
If Printed Dictionaries Are History, What'll Children Sit on to Reach the Table? - wellokthen
https://www.neh.gov/article/if-printed-dictionaries-are-history-what-will-children-sit-reach
======
drfuchs
Why, the phone book, of course. Usually the yellow pages, if you were in a
reasonably sized metropolis. Nobody used a dictionary; I can’t imagine where
this misinformation came from.

The advantage of using a phone book was that a new one was delivered,
completely for free, every year, so you just had to hang on to an old one if
you were particularly fastidious, and otherwise just used the current one. And
they were softbacks, so were more comfy to sit on than a hardback dictionary.
Not to mention that not all households had a dictionary, while I seem to
recall that the market penetration of landlines was something like 98% of
American households (with subsidization for poorer folks) and they all had
phone books; both were pretty much necessary to carry on a normal life.

Now, let me tell you about paper roadmaps, and how they were available for
free at pretty much all gas stations (though the ones at Esso were considered
the best), on a little rack near the door. No problem perusing the selection
while your gas was pumped and oil checked by the attendants. (And there was no
food or candy available to buy, so your other options for amusement were
pretty limited).

~~~
drewmol
For the younger readers, phonebooks were the ad supported contact directories
that preceded search engines. They were forcefully delivered to just about any
address with a landline across the country (typicaly yearly, sometimes by
multiple publishers). People found alternate uses for them.

~~~
planteen
Does anyone else still get phone books? I've never had a landline but still
get one dropped off at my door annually in Denver. It goes straight to the
recycling bin.

------
bunderbunder
I recently tackled a book that was rather above my French reading level. It
only took about half an hour spent fumbling with my Larousse before I plunked
down $6 on their iOS app so that I could get back to reading my book. That
weekend, my trusty old dictionary and I paid a visit to the used bookstore.

It's hard for me to imagine an information technology that's been more
thoroughly superseded than the print dictionary. Electronic media make it
faster to look words up in the first place, sure. But I also get audible
pronunciations, and, if a definition includes another word I don't know, I can
just tap on it to navigate to its definition. A print encyclopedia, you can at
least sit down with a volume and just read it, and it's an experience that's
sometimes more fun than surfing Wikipedia, by virtue of feeling a bit more
random and serendipitous. But using a dictionary is always vaguely unpleasant;
all you want to do is accomplish a specific task and then get back to your
business.

The author is right. They really do derive most their value these days from
being, in effect, large blocks of wood.

~~~
larkeith
I've had the reverse impression over recent years: dictionary sites have
become so bloated and unusable, between ads, comment systems, inefficient JS,
and abysmal "mobile-friendly" pages I've gone back to my old hardcover
whenever convenient. I imagine part of this is use-case, however: I tend to
use a dictionary infrequently, mainly when I'm reading with the shelf within
reach, so the overhead of launching an app or navigating to a website is a lot
higher than practicing a second language, where you might keep the app open.

And of course it never lost its place as the canonical Scrabble-checker.

~~~
Symbiote
I use Wiktionary — no ads, comments, and it's fast.

My father had an "Official Scrabble Word List" book, which was just a list of
words without definitions. An app would be even better for this: you could
take a photo of the word, and it could give a simple yes/no without any chance
of "accidentally" seeing other words.

~~~
salutonmundo
+1 for Wiktionary.

As for Scrabble, [https://scrabble.hasbro.com/en-
us/tools#dictionary](https://scrabble.hasbro.com/en-us/tools#dictionary) works
just fine, although it needs JavaScript.

------
simias
I have a certain nostalgia for dictionaries as well. That is, until I actually
end up having to use one nowadays. It one of these problems that modern
technology has completely and utterly superseded. You can find people arguing
for the superiority of analog audio or film cameras (if only for purely
subjective or emotional reasons) but I wonder if you'll find many people who
still go out of their ways to use a paper dictionary instead of one of the
digital alternatives available. It's so much faster and convenient. You can
also easily look up any slang word, archaism, proper noun etc...

I've been learning Portuguese lately and quite naturally, having grown up
using dictionaries extensively, I bought a Portuguese dictionary. I end up not
using it, I just look up on my smartphone instead. The main problem is not so
much the lookup speed but the fact that a small pocket dictionary simply
doesn't have enough words while large ones are way too bulky to use
comfortably and carry around.

I suspect that for people learning languages with a more complex script
(chinese comes to mind) modern technology make things a lot easier as well, I
remember reading that looking up words in a Chinese dictionary could be quite
complicated for a beginner.

