Now, have any of y'all ever looked up this word? You know, in a dictionary? (Laughter) Yeah, that's what I thought. How about this word? Here, I'll show it to you. Lexicography: the practice of compiling dictionaries. Notice -- we're very specific -- that word "compile." The dictionary is not carved out of a piece of granite, out of a lump of rock. It's made up of lots of little bits. It's little discrete -- that's spelled D-I-S-C-R-E-T-E -- bits. And those bits are words.
Da li je iko od vas ikada potražio ovu reč? Mislim, u rečniku? (Smeh) Da, tako sam i pretpostavila. A ovu reč? Evo, pokazaću vam je. Leksikografija: delatnost sastavljanja rečnika. Obratite pažnju, vrlo smo precizni, kaže "sastavljanje". Rečnik nije isklesan od komada granita ili stene. Čini ga mnoštvo delića. Sitnih zasebnih - evo i slovo po slovo - Z-A-S-E-B-N-I-H - delića. A ti delići su reči.
Now one of the perks of being a lexicographer -- besides getting to come to TED -- is that you get to say really fun words, like lexicographical. Lexicographical has this great pattern: it's called a double dactyl. And just by saying double dactyl, I've sent the geek needle all the way into the red. (Laughter) (Applause) But "lexicographical" is the same pattern as "higgledy-piggledy." Right? It's a fun word to say, and I get to say it a lot. Now, one of the non-perks of being a lexicographer is that people don't usually have a kind of warm, fuzzy, snuggly image of the dictionary. Right? Nobody hugs their dictionaries. But what people really often think about the dictionary is, they think more like this. Just to let you know, I do not have a lexicographical whistle. But people think that my job is to let the good words make that difficult left-hand turn into the dictionary, and keep the bad words out.
E sad, jedna od prednosti bavljenja leksikografijom - osim gostovanja na TED-u - jeste to što se koriste zanimljive reči, na primer "leksikografija". "Leksikografija" ima divnu strukturu koja se zove dvostruki daktil. I samim tim što sam rekla "dvostruki daktil", upalilo se crveno svetlo na radaru za zaluđenike. (Smeh) (Aplauz) Ali reč "leksikografija" ima istu strukturu kao "tandara-mandara". Zar ne? Zabavno je izgovarati, a ja sam često u prilici da je izgovaram. Ali, jedna od mana bavljenja leksikografijom jeste to što ljudi obično ne razmišljaju o rečnicima kao nečem dragom, nežnom i toplom. Zar nije tako? Niko ne grli svoj rečnik. Ono što ljudi zapravo češće misle o rečniku je otprilike ovo. Samo da znate, ja nemam nikakvu leksikografsku pištaljku. Ali ljudi misle da je moj posao da puštam dobre reči da nekako pređu put do rečnika, i da sprečavam loše reči da uđu u njega.
But the thing is, I don't want to be a traffic cop. For one thing, I just do not do uniforms. And for another, deciding what words are good and what words are bad is actually not very easy. And it's not very fun. And when parts of your job are not easy or fun, you kind of look for an excuse not to do them. So if I had to think of some kind of occupation as a metaphor for my work, I would much rather be a fisherman. I want to throw my big net into the deep, blue ocean of English and see what marvelous creatures I can drag up from the bottom. But why do people want me to direct traffic, when I would much rather go fishing? Well, I blame the Queen. Why do I blame the Queen? Well, first of all, I blame the Queen because it's funny. But secondly, I blame the Queen because dictionaries have really not changed.
Ali, ja zapravo ne želim da budem saobraćajac. Za početak, ne volim uniforme. Osim toga, odlučiti koje reči su dobre, a koje loše, zapravo uopšte nije lako. A nije ni zabavno. A kada neka strana posla koji radite nije ni laka ni zabavna, obično tražite izgovor da se njom ne bavite. I zato ako bih morala da smislim neko zanimanje koje će biti metafora za moj posao, radije bih bila ribar. Želim da bacim veliku mrežu u duboki plavi okean engleskog jezika i da vidim kakva ću sve divna stvorenja izvući sa dna. Ali zašto ljudi očekuju da usmeravam saobraćaj, kad bih se ja radije bavila pecanjem? Pa, mislim da je za to kriva kraljica. Zašto krivim kraljicu? Pa, za početak, krivim kraljicu zato što mi je to zabavno. Ali pored toga, krivim kraljicu zato što se rečnici zapravo uopšte nisu promenili.
