Woe betide a world where this type of lunacy becomes commonplace

[pqr]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3569045/Words-associated-with-Christianity-and-British-history-taken-out-of-childrens-dictionary.html

 

I am not too sure which is worse, the fact that they did it or the fact that they actually defend their actions.

 

Edited December 8, 2008 by pqr

[Jean in Newcastle]

Well, they obviously do not think that the schoolchildren who use the dictionary will read the classics!

[KarenNC]

Based on the sample of words removed, the title should be "Words associated with nature taken out of children's dictionary" rather than "Words associated with Christianity and British history taken out of children's dictionary". I count roughly 117 nature-related words (associated with plants and animals) vs. 28 related to Christianity or British history.

 

For me, the usefulness of the dictionary has not usually been for those words in common usage, but the ones that I come across in reading with which I am not familiar.

[pqr]

Based on the sample of words removed, the title should be "Words associated with nature taken out of children's dictionary" rather than "Words associated with Christianity and British history taken out of children's dictionary". I count roughly 117 nature-related words (associated with plants and animals) vs. 28 related to Christianity or British history.

 

For me, the usefulness of the dictionary has not usually been for those words in common usage, but the ones that I come across in reading with which I am not familiar.

 

 

You are correct, but that title would not have been quite as controversial.

I might also opine that of those words removed those relating to Christianity represented a higher percentage of the total relating to Christianity than the words relating to nature vs the total number of words relating to nature.

[teamturner]

Well, they obviously do not think that the schoolchildren who use the dictionary will read the classics!

 

I thought this too! However, I find the children's dictionary that we have very lacking anyways and we often just use the regular dictionary. So I guess when they start taking words out of a regular dictionary we should really get upset. Makes me glad that I have a Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary from 1973. I wonder when they'll start making the collegiate dictionaries politically correct. UUGGHHH!

[jacqui in mo]

For me, the usefulness of the dictionary has not usually been for those words in common usage, but the ones that I come across in reading with which I am not familiar.

 

I agree with the above. I would imagine a child needing to look up "aisle" much more than "MP3 player". And, good grief, doesn't something like "aisle" have more varied and useful meaning than just a row in a church? Doesn't "clean up on aisle 9" mean anything to these people? ;o)

[tinkgumby]

So much for "Get thee to a nunnery!" :001_rolleyes:

[Murphy101]

I think the notion of removing words is rather stupid.

Our language is growing not deminishing, so I find it rather ignorant to remove words, esp words that are most certainly still in use.

Why didn't they just add those other words if they felt the need to put them in? Why does adding MP3 player mean they need to remove bishop?:001_huh:

ETA: ah. the reason they claim is that the book has to be comfortable to hold for children. oh geez. that's really lame.

Edited December 8, 2008 by Martha

[KarenNC]

You are correct, but that title would not have been quite as controversial.

I might also opine that of those words removed those relating to Christianity represented a higher percentage of the total relating to Christianity than the words relating to nature vs the total number of words relating to nature.

 

Of course it wouldn't, that's precisely why it's titled that way.:D

 

The article lists the following:

Abbey, aisle, altar, bishop, chapel, christen, disciple, minister, monastery, monk, nun, nunnery, parish, pew, psalm, pulpit, saint, sin, devil, vicar (and we'll add in the carol and cracker listed above them)

 

Monk, nun, nunnery, monastery, abbey, saint, altar, sin and devil at minimum are not exclusive to Christianity, but are found in other religions as well---religions that are practiced in Britain. Minister has both political and religious uses (especially in Britain), and, as has been pointed out, aisle has multiple uses. In Britain, parish is a form of governmental division as well as a religious term. Psalm, of course, is a Jewish as well as a Christian term. Crackers, well, not sure if they are used to describe food in Britain as they are in the US in addition to being party favors at Christmas.

 

It doesn't look like a campaign to eradicate references to Christianity, which is the way the title spins it. I'm actually much more surprised that a British dictionary has taken out words like monarch, coronation, duke, duchess, minister, county and parish as they are connected with their system of government. I would expect an American dictionary, even for children, to contain words like president, county, state, senator, inauguration, etc.

 

Overall, I find most children's dictionaries not to work as a stand-alone reference. They're nice for the inclusion of lots of illustrations and photos, but we use them along with a standard (and sometimes an unabridged) dictionary.

[bumbledeb]

What difference does it make? If they were to include all the words in the language it wouldn't be a child-size dictionary any more. If a child is motivated enough to look up 'monk' for example and doesn't find the listing, is the child in danger of going through life (or even the next two minutes) not knowing what a monk is? The child will just ask the teacher, or another child, or their parent. Or find a bigger dictionary. Or am I missing something obvious? (Wouldn't be the first time, I know. :tongue_smilie:)

[KarenNC]

What difference does it make? If they were to include all the words in the language it wouldn't be a child-size dictionary any more. If a child is motivated enough to look up 'monk' for example and doesn't find the listing, is the child in danger of going through life (or even the next two minutes) not knowing what a monk is? The child will just ask the teacher, or another child, or their parent. Or find a bigger dictionary. Or am I missing something obvious? (Wouldn't be the first time, I know. :tongue_smilie:)

 

If they were to include all the words in the language it wouldn't be a regular dictionary anymore either:001_smile:.

 

The (unabridged) Oxford English Dictionary comes in a 20 volume set, has 22,000 pages, weighs 145.5 pounds and, as it was printed in 1989, *still* doesn't have all the words in use in English today;)

http://www.elearnaid.com/oxendic20vol.html

http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-English-Dictionary-Vols-1-20/dp/0198611862/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228778017&sr=8-3

[Daisy]

I hate, hate, hate Children's Dictionaries. They never have the word you need.

 

We go straight from a cute picture dictionary (just to build vocab and help with early writing) straight to the collegiate dictionary. We also have an unabridged.