

Esquivalience - arb99
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquivalience

======
WalterGR
As the editor of a slang dictionary that accepts user submissions, I've seen
many terms submitted to my dictionary that have become accidental
esquivaliences.

One great example is "poonj," meaning to have sexual intercourse. The
submitter included some etymological claims, in part that the term originated
in the language of the Ojibwe native Americans. I find that pretty suspect,
though it did appear on the site for some time before I removed it. The
definition and the etymology were printed in the second edition of _Cassell's
Dictionary of Slang_. To their credit, they did include "allegedly".

[http://books.google.com/books?id=5GpLcC4a5fAC&pg=PA1120&...](http://books.google.com/books?id=5GpLcC4a5fAC&pg=PA1120&dq=poonj+ojibwe)

I'm not too concerned about the copyright aspect, though. And actually, I'm
still unclear on the extent to which dictionary definitions are copyrightable.

~~~
pc86
I don't think dictionary definitions are. However, if I make up a word, _that_
is copyrightable as it is my creation, or IP, or whatever term you wish to
use.

Similar to putting a fake street on a map, I would think.

~~~
gcr
Actually, a fake street is not copyrightable.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_street#Legal_issues>

    
    
        A United States federal court found that copyright traps are not
        themselves protectable by copyright. There, the court
        stated: "[t]o treat 'false' facts interspersed among actual facts
        and represented as actual facts as fiction would mean that no one
        could ever reproduce or copy actual facts without risk of
        reproducing a false fact and thereby violating a copyright . . .
        . If such were the law, information could never be reproduced or
        widely disseminated." (Id. at 733)

------
EvanKelly
I was just discussing this with my co-worker.

How is a new dictionary supposed to source definitions without using current
dictionaries? Aren't existing dictionaries essentially the "canon"?

~~~
derleth
> How is a new dictionary supposed to source definitions without using current
> dictionaries? Aren't existing dictionaries essentially the "canon"?

No, because that isn't how dictionaries work. Dictionaries, and this goes back
to the very first dictionaries, have always paid people to look at current
usage and write definitions based on that. Dictionaries are _descriptive_ ,
not _prescriptive_ ; they reflect usage, not control it.

The _OED_ is well-known for its citations backing up its definitions, and they
have a very strong bias towards actual usage as opposed to other dictionaries.

Edited to add: _Some_ dictionaries are prescriptive to an extent. Those are
the ones that define terms used in a controlled vocabulary, such as technical
terms used in a specific field. When the CRC handbook says that _this_ is what
'butyl' means, for example, it is pretty well taken to be prescriptive among
chemists.

~~~
EvanKelly
The wikipedia article doesn't say, but I'm curious if "esquivalience" or
"dord" (another example) have been used in error to support their fictitious
definitions, thus becoming suitable for inclusion in newer dictionaries.

~~~
derefr
Very similar to the effect when an otherwise "non-notable" wikipedia page is
cited in the public press, and then cites the article citing it as a way to
claim notability.

------
nate_martin
Reminds me of when people caught bing stealing google's search results by
indexing really long weird urls in google that had no incoming links.

------
feniv
The related page for Trap Street (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_street>)
is also very interesting. It talks about "secret streets" cartographers put in
their maps to protect their copyright.

~~~
brazzy
Previous HN discussion about that concept:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4992748>

------
zamalek
The real issue is that due diligence on the word was not done. The copyright
this is a load of hogwash, in my opinion looks for words that you need to
define in another dictionary is acceptable practice (however, copying the
definition verbatim is not).

It's almost like saying "you have a thread scheduler in your operating system
and are violating copyright." No, that is a core component of an operating
system, just like a word is a core component of the English language
(fictitious or not, once it enters an accepted dictionary it becomes a word -
other dictionaries are forced to define it due to the nature of language).

~~~
claudius
The idea was not to claim copyright on the definition, but use the inclusion
of the definition in another work as an indication that this other work is a
copy of the original work in its entirety.

------
leoc
Mapmakers have been doing this for a long time.

~~~
nthitz
Some search engines too! <https://www.google.com/search?q=hiybbprqag>

------
rfergie
Seems like a perfectly cromulent word

~~~
alexvr
Rather disinterpritive and conflascating, if you ask me

------
webignition
I initially misread esquivalience as esquivalence and took it to mean
estimated equivalence, as in the word that is to equivalence what guesstimate
is to estimate.

------
alexvr
Apple, how dare you put a dictionary with a fake word on my Dock. Come on.

~~~
mitchty
The dictionary is sourced from the Oxford dictionary. Or is this another
ostracize Apple poe's law posts? They're getting hard to detect.

~~~
gurkendoktor
I assume it's a non serious posting about the fact that this word is indeed in
Apple's default dictionary, which many of us can immediately verify with a
three-finger tap: Esquivalience

It's especially fun because my popup shows the fake definition at the top, and
the wikipedia explanation below it :) - not sure if that's because of my
settings or if it is the default behaviour.

------
mikek
Phone books do this too.