Our idea of what a dictionary is has not changed since her reign. The only thing that Queen Victoria would not be amused by in modern dictionaries is our inclusion of the F-word, which has happened in American dictionaries since 1965. So, there's this guy, right? Victorian era. James Murray, first editor of the Oxford English Dictionary. I do not have that hat. I wish I had that hat. So he's really responsible for a lot of what we consider modern in dictionaries today. When a guy who looks like that, in that hat, is the face of modernity, you have a problem. And so, James Murray could get a job on any dictionary today. There'd be virtually no learning curve.
Naša predstava o tome šta rečnik predstavlja nije se promenila od vremena njene vladavine. Jedino što kraljicu Viktoriju ne bi zabavljalo u savremenim rečnicima jeste prisustvo reči J<b>*</b>, koja je u američkim rečnicima od 1965. Dakle imamo ovog ovde čoveka. Viktorijansko doba. Džejms Mari, prvi urednik Oksfordskog rečnika engleskog jezika. Ja nemam ovakav šešir. Kamo sreće da ga imam. On je zapravo odgovoran za veliki deo toga šta danas smatramo savremenim u rečnicima. A kada čovek koji ovako izgleda, sa ovim šeširom, predstavlja oličenje savremenosti, tu nešto nije u redu. Džejms Mari bi danas mogao da dobije posao na bilo kom rečniku. Praktično ne bi bilo nikakvog napretka.
And of course, a few of us are saying: okay, computers! Computers! What about computers? The thing about computers is, I love computers. I mean, I'm a huge geek, I love computers. I would go on a hunger strike before I let them take away Google Book Search from me. But computers don't do much else other than speed up the process of compiling dictionaries. They don't change the end result. Because what a dictionary is, is it's Victorian design merged with a little bit of modern propulsion. It's steampunk. What we have is an electric velocipede. You know, we have Victorian design with an engine on it. That's all! The design has not changed.
Naravno, neko će tu reći: pa, računari! Računari! Šta je s računarima? Ja obožavam računare. Hoću da kažem, potpuni sam zaluđenik, obožavam računare. Štrajkovala bih glađu, ali ne bih dopustila da mi oduzmu Guglovu pretragu knjiga. Ali jedino što računari mogu jeste da ubrzaju proces sastavljanja rečnika. Oni ne mogu da promene krajnji proizvod. Jer rečnik je zapravo viktorijanski koncept na koji je nakalemljen savremeni pogon. Rečnik je stimpank. Električni velosiped. Znate već, viktorijanska stvar sa motorom. I to je sve! Sam koncept se nije promenio.
And OK, what about online dictionaries, right? Online dictionaries must be different. This is the Oxford English Dictionary Online, one of the best online dictionaries. This is my favorite word, by the way. Erinaceous: pertaining to the hedgehog family; of the nature of a hedgehog. Very useful word. So, look at that. Online dictionaries right now are paper thrown up on a screen. This is flat. Look how many links there are in the actual entry: two! Right? Those little buttons, I had them all expanded except for the date chart. So there's not very much going on here. There's not a lot of clickiness. And in fact, online dictionaries replicate almost all the problems of print, except for searchability. And when you improve searchability, you actually take away the one advantage of print, which is serendipity. Serendipity is when you find things you weren't looking for, because finding what you are looking for is so damned difficult.
No, dobro, a šta je sa online rečnicima? Online rečnici mora da su drugačiji. Ovo je online izdanje Oksfordskog rečnika, jedan od najboljih online rečnika. Inače, ovo je moja omiljena reč. Erinaceus: vrsta ježa; koji se tiče prirode ježa. Veoma korisna reč. I pogledajte sad. Postojeći online rečnici jesu papir prebačen na ekran. Prikaz je statičan. Pogledajte koliko linkova ima unutar odrednice: dva! Vidite? Iz ovih malih menija sam sve prikazala, sve osim grafova. Što znači da ovde nema ničeg posebnog. Nema mnogo stvari za kliktanje. I zapravo, online rečnici nasleđuju skoro sve probleme štampane verzije, osim što ih je lakše pretraživati. A kada se poboljša pretraživanje, zapravo se oduzima jedina prednost štampanog izdanja, a to su slučajna otkrića. Slučajna otkrića znače da ste pronašli nešto što niste tražili, jer je toliko teško da nađete ono što tražite.
