From: dman@netcom.com (Dallman Ross)
Subject: Re: Rollin' Rollin' Rollin'
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 01:23:37 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: ca
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

tedebear@leland.Stanford.EDU (Theodore Chen) writes:

: on the other hand, webster's gives "persuade" as a synonym; e.g., "convinced
: them to leave the country".  both "convinced... to" and "convinced... that"
: are correct, according to the dictionary.  i haven't checked out your
: reference, but i'd just as soon as go with webster's anyway, since it's
: common (and to my mind, entirely acceptable) usage.

Yes, there is such a newsgroup.  And I don't really want to belabor the
point here.  But your response needs an answer: first of all, "common"
usage is to refer to "_Webster's_" dictionary.  But there *is* no _Web-
ster's_ dictionary.  Or, rather, there are many.  "Webster" is a name
that is unprotected by trademark, and is in the public domain.  Many
not-altogether-excellent, and even shoddy, dictionaries come out now
and again with the name "Webster's" appended to their title.  It
really means nothing.  There is, of course, the Merriam-Webster Company,
which may or may not be what you referred to, which *is* a trademark
name and which does put out a pretty good product.

But dictionaries are just like cars or anything else, in that there are
good ones and bad ones.  For reference, there was an excellent "review"
on this in _The Atlantic_ about 7 or 8 years ago.  Anyway, the upshot
is that the best dictionary is "proscriptive," not just "descriptive."
One tells you the rules of usage, and the other just tells you what has
been heard lately "out there."  When you want to know the meaning of
a word and it's proper usage, you don't necessarily just want a
databank collection of "average" current use.  You want to know the
rules.  Of course, the rules change all the time, and language is
fluid.  I may be a purist, but I'm not a conservative.  :-)  Because
of the continuing admixture of new, non-discerning or nonconforming
use, what is "acceptable" does change.  I would expect, precisely 
because many intelligent speakers such as yourself continue to
misuse "convince," that the more-encompassing definition will soon
become "accepted use."  I will at that point have been persuaded.  :-)

_The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language_ -- the
red one, edited by Wm. Morris, that came out in the late '70's, I think
it was -- has been widely acclaimed by lexicographers (dictionary
makers) and linguists as the best and most authoritative one around.
It came complete with a full appendix of known Indo-European roots,
several fabulous introductory articles, etc.  The new one, which
I mistakenly referred to above as the "First College Edition," but
which is actually the "Second College Edition" -- this is the blue-
covered one -- is not quite as good, but almost.  Merriam-Webster's
latest college edition is pretty good, but not great.  Random House
is acceptable.  The rest of the American-published ones are mostly
junk.

Do check out the "Usage Note" in the _AHD_.  You might also enjoy
the article on lexicography that prefaces the original, red edition.
Meanwhile, I hope I have "persuaded" you to change your ways.  :-)

And, to all, I'm sorry about the bandwith.  I just couldn't help
myself. . . .

--
 __D_a l_l m a_n  _ R o_s s _ |dman@netcom.com  /or/  |"You sound like a man|
 l  \\ l\\   /l  /\\  l\\   l |dross@well.sf.ca.us    |with a rubber nose." |
 l   >)l \\ /ll /  \\ l \\  l |vox/fax: 1.510.645.1883| -- One-Lung Bill    |
 l  // l  \X ll/--- \\l  \\ l |350 Perkins St., #108  |     Remmer (deceased)
_l//______________________\\l_|Oakland,_CA__94610-3422|_____________________|_