~~~
nerdponx
A paper dictionary is nice when reading a paper book. I seem to have two
"flows" in my brain, one for reading on paper and one for interacting with a
computer screen. Looking up a word on the computer seems to break up one flow
with the other, whereas I don't have the same problem flipping through a book.

~~~
larkeith
This is also the case, at least for me, whenever I sit down to do some serious
writing - a thesaurus/dictionary set is easy to glance into momentarily, while
looking up a word on my phone completely disrupts my concentration and
mindset.

------
holychiz
Am I the only one here that still makes my kids look up words in dictionary?
We have all the e-devices but I think there's something worthwhile about re-
enforcing alphabet order in words, learning by wandering or happens upon words
nearby in paper dictionary. The kids also have to sound out the words to try
to find it so they learn different word-sound patterns. All this skills are
practiced each time they do a quick dictionary lookup.

~~~
mixmastamyk
It's useful to learn things the hard way, but then move on at some point once
internalized. I remember as a teen avoiding the drudgery of the dictionary and
it affected my vocabulary for a decade+, until I got onto the internet.

------
whoopdedo
Clearly the answer is to hot glue a stack of the obsolete and unrepairable
devices that you had to upgrade from every 18 months.

~~~
_asummers
Wouldn't those be lap bottoms then?

------
gonewest
Obsolete editions of "Java: A Beginner's Guide"

~~~
newman8r
or any books about javascript frameworks that are older than a year

------
Noos
So I decided to go on dictionary.com. Here's what I see on the front page:

-We asked "What is the state of the USA in five words? The responses are not what we imagined."

-Can you translate these famous quotes from emoji?

\- How is pansexuality different from bisexuality?

\- Epic Fail. (seriously, the article is titled this.)

\- When a cat is so cute you want to bite its face? (sic) There's a word for
that!

Those are some of the articles on the front page. Clickbait, on a dictionary.
Then you start to wonder why you are trusting it when it needs to monetize
with clickbait.

~~~
Symbiote
\- "What is the word for the smell after it rains?"

I'm interested in that, but certainly not interested enough to watch a video.

Fortunately, a quick search tells me the word is "petrichor", and has the
etymology [1].

I can't find a word for the cute biting. All the sites have maximum-GDPR all-
the-tracking boxes, which is my new cue to hit "back".

[1]
[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/petrichor](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/petrichor)

------
ndvgfts34
Printed dictionaries are basically ordered lists with metadata, so look-ups
are O(lg n), and by a human no less!

Online dictionaries are likely to be backed by, well, a _dictionary_ , which
allows for O(1) look-ups.

~~~
JadeNB
> Online dictionaries are likely to be backed by, well, a dictionary, which
> allows for O(1) look-ups.

I think that this is true only under simplifying assumptions of a sort that
would also allow one to claim that dictionary look ups are O(1) (with constant
equal to the size of the dictionary).

~~~
ndvgfts34
I was thinking more along the lines of a hash map.

------
tokai
I was very glad I still had my printed dictionaries that day they digged the
cables over by accident. I'm not going to loose a large part of my functional
literacy, just because the power/internet goes out. Even if it only happened
one time for the rest of my life, it would be worth the 20cm of shelf space it
claimed.

~~~
JadeNB
> I'm not going to loose a large part of my functional literacy, just because
> the power/internet goes out.

Is your functional literacy really so dictionary-bound that a temporary outage
makes you lose a large part of it? (Maybe it is! But I think that, for most
people, referring to a dictionary, online or in print, is an occasional act.)

~~~
tokai
I would say that any persons functional literacy will be enhanced with access
to a dictionary (digital or printed), unless they can the dictionary by heart.
I wouldn't called that bound. I would just call it putting in your best
effort.

I personally confer a dictionary whenever I write more than a paragraph of
text. Most people don't do that, but they should.

~~~
JadeNB
> I would say that any persons functional literacy will be enhanced with
> access to a dictionary (digital or printed), unless they can the dictionary
> by heart.

I agree! (Further it is impossible to know a good dictionary by heart, since
it should be updated regularly.) I didn't mean to suggest that normal people
don't need dictionaries, only that it seems a bit extreme to suggest that a
large part of functional _literacy_ (not just fluency or eloquence) would be
lost by a _temporary_ loss of access to one.

> I personally confer a dictionary whenever I write more than a paragraph of
> text. Most people don't do that, but they should.

Just this one time, I hope that it is OK for me to nit-pick and point out that
you almost certainly mean 'consult', not 'confer'.