So -- (Laughter) (Applause) -- now, when you think about this, what we have here is a ham butt problem. Does everyone know the ham butt problem? Woman's making a ham for a big, family dinner. She goes to cut the butt off the ham and throw it away, and she looks at this piece of ham and she's like, "This is a perfectly good piece of ham. Why am I throwing this away?" She thought, "Well, my mom always did this." So she calls up mom, and she says, "Mom, why'd you cut the butt off the ham, when you're making a ham?" She says, "I don't know, my mom always did it!" So they call grandma, and grandma says, "My pan was too small!" (Laughter)
I tako - (Smeh) (Aplauz) - kada malo razmislimo o svemu ovome, zapravo imamo problem okrajka šunke. Da li znate za problem okrajka šunke? Žena sprema šunku za veliku porodičnu večeru. Kreće da iseče jedan kraj šunke i da ga baci, onda pogleda taj kraj i pomisli "Ovom parčetu šunke ništa ne fali. Zašto ga uopšte bacam?" Seti se, "Pa, moja mama je uvek tako radila." I tako pozove mamu i pita je: "Mama, kad spremaš šunku, zašto sečeš okrajak?" Majka joj kaže "Ne znam, moja mama je uvek tako radila!" Onda pozovu baku i baka im kaže: "Imala sam malu šerpu!" (Smeh)
So, it's not that we have good words and bad words. We have a pan that's too small! You know, that ham butt is delicious! There's no reason to throw it away. The bad words -- see, when people think about a place and they don't find a place on the map, they think, "This map sucks!" When they find a nightspot or a bar, and it's not in the guidebook, they're like, "Ooh, this place must be cool! It's not in the guidebook." When they find a word that's not in the dictionary, they think, "This must be a bad word." Why? It's more likely to be a bad dictionary. Why are you blaming the ham for being too big for the pan? So, you can't get a smaller ham. The English language is as big as it is.
Dakle, nemamo mi ovde dobre i loše reči. Imamo malu šerpu! Znate, okrajak šunke je vrlo ukusan! Nema razloga da ga bacimo. Za loše reči - pa, vidite, kada ljudi pomisle na neko mesto i ne nađu to mesto na karti, pomisle "Ova karta ništa ne valja!" Kada pronađu noćni klub ili bar koji se ne spominje u vodiču, pomisle "Oho, ovo mora da je neko sjajno mesto! Nema ga u vodiču." A kada pronađu reč koja nije u rečniku, pomisle, "Mora da nije dobra reč." Zašto? Verovatnije je da je u pitanju loš rečnik. Zašto krivimo šunku što je veća od šerpe? Uglavnom, ne možemo da uzmemo manju šunku. Engleski jezik je toliki koliki je.
So, if you have a ham butt problem, and you're thinking about the ham butt problem, the conclusion that it leads you to is inexorable and counterintuitive: paper is the enemy of words. How can this be? I mean, I love books. I really love books. Some of my best friends are books. But the book is not the best shape for the dictionary. Now they're going to think "Oh, boy. People are going to take away my beautiful, paper dictionaries?" No. There will still be paper dictionaries. When we had cars -- when cars became the dominant mode of transportation, we didn't round up all the horses and shoot them. You know, there're still going to be paper dictionaries, but it's not going to be the dominant dictionary. The book-shaped dictionary is not going to be the only shape dictionaries come in. And it's not going to be the prototype for the shapes dictionaries come in.
