it's side window and stole not only my small Spanish-Finnish-Spanish dictionary but also half a dozen Spanish course cassettes (but not the radio/cassette player). I still remember the first phrase: "Me gusta España". 

This happended about twenty years ago. Do you think the burglars are still learning how to pronounce "Me gusta España"?

Back to the topic: Now I have a big Spanish-Finnish dictionary and a small digital one in my computer. I don't take either of them with me when I go to Spain.


----------



## mytwolangs

Some dictionaries are better than others yes. 
Some are probably written for different audiences. Some would be good for schools, and some of them would not be. I have 2 hard copies of ENG-FRE dictionaries. And my review - 

Websters new World Concise French Dictionary - This one explains many usages of most normal words and many slang words, even the bad ones like "salope". There is a section on how to prepare certain documents.
Excellent all around, probably the only one I would really need, but it would not be something you would want in an Elementary school library.
How to use profanity to how to prepare a CV, it is all here.

Merriam Webster French-English dictionary - useful, but doesn't really explain the slang words or usage. Strictly definitions, good for younger audience


----------



## Sorcha

Well i think everything is relative, how important do you think a bible is?!
Anyway, if you're learing a language for the primary purpose of a degree (which I am) and the secondary purpose of fun (again I would fit into this category) then a dictionary is essential. Funnily enough I dont carry native speakers around with all day everyday (I'm 5ft2 and weigh not a lot) and to class in order to answer my question but i can carry my dictionary or at least consult the one in the library! 
Plus why do i think some person who has speaks the language (possibly not that well, maybe not even that often depending on region and dialect) but who has never studied it, or has studied little, can answer my question?
ok done with my rant.
Thanks for your time.


----------



## Lombard Beige

Sorcha said:


> Well i think everything is relative, how important do you think a bible is?! ...



I think the original message from IlPetaloCremisi reflects the common Italian phrase: "_Non è Vangelo!_" literally "_It's not Gospel!_"

According to OALD, in English too, "*Gospel*" means (informally), "_the complete truth_", e.g. "_Don’t take his word as gospel!_".

This leads to another point. For Catholics, the *Gospel *is the acme of truth, while for Protestants, the whole *Bible *is important. Now, given the leading role of Protestants in the English-speaking world, it is legitimate for a continental Catholic to think that the word "_Bible_" would convey in English what "_Gospel_" does, at least traditionally to a continental Catholic. 

But Catholicism was also the religion of England up to Henry VIII *, so the phrase "Don’t take his word as gospel", probably goes back to before that time.

* _In Spain there is a statue of the Virgin Mary that came from the original pre-fire Saint Paul's cathedral and is called "La Inglesa"._

regards


----------



## jess oh seven

I think misuse of dictionaries is more offensive than their use in general. If you always choose the first word from the list, then you´re sure to get it wrong. Research, find context, and sink your teeth into as much foreign literature as possible, even if it's only what's written on the back of a box of cereal!


----------



## cuchuflete

Following on the very sound advice from Jess oh seven, if you can, never be content with the definitions from the first dictionary you consult.  When trying to help learners of English in the English Only forum, I often do a quick check of the WR English definition (Monolingual English dictionary), which is set up almost as a combination dictionary and thesaurus, and then I quickly look at one or more 'conventional' dictionaries, including at least one good AE and one good BE volume or online dictionary.  Together with my own knowledge of the language, these various and often distinct views of the meaning of a word or phrase give me a broad sense of the many ways a word can be used.  That's far more valuable than a simple definition.


----------