------
mariuolo
They won't need to reach the table because they're going to do everything
using a tablet from their beds.

------
mysterypie
Printed dictionaries had one advantage that hasn't been superseded by the web:
They didn't try to _deliberately_ give false information. I've noticed that
some dictionary sites give entries for words that are spelt incorrectly. And I
don't mean British vs American spelling or words whose spelling is in flux. I
mean flat out wrong. I presume they do this to get more hits from people
searching for the wrong word. And no, they don't always tell you it's wrong.
(I'll see if I can find an example and update my message.)

Another irritation is that you can find support for any possible meaning of a
word or phrase if look around -- with sites like urbandictionary.com all it
takes is 1 person to invent a meaning and if you're not careful, you'd think
that it's an accepted usage. It takes way more work now to be sure of any
result.

~~~
JadeNB
> Printed dictionaries had one advantage that hasn't been superseded by the
> web: They didn't try to deliberately give false information. I've noticed
> that some dictionary sites give entries for words that are spelt
> incorrectly. And I don't mean British vs American spelling or words whose
> spelling is in flux. I mean flat out wrong. I presume the do this to get
> more hits.

They did it, for the same reason, or at least to prevent copiers stealing
their customers:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_entry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_entry)
.

------
Damogran6
3d Printed seat. Parametrically described in Open SCAD

------
DonHopkins
My idea of a hot date was looking up dirty words in the unabridged dictionary.

~~~
saalweachter
Was?

~~~
DonHopkins
All the hot action's at urbandictionary.com these days.

------
sparrish
The Cooshee, or course. I bought one in 2001 and all 7 of my kids have used
it.

[https://www.babysmart.com/copy-home](https://www.babysmart.com/copy-home)

------
newman8r
I keep a dictionary and thesaurus. They're actually pretty useful when you
need to think of names for projects. I personally haven't found an electronic
dictionary that lets you 'browse' as well as a physical one, but if anyone
knows of one I'd like to check it out.

~~~
salutonmundo
I mean, there's word lists (like /usr/share/dict/words on Unices). Combined
with an actual dictionary that allows some semblance of browsing.

------
wiredfool
Phone books. They’re thick too.

~~~
interfixus
Phone book? What is that?

~~~
ghaff
Of course I haven't used (and for that matter not sure I've seen) a white
pages in years. But yellow pages can still be somewhat useful for finding
local services of various types. A lot of local service businesses are still
pretty bad about online presences.

~~~
interfixus
Where I live (Denmark), nobody _makes_ any phonebooks anymore. I believe the
last time I used one was in 2003.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
I've not seen a phone book since moving to Norway, and just realized it after
reading your comment. In the states, I'd get at least one every year -
sometimes two - and it didn't matter if I wanted one or not. I honestly think
they print them because businesses pay to be in them.

~~~
ghaff
>I honestly think they print them because businesses pay to be in them

Well, sure. That's what the yellow pages basically are--advertising for local
businesses. (There may be some level of listing that's free. I don't know.) As
other have noted, my local yellow pages is pretty small and thin these days
though with the caveat that I don't live in a city. I suspect that a
listing/ad is no longer quite the requirement for local businesses that it
once was.

------
DareRight
The Sears catalog

------
rabboRubble
My gigantic Japanese / English scholarly dictionary of course. Or the
technical manual X for Dummies. Either one...

------
RugnirViking
Ridiculously large font on my 4k monitor. I have to zoom out to about 33% to
make it readable on chrome.

~~~
bastawhiz
On mobile, the left 25% of the screen is occupied by two tiny share buttons.

------
cozzyd
Horowitz and Hill, duh.

Or Peskin and Schroeder if you still need the information from H&H

------
newnewpdro
Amazon boxes filled with disused smartphones.

------
hawkice
This whole article is offensive to my personal sensibilities. I suspect this
is because (not that I'm as fancy as the author) I have at least a smidgen or
shadow of taste, so not being able to ostentatiously display how dignified and
fancy I am with a useless tome I would never reference isn't a terrifying
prospect. I'll just have to develop other empty, meaningless ways to impress
people, like having my think piece inexplicably hosted at neh.gov.

~~~
gumboshoes
Did you even read it? I think not.

~~~
hawkice
Most other comments here answer the question in the headline. The actual body
of the article is an utterly ponderous exploration of dictionaries as
signalling, to which I directly respond. If anything, my comment is perhaps
the most on topic.

Plus, your comment violates HN comment policy.