A to znači, ako imate problem kao sa okrajkom šunke, i razmislite o problemu sa okrajkom šunke, zaključak do koga ćete doći je neumitan i protivan logici: papir je neprijatelj reči. Kako je to moguće? Pa ja obožavam knjige. Stvarno ih obožavam. Neki od mojih najboljih prijatelja su knjige. Ali knjiga nije najbolji mogući oblik za rečnik. Sad ćete pomisliti "Au. Hoće li mi to neko oduzeti moje divne štampane rečnike?" Neće. Štampani rečnici će nastaviti da postoje. Kada su se pojavili automobili - kada su automobili postali glavni način prevoza, nismo sakupili sve konje i poubijali ih. I dalje će postojati štampani rečnici, ali to neće biti glavna vrsta rečnika. Rečnik u obliku knjige neće više biti jedini mogući oblik za rečnike. I neće biti prototip za druge oblike rečnika.
So, think about it this way: if you've got an artificial constraint, artificial constraints lead to arbitrary distinctions and a skewed worldview. What if biologists could only study animals that made people go, "Aww." Right? What if we made aesthetic judgments about animals, and only the ones we thought were cute were the ones that we could study? We'd know a whole lot about charismatic megafauna, and not very much about much else. And I think this is a problem. I think we should study all the words, because when you think about words, you can make beautiful expressions from very humble parts. Lexicography is really more about material science. We are studying the tolerances of the materials that you use to build the structure of your expression: your speeches and your writing. And then, often people say to me, "Well, OK, how do I know that this word is real?" They think, "OK, if we think words are the tools that we use to build the expressions of our thoughts, how can you say that screwdrivers are better than hammers? How can you say that a sledgehammer is better than a ball-peen hammer?" They're just the right tools for the job.
Posmatrajte to ovako: imate nekakvo veštačko ograničenje, a veštačka ograničenja dovode do proizvoljnih podela i iskrivljene slike sveta. Šta bi bilo kad bi biolozi mogli da proučavaju samo životinje na čiju pojavu se ljudi svi razneže. Shvatate? Šta bi bilo da donosimo estetske sudove o životinjama i da dozvoljavamo da se proučavaju samo one koje su nam slatke? Znali bismo vrlo mnogo o harizmatičnom delu megafaune, ali vrlo malo o bilo čemu drugom. A za mene to predstavlja problem. Ja mislim da treba da proučavamo sve reči, jer ako malo razmislimo o rečima, prelepi izrazi mogu se skovati od vrlo skromnih sastavnih delova. Leksikografija zapravo više liči na nauku o materijalima. Proučavamo toleranciju materijala koji se koriste u izgradnji strukture izraza, onoga što ljudi govore i onoga što pišu. I onda me često pitaju, "Pa dobro, kako da znam da li je ovo prava, postojeća reč?" Misle, "Ako kažemo da su reči alatke koje koristimo da gradimo izraze naših misli, kako da znamo da su šrafcigeri bolji od čekića? Kako da znamo da je jedan čekić bolji od drugog?" Jednostavno su prava alatka za posao koji obavljamo.
And so people say to me, "How do I know if a word is real?" You know, anybody who's read a children's book knows that love makes things real. If you love a word, use it. That makes it real. Being in the dictionary is an artificial distinction. It doesn't make a word any more real than any other way. If you love a word, it becomes real. So if we're not worrying about directing traffic, if we've transcended paper, if we are worrying less about control and more about description, then we can think of the English language as being this beautiful mobile. And any time one of those little parts of the mobile changes, is touched, any time you touch a word, you use it in a new context, you give it a new connotation, you verb it, you make the mobile move. You didn't break it. It's just in a new position, and that new position can be just as beautiful.
I tako me ljudi pitaju "Kako da znam da li je neka reč prava reč?" Znate, svako ko je pročitao bar jednu dečju knjigu zna da stvari postaju stvarne zahvaljujući ljubavi. Ako volite neku reč, koristite je. Tako ona postaje prava reč. To da li jeste ili nije u rečniku je veštačka podela. Zbog toga reč ne postoji ništa više nego neka druga. Ako volite neku reč, ona postaje prava reč. Dakle, ako prestanemo da brinemo o usmeravanju saobraćaja, ako prevaziđemo papir, i ako manje brinemo o kontroli a više o opisivanju, onda možemo da vidimo engleski jezik kao ovu prelepu pokretnu skulpturu. I kad god se neki od ovih delića na skulpturi promeni, kada ga nešto dodirne, svaki put kada dodirnete reč, kada je upotrebite u novom kontekstu, date joj novu konotaciju, izgovorite je, pokrećete skulpturu. Niste je pokvarili. Samo je u novom položaju, a taj novi položaj može biti podjednako lep.
