Filed under: Internet, Kids, Open Source
The Kids Open Dictionary Builder: Do they define better than they punctuate?
Lower your geek radar detector. You got me. I am a tech blogger. I also have a degree in library science. Guilty as charged, just put me on a cell block with wireless and a supply of graphic novels.I am a librarian who is really okay with wikis. Would I accept every entry in one as gospel? No, but questioning is good in print, too. I believe wikis are, by and large, a decent starting point for further research, like any encyclopedia. If you're writing your doctoral thesis using only wikis, we seriously need to talk. Now.
Wikis, online open encyclopedias, I can deal with. The Kids Open Dictionary Builder makes me fear the future, and not because of all the talking monkeys and flying robots, either. Yes, I said The Kids Open Dictionary Builder, and I typed it just as the name appears on the Creative Commons blog. The blogger there typed it as it appears on the project's home page. Grammatical structure is not the writing skill that comes to me most naturally, but, guys, when you're educators pushing an open dictionary, it is comforting to see the name punctuated correctly.
The Kids' Open Dictionary (ahem) sets my fearful librarian heart a-flutter in other ways. I will spare you too much information from my General Reference Studies (nor will I pain you with Intro to Cataloging), but I'll try to sum up the concern. Though language is fluid and shifts (sometimes rapidly) as the world changes, there are also needs for linguistic anchors, almost. Words being defined need frames of reference where multiple people can see the word in use and pull similar connotations from the word, even if they can't produce identically worded definitions. Opening words to definition without being able to point to solid examples of use (or even misuse) or being able to quantify how often the word is used in a given manner pretty much ruins any hope of a dictionary having any real authority or weight.
That, and is The Kids' Open Dictionary (ahem) needed? Really? I'd be more inclined to try pushing existing online dictionaries from known sources and publishers to either tailor some online offerings in a widely accessible format to children, or perhaps I'd buy my kid an "age appropriate dictionary" (if age appropriateness is truly a concern with dictionaries).
I might take them to the library, too. I hear they've got books, movies and puppet shows. For real, puppet shows.
So, just how good at time waster games are you? Think you've got the stuff? Well, The World's Hardest Game 2.0 doesn't think you do.
Yes, amazingly, it's possible to have a sequel to a game called "The World's Hardest Game". It doesn't seem logically possible, since if the first one was actually the world's hardest, how could another one come along and share the moniker? It made me doubt the name in the first place. That is, until I tried the game.
The mechanics of the game are very simple. You are a small red square, ...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Jeffrey Gordon said 10:06PM on 8-07-2008
Somebody alert The Screen Actors Guild!
It's fine if "kids" is being used as an adjective here, as in, it's "a kids dictionary".
Reply
Kristin Shoemaker said 10:28PM on 8-07-2008
Hi Jeffrey
So far as I can tell (consulting the American Heritage Dictionary) "kid" is only an adjective (and usually only singular) when used to refer to someone younger than oneself/a sentence subject. (My boyfriend's kid brother is annoying.)
You could say, correctly, a dictionary for kids. But putting the word "kids" before the object... Means it has to be possessive. It could be singular possessive (kid's) or plural, more likely (kids').
Can't speak for the SAG, but if it isn't disquieting that a few educators that have looked over this site in various stages (I'd assume) didn't catch really a pretty basic grammatical issue, it is at least ironic.
Really ironic.... not fake ironic like the stuff in that Alanis Morrisette song.
Jeffrey Gordon said 10:55PM on 8-07-2008
Kristin,
I'm having a lot of trouble with comments disappearing and reappearing here. I tried to reply to your comment but it never emailed me. Anyway, I'm going to try to reply again.
It's fine. Lynne Trusse has a whole section on these issues in her book Eats Shoots and Leaves. The essential bit is that any noun can function as an adjective in this context.
If educators (I'm an educator by the way) didn't make an issue about it, it's because it's grammatically fine not to use an apostrophe in this context. It's not a dictionary that kids have, it's a dictionary that kids use.
Now I'm off to the teachers lounge - teacher's lounge?
Jeffrey Gordon said 12:13AM on 8-08-2008
Kristin,
The extra modifier rule can be averted by reading "Kids" as a modifier of "Open Dictionary." In other words, this is an open dictionary that is intended for use by kids. Presto, you have an adjectival label.
But I agree that it's a pretty tortured reading of the title. I would have gone with the possessive to better illustrate the nature of the wiki. But it's not my website, and the contention that it's grammatically incorrect is incorrect.
Kristin Shoemaker said 7:58AM on 8-08-2008
Hi Jeffrey,
Upon waking, I *do* see what you are saying. And I actually do agree: There are a few ways you can read and interpret the name (or overall scope) of this project and depending on the manner the name is interpreted, the name could be oddly punctuated, correctly punctuated, or just ambiguous.
The wiki nature being so pertinent to the project, and the general name clunkiness (officially: Kids Open Dictionary Builder, which would beg the question again... Is "Builder" the modified object, and "Open Dictionary" the modifier... but therein lies madness, I tell you!) and the fact that it can be interpreted a number of ways with varying degrees of grammatical correctness... And that I (and at least one editor here) interpreted it one way, and you interpreted the meaning another way entirely and we can both argue our interpretations to prove our points... is still an issue. A big issue.
