Today’s lesson on the meaning of the word “dictionary”

A proper dictionary is descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, it reflects usage, not some editor’s idea of what is right, proper, virtuous, or politically correct. If people start using “less” when they should be using “fewer,” for example, then over time that meaning of “less” will start showing up labeled as slang or improper usage, but will eventually simply show up as an alternate definition. It’s not a moral or aesthetic judgment — it’s just what is.

Which is why the huge kerfuffle over uncovering of this entry in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is so annoyingly / entertainingly off-target:

Main Entry:

mar·riage

Pronunciation:

\‘mer-ij, ‘ma-rij\

Function:

noun

Etymology:

Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry

Date:

14th century

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

Oh my God! Kenny! You just redefined marriage! You —

“I was shocked to see that Merriam-Webster changed their definition of the word ‘marriage,’ a word which has referred exclusively to a contract between a man and a woman for centuries. It has now added same sex,” YouTube user Eric B. noted to WND.

“The 1992 Webster’s Dictionary does not mention same sex at all,” he wrote.

Well, yes, and there’s a reason for that. Well, two reasons, probably, but the first is that the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage was the Netherlands in 2001. As a formally recognized modern institution, it was arguably not around (de jure) in 1992 and certainly not in common linguistic usage.

Today, it is, despite the frequent use of “scare quotes” around “gay” “marriage” in the conservative press.

Which is basically the argument that Webster associate editor Kory Stamper uses.

“We often hear from people who believe that we are promoting – or perhaps failing to promote – a particular social or political agenda when we make choices about what words to include in the dictionary and how those words should be defined,” associate editor Kory Stamper wrote in response.

“We hear such criticism from all parts of the political spectrum. We’re genuinely sorry when an entry in – or an omission from – one of our dictionaries is found to be offensive or upsetting, but we can’t allow such considerations to deflect us from our primary job as lexicographers.”

Stamper justified the redefinition, too. “In recent years, this new sense of ‘marriage’ has appeared frequently and consistently throughout a broad spectrum of carefully edited publications, and is often used in phrases such as ‘same-sex marriage’ and ‘gay marriage’ by proponents and opponents alike. Its inclusion was a simple matter of providing our readers with accurate information about all of the word’s current uses,” Stamper wrote.

Now, what this means is — it means nothing. A dictionary is a mirror. It is no more an argument for same-sex marriage than it is an argument against, save that it reflects how the term is commonly being used. Efforts to quash Webster from reflecting this would be, in fact, a politically motivated redefinition of the language for a particular partisan goal.

Should I note that the definition also allows for polygamy? No, better not …

The fundies can sleep well, knowing that, should the concept of gay marriage be defeated in society such that the term is never heard any more, Webster will eventually drop the definition into the “obsolete” label.

Amusingly enough, the definition was changed back in 2003. It just took some people that long to read up to the “M”s. And, at that, Webster’s isn’t breaking new ground here.

Merriam-Webster spokesman Arthur Bicknell added that the company was surprised the revision was creating a stir only now. “What we are finding odd is that this is neither news nor unusual,” Bicknell said. “In fact, we were kind of late to the party. We were one of the last ones among the major dictionary publishers to do this.”

Boston-based Houghton-Mifflin, publisher of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, last modified its definition of marriage in 2000. The fourth example it gives, after “1a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. b. The state of being married; wedlock. and c. A common-law marriage,” is “A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.”

Just this month, an even more inclusive definition of marriage was added in draft form to the voluminous Oxford English Dictionary, which publisher Oxford University Press describes as “the definitive record of the English language.”

Recognizing that “the term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex,” the dictionary’s editors have proposed updating the primary sense of the word to mean “the condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between persons married to each other; matrimony.”

Despite this, at least one commenter at the above-cited story (who clearly didn’t read past the headline) blames the whole thing on Obama. Yeesh.

(via Pam)