Now, if you're no longer a traffic cop -- the problem with being a traffic cop is there can only be so many traffic cops in any one intersection, or the cars get confused. Right? But if your goal is no longer to direct the traffic, but maybe to count the cars that go by, then more eyeballs are better. You can ask for help! If you ask for help, you get more done. And we really need help. Library of Congress: 17 million books, of which half are in English. If only one out of every 10 of those books had a word that's not in the dictionary in it, that would be equivalent to more than two unabridged dictionaries.
E sad, ako više niste saobraćajac - a problem ako ste saobraćajac je i to da na jednoj raskrsnici može da stoji samo manji broj saobraćajaca, inače će doći do haosa. Je l' tako? Ali ako vam cilj više nije da usmeravate saobraćaj, već recimo da brojite automobile koji prolaze, onda što više očiju, to bolje. Možete da tražite pomoć! Ako tražite pomoć, možete da uradite više stvari. A nama stvarno treba pomoć. Kongresna biblioteka. 17 miliona knjiga, polovina je na engleskom. Kada bi samo u svakoj desetoj knjizi postojala reč koja nije u rečniku, to bi zajedno činilo više od dva integralna izdanja rečnika.
And I find an un-dictionaried word -- a word like "un-dictionaried," for example -- in almost every book I read. What about newspapers? Newspaper archive goes back to 1759, 58.1 million newspaper pages. If only one in 100 of those pages had an un-dictionaried word on it, it would be an entire other OED. That's 500,000 more words. So that's a lot. And I'm not even talking about magazines. I'm not talking about blogs -- and I find more new words on BoingBoing in a given week than I do Newsweek or Time. There's a lot going on there.
A ja nalazim nerečničke reči - na primer reči poput "nerečnički" - u skoro svakoj knjizi koju pročitam. A u novinama? Arhiva novina doseže do 1759. godine, 58,1 miliona novinskih stranica. Kada bi samo na svakoj stotoj stranici postojala neka nerečnička reč, to bi bio čitav jedan novi Oksfordski rečnik. To je još 500.000 reči. A to je mnogo. A nisam ni spomenula časopise. Nisam spomenula blogove - a u toku jedne nedelje pronađem više novih reči na BoingBoing-u nego u Njuzviku ili Tajmu. Mnogo štošta se tu dešava.
And I'm not even talking about polysemy, which is the greedy habit some words have of taking more than one meaning for themselves. So if you think of the word "set," a set can be a badger's burrow, a set can be one of the pleats in an Elizabethan ruff, and there's one numbered definition in the OED. The OED has 33 different numbered definitions for set. Tiny, little word, 33 numbered definitions. One of them is just labeled "miscellaneous technical senses." Do you know what that says to me? That says to me, it was Friday afternoon and somebody wanted to go down the pub. (Laughter) That's a lexicographical cop out, to say, "miscellaneous technical senses."
A čak ne govorim ni o polisemiji, toj gramzivoj navici nekih reči da prisvajaju više od jednog značenja. Tako ako uzmete reč "set", to može da bude jazbina jazavca, može biti nabor u elizabetanskoj kragni, i eto vam jedna numerisana definicija u Oksfordskom rečniku. Oksfordski rečnik ima 33 različite numerisane definicije za reč "set". Jedna mala, sićušna reč, 33 numerisane definicije. Jedna od njih označena je prosto kao "različita tehnička značenja". Znate kako ja to tumačim? Tumačim da je bio petak popodne i nekome se žurilo u pab. (Smeh) To je tipično leskikografsko izvlačenje, kad kažemo "različita tehnička značenja".
So, we have all these words, and we really need help! And the thing is, we could ask for help -- asking for help's not that hard. I mean, lexicography is not rocket science. See, I just gave you a lot of words and a lot of numbers, and this is more of a visual explanation. If we think of the dictionary as being the map of the English language, these bright spots are what we know about, and the dark spots are where we are in the dark. If that was the map of all the words in American English, we don't know very much. And we don't even know the shape of the language. If this was the dictionary -- if this was the map of American English -- look, we have a kind of lumpy idea of Florida, but there's no California! We're missing California from American English. We just don't know enough, and we don't even know that we're missing California. We don't even see that there's a gap on the map.