It is an issue a project like this does not need, and realistically, should have taken into consideration. Again, I am very much onboard with your "but it's not my baby to name" sentiment. It's not mine either, and they are within their rights to call it what they want, and hey, spell, punctuate, or randomly throw in numbers if they choose.
Wikipedia has had a hell of a time getting respect in library circles, and I'm guessing probably other areas of education. Criticism might be deserved in cases, in many, it is not. But an encyclopedia is very different than a dictionary. And traditionally, encyclopedias were expensive and often inaccessible to many. Dictionaries have been relatively inexpensive (with the exception of the OED) and have been geared to age groups and disciplines since almost the very beginning (and the K-12 range presents a vast difference in comprehension and maturity, and I see no obvious or stated way in which they are accounting for this). It begs me to wonder why they are reinventing the wheel.
They are taking some extremely volatile elements and mixing them, and interpretation of the name (or misinterpretation, which would lead one to believe it's incorrectly punctuated, or not even a dictionary, but a tool for publishing a dictionary online) is something that should have been considered.
I know that educational funding stinks nearly as badly as library funding, and that this group is probably doing this for a teeny amount of grant money and professional growth. But names can be as important as content or concept. The color and design of a *logo* can be just as important. And the concept is going to be regarded as tenuous, at best. I would not have left the name up for any interpretation.
But they are still, as you said, welcome to name it anything. It is their playground. Due to the range of arguable grammatical interpretations and ambiguous nature of the name, and the way I was trained as a reference librarian, I just couldn't recommend it at this point, and I am within my rights to call them on that.
It may be a free, open resource. I am really big into open, and I like free just fine. But if I'm recommending any source to a patron, especially a younger patron with possibly less developed critical thinking/analytical skills, I'd feel more secure with something called, "The Open Dictionary for Kids" or even "The K-12 Open Dictionary" as they clearly *mean* something and I'm not distracted by the punctuation, that might right or wrong depending on inflection.
If Little, Brown took the contents of "Bartlett's Familiar Quotations" and renamed and published it as "John's Treasury of Stuff People Said Printed on 50 lb. Weight Paper Stock" and sold it for a quarter, I could almost get behind it because the contents are (relatively) unchanged and proven, though I'd question the editor's sanity. This project doesn't have that luxury.
Dictionaries require authority, and even more -- clarity. With a project name that cryptic and open to a fairly wide berth of interpretation, doubts about all sorts of aspects of the publication will follow.
Jeffrey Gordon said 10:17PM on 8-07-2008
My first comment mysteriously disappeared, so I'll reiterate.
The Screen Actors Guild
The Writers Guild of America
In these cases "Actors" and "Writers" function as adjectives, telling what type of guilds these are. In the case of this dictionary, it means that this is a kids dictionary, or the type of dictionary that kids read - it is not meant to imply ownership.
Examples abound of these types of plural modifiers in the titles of buildings, groups, etc. and I'm sure plenty of other users would cite examples if you didn't delete my comment.
Reply
Jeffrey Gordon said 10:18PM on 8-07-2008
Oh weird. It really was gone for a moment. Now it's back.
Kristin Shoemaker said 11:11PM on 8-07-2008
Hey again...
I believe in the cases you state, it isn't necessarily the initial noun (kids, or actors, or writers) modifying the object, thereby becoming an adjective. The Screen Actors Guild is a proper name. If you're going to talk about a generic actors' guild in a story you're writing, that would be grammatically incorrect. Another example: Kings Road. It is a proper name. In a way, I guess you could probably squint real hard and peg Kings as a modifier/adjective... But it is a proper name.
I honestly think that the notiion that the creators of the project decided to drop the apostrophe in Kids because they were okay with the idea of Kids Open Dictionary being a proper name is far-fetched. Beyond the realm of possibility? No. But unless they honestly intended for this to be the proper name (and some ways, regardless of this fact) kids, lacking the apostrophe, is incorrect.
The dictionary is for kids. A kid dictionary would be, I guess, one younger than an adolescent dictionary?
And is it grammar-nazi-ish? Maybe. But they are undertaking a project where, believe me, they WILL get a lot of flak, both deserved and undeserved, from all sides. It doesn't take a lot to proofread, or clarify that for whatever reason, that's the intentional proper name of the project.
Jeffrey Gordon said 11:23PM on 8-07-2008
Kristin,
Here's a reference:
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/possessives.htm
Read the part about Possessives versus Adjectival Labels.
Kristin Shoemaker said 11:55PM on 8-07-2008
Good reference...
But... hear me out, it says:
If you can insert another modifer between the -s word and whatever it modifies, you're probably dealing with a possessive.
"Kids" is the -s word
"Open" would be another modifier, correct?
"English" we'll just throw in another modifier for giggles
"Dictionary" would be the modified word
This would in fact make Kids' possessive, according to the above rule (and yes, so past my bedtime, forgive me)
Okay, probably, it says. It would seem a lot relies on intent. It is a dictionary for kids (in which case a less awkward name would be in order).
And it isn't necessarily authoritative, but Google the exact term, childrens dictionary. Seems a lot of people (and mostly American publishers) go with the apostrophe and possessive in their books.
Cultural, fluid language... I am still pretty sure that there is something a bit fishy.
Meh said 6:53AM on 8-08-2008
Poor grammar on the intarweb? That's unpossible!
Reply