The OALD - a word absent

Status
Not open for further replies.

AlexAD

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Belarus
Current Location
United States
Hello!

At times I can't pull up a word, which I have encoutered while reading a story, from the OALD. And here is a very important question for me arising; Can I consider the word is rarely used because of that or I can't?

Here are two examples:

greenwood (Yes, it is absent in the OALD!), athirst for action

Let me explain why that is so important for me. The thing is I use unknown words in sentences of my own, which are very practical (may I replace practical with sensible here?), to memorize them. I mean sentences that I would really use in some situations. So I don't want to seem posh or pompous when I am using the words I know.

P.S. I didn't find any relative information just yet in the OALD itself, but I will try again more thoroughly.

I would appreciate any comments you might have.

I would be grateful if you, dear teachers, would proofread my post.

Thanks, Alex.
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Both words are poetic and/or archaic. They are, rightly, not in the ALD. Most learners would not meet them in a lifetime of learning. Many native speakers would never use them, though they would probably recognise them if they saw them in a story about Ronin Hood or Ivanhoe.

You can be reasonably sure that, if you cannot find a word in the Oxford ALD or similar dictionaries, that it is not in common use. Note, however, that many technical words are not included in such dictionaries, nor are words that have very recently come into common use.
 
Last edited:

BobK

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Location
Spencers Wood, near Reading, UK
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
Hello!

At times I can't pull up a word, which I have encoutered while reading a story, from the OALD. And here is a very important question for me arising; Can I consider the word is rarely used because of that or I can't?

Here are two examples:

greenwood (Yes, it is absent in the OALD!), athirst for action

Let me explain why that is so important for me. The thing is I use unknown words in sentences of my own, which are very practical (may I replace practical with sensible here?), to memorize them. I mean sentences that I would really use in some situations. So I don't want to seem posh or pompous when I am using the words I know.

P.S. I didn't find any relative information just yet in the OALD itself, but I will try again more thoroughly.

I would appreciate any comments you might have.

I would be grateful if you, dear teachers, would proofread my post.

Thanks, Alex.

The problem is you can't avoid sounding posh or pompous if you say 'athirst for action'. It's archaic. There used to be lots of adjectives formed by prefixing 'a-' to a noun - like 'abed' (two syllables, meaning 'in bed').

Any dictionary selects. Some have only 40,000 or 80,000 words, some pride themselves on being much less selective; but even the most all-encompassing of them all (the Oxford English Dictionary...[compiled] on historical principles') Is still selective: if a word has appeared in print only 5 times, it doesn't get in. But 'athirst' does!

Making and selling dictionaries involves very complex calculations involving size, cost of materials, market considerations... When Mr Hornby in Hong Kong was compiling the OALDCE, he had to draw the line somewhere.

b
 

AlexAD

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Belarus
Current Location
United States
fivejedjon, BobK thank you a lot!

That part made me confident:
You can be reasonably sure that, if you cannot find a word in the Oxford ALD or similar dictionaries, that it is not in common use. Note, however, that many technical words are not included in such dictionaries, nor are words that have very recently come into common use.

You are a great help!

Is my grammar good?
Would I have used 'sensible' instead of 'practical' there?
(Do we need the definite article before 'sensible' and 'practical'?).

Thanks, Alex.
 

AlexAD

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Belarus
Current Location
United States
Here is another question that has just arisen in my head, 'Should I come across a word that is marked either as literary or old-fashioned in the OALD there is no reason to doubt it, is there?' To be more specific I will give you an example that makes me hesitate,

'They were brave words, for Robin, with his bow, had the advantage'

Here, they write, 'for' acts as conjunction and it is marked as literaly and old-fashioned. So, I guess I shouldn't use this construction in my speech, is that right? And it is only for me to understand what I find in writing.

Thanks, Alex.
 
Last edited:

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
Here is another question that has just arisen in my head, 'Should I come across a word that is marked either as litera[STRIKE]l[/STRIKE]ry or old-fashioned in the OALD there is no reason to doubt it, is there?' To be more specific I will give you an example that makes me hesitat[STRIKE]ing[/STRIKE]e,

'They were brave words, for Robin, with his bow, had the advantage'

Here, they write, 'for' acts as conjunction and it is marked as litera[STRIKE]l[/STRIKE]ry and old-fashioned. So, I guess I shouldn't use this construction in my speech, is that right? And it is only for me to understand [STRIKE]writings[/STRIKE] what I find in writing (?)
It's not really a question of 'shouldn't'. However, if dictionaries add this sort of note, then they are suggesting that, if you use it, you will be saying something that the average native speaker probably wouldn't.

Another example: Your use of 'should I come across...' is perfectly correct, but may mark you as one or more of the following: formal, old-fashioned, pretentious, academic, 'posh', or - a non-native speaker.
 

AlexAD

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Russian
Home Country
Belarus
Current Location
United States
It's not really a question of 'shouldn't'. However, if dictionaries add this sort of note, then they are suggesting that, if you use it, you will be saying something that the average native speaker probably wouldn't.

Another example: Your use of 'should I come across...' is perfectly correct, but may mark you as one or more of the following: formal, old-fashioned, pretentious, academic, 'posh', or - a non-native speaker.

Thank you, 5jj, for correcting my writing.

I beg to disagree with you on the given example. I can see security notes I brought from Johannesburg, and here they write: 'Should you become a victim of crime, please call something' So it might be formal but not old-fashioned, pretentious... mightn't it? Or do South Africans have some special English ;-) ?
 

5jj

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Czech Republic
Current Location
Czech Republic
I beg to disagree with you on the given example. I can see security notes I brought from Johannesburg, and here they write: 'Should you become a victim of crime, please call something' So it might be formal but not old-fashioned, pretentious... mightn't it?
I did not say that it was pretentious, etc. I said that it may mark you as....

I may not have expressed myself very clearly. I meant that some people might feel that you sounded pretentious, etc . I also meant (and wrote) that you might be considered any one (or possibly more than one) of these things - not all.
 

BobK

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Location
Spencers Wood, near Reading, UK
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
...

Another example: Your use of 'should I come across...' is perfectly correct, but may mark you as one or more of the following: formal, old-fashioned, pretentious, academic, 'posh', or - a non-native speaker.

AlexAD; I've highlighted the key words; if a usage is formal, it qualifies as 'one ...'. Try to weigh 5jj's words; he's quite careful with them. ;-)

b
 

Tdol

No Longer With Us (RIP)
Staff member
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
Japan
Thank you, 5jj, for correcting my writing.

I beg to disagree with you on the given example. I can see security notes I brought from Johannesburg, and here they write: 'Should you become a victim of crime, please call something' So it might be formal but not old-fashioned, pretentious... mightn't it? Or do South Africans have some special English ;-) ?


No- it's normal English, but it's written and semi-formal. Should I/you... is used, but it's more of a written form than a spoke4n one, at least colloquial speech.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top