Dakle, imamo sve te reči i stvarno nam je potrebna pomoć! I poenta je da bismo mogli da je tražimo - nije tako teško potražiti pomoć. Leksikografija nije konstrukcija aviona. Pogledajte, navela sam mnoštvo reči i brojeva, a ovo sad je više vizuelno objašnjenje. Ako zamislimo da je rečnik mapa engleskog jezika, svetle tačke su ono što znamo, a tamna mesta su ono o čemu ne znamo ništa. Ako je ovo mapa svih reči američkog engleskog, i ne znamo baš mnogo. Ne znamo ni kakvog je oblika taj jezik. Kad bi ovo bio rečnik - kad bi to bila mapa američkog engleskog - pogledajte, imamo ovde nekakvu kvrgu koja liči na Folirdu, ali nema Kalifornije! U američkom engleskom nedostaje Kalifornija. Prosto ne znamo dovoljno, ne znamo čak ni da nedostaje Kalifornija. Ne vidimo ni da imamo rupu na mapi.
So again, lexicography is not rocket science. But even if it were, rocket science is being done by dedicated amateurs these days. You know? It can't be that hard to find some words! So, enough scientists in other disciplines are really asking people to help, and they're doing a good job of it. For instance, there's eBird, where amateur birdwatchers can upload information about their bird sightings. And then, ornithologists can go and help track populations, migrations, etc.
Dakle, još jednom, leksikografija nije konstrukcija aviona. Ali sve i da jeste, konstrukcijom aviona danas se bave i posvećeni amateri. Jeste li znali za to? A ne može biti toliko teško pronalaziti reči! Naučnici u drugim disciplinama zaista pitaju druge ljude za pomoć, i odlično to koriste. Na primer, imate eBird, gde posmatrači ptica, amateri, mogu da postave informacije o pticama koje su videli. I onda ornitolozi mogu da odu i pomognu u praćenju populacija, migracija i slično.
And there's this guy, Mike Oates. Mike Oates lives in the U.K. He's a director of an electroplating company. He's found more than 140 comets. He's found so many comets, they named a comet after him. It's kind of out past Mars. It's a hike. I don't think he's getting his picture taken there anytime soon. But he found 140 comets without a telescope. He downloaded data from the NASA SOHO satellite, and that's how he found them. If we can find comets without a telescope, shouldn't we be able to find words?
Onda imate Majka Outsa. Majk Outs živi u Velikoj Britaniji. Direktor je firme za galvanizaciju. On je otkrio preko 140 kometa. Otkrio je toliko kometa da su jednu nazvali po njemu. Nalazi se tamo negde iza Marsa. Podaleko. Mislim da se neće slikati tamo u bližoj budućnosti. Ali čovek je otkrio 140 kometa bez teleskopa. Preuzimao je podatke sa Nasinog satelita SOHO i tako ih je otkrio. Ako smo u stanju da otkrivamo komete bez teleskopa, zar ne bi trebalo da smo u stanju i da pronalazimo reči?
Now, y'all know where I'm going with this. Because I'm going to the Internet, which is where everybody goes. And the Internet is great for collecting words, because the Internet's full of collectors. And this is a little-known technological fact about the Internet, but the Internet is actually made up of words and enthusiasm. And words and enthusiasm actually happen to be the recipe for lexicography. Isn't that great? So there are a lot of really good word-collecting sites out there right now, but the problem with some of them is that they're not scientific enough. They show the word, but they don't show any context. Where did it come from? Who said it? What newspaper was it in? What book?
I sad svi znate gde ovo vodi. Jer vodi na Internet, mesto gde sve vodi. A Internet je sjajan za sakupljanje reči, jer je pun sakupljača. Ovo je slabo poznata tehnološka činjenica o Internetu, ali Internet je zapravo sačinjen od reči i entuzijazma. A reči i entuzijazam ujedno su i recept za leksikografiju. Zar to nije sjajno? I sada postoji mnogo stvarno dobrih sajtova za sakupljanje reči, ali problem sa nekima je u tome što nemaju dovoljno naučnu osnovu. Daju vam reč, ali ne daju kontekst. Odakle je ta reč došla? Ko je izgovorio? U kojim se novinama pojavila? U kojoj knjizi?
Because a word is like an archaeological artifact. If you don't know the provenance or the source of the artifact, it's not science, it's a pretty thing to look at. So a word without its source is like a cut flower. You know, it's pretty to look at for a while, but then it dies. It dies too fast. So, this whole time I've been saying, "The dictionary, the dictionary, the dictionary, the dictionary." Not "a dictionary," or "dictionaries." And that's because, well, people use the dictionary to stand for the whole language. They use it synecdochically. And one of the problems of knowing a word like "synecdochically" is that you really want an excuse to say "synecdochically." This whole talk has just been an excuse to get me to the point where I could say "synecdochically" to all of you. So I'm really sorry. But when you use a part of something -- like the dictionary is a part of the language, or a flag stands for the United States, it's a symbol of the country -- then you're using it synecdochically. But the thing is, we could make the dictionary the whole language. If we get a bigger pan, then we can put all the words in. We can put in all the meanings. Doesn't everyone want more meaning in their lives? And we can make the dictionary not just be a symbol of the language -- we can make it be the whole language.
Jer reč je kao arheološki artefakt. Ako ne znate izvor ili poreklo artefakta, onda to nije nauka, nego lep ukras. Tako je i reč bez izvora kao odsečen cvet. Znate već, neko vreme vam je lep, ali onda uvene. Prebrzo uvene. I sve ovo vreme govorim "Rečnik, rečnik, rečnik, rečnik" Ne "jedan rečnik" ili "rečnici". To je zbog toga što, ljudima rečnik predstavlja čitav jezik. Koriste ga sinegdohalno. A jedan od problema kada znate reč poput "sinegdohalno" jeste to da zapravo samo tražite izgovor da kažete "sinegdohalno". Čitavo ovo izlaganje bilo je samo izgovor da dođem do mesta na kome mogu da vam kažem "sinegdohalno". Stvarno vam se izvinjavam zbog toga. Ali kada koristite deo nečega - kao što je rečnik deo jezika, ili zastava predstavlja Sjedinjene Države, simbol je za zemlju - onda to nešto koristite sinegdohalno. Ali poenta je u tome da bismo mogli da pretvorimo rečnik u ceo jezik. Ako nabavimo veću šerpu, moći ćemo u nju da stavimo sve reči. Moći ćemo u nju da smestimo svaki smisao reči. A zar ne želimo svi da vidimo više smisla u životu? I možemo od rečnika da napravimo ne samo simbol jezika, nego ceo jezik.
You see, what I'm really hoping for is that my son, who turns seven this month -- I want him to barely remember that this is the form factor that dictionaries used to come in. This is what dictionaries used to look like. I want him to think of this kind of dictionary as an eight-track tape. It's a format that died because it wasn't useful enough. It wasn't really what people needed. And the thing is, if we can put in all the words, no longer have that artificial distinction between good and bad, we can really describe the language like scientists. We can leave the aesthetic judgments to the writers and the speakers. If we can do that, then I can spend all my time fishing, and I don't have to be a traffic cop anymore. Thank you very much for your kind attention.
Vidite, ono što se zaista nadam jeste da će moj sin, koji ovog meseca puni sedam godina - želim da se on jedva seća da je ovo oblik koji su rečnici nekada imali. Ovako su rečnici nekada izgledali. Želim da vidi takav rečnik kao traku stereo 8. Kao format koji je morao da odumre zato što nije bio dovoljno koristan. Nije bio ono što je ljudima zaista bilo potrebno. Poenta je da ako možemo da uključimo sve reči, i da više nemamo veštačku podelu na dobre i loše reči, onda stvarno možemo da opišemo jezik kao naučnici. Možemo da prepustimo estetski sud piscima i govornicima. Ako uspemo to da uradimo, onda ću moći vreme da provodim pecajući i neću više morati da budem saobraćajac. Najlepše vam hvala na pažnji.