Johnson or Webster?

[Jean-Baptiste]

I want to put this to a vote. Do you prefer the lexicographic contribution to the English language of Dr. Samuel Johnson, or that of Noah Webster? This, I realize that this will be based greatly on nationality, but it doesn’t have to be. Determining factors may be as simple as the preference of humour to humor, or judgement to judgment.
If you’d like, you may simply indicate your vote.
If you’d like you may also supply an explanation for your choice.
If you’d like you may also supply us with background information on your chosen candidate.
Also, I would be very interested to learn about lexicographers of other languages. I know that many on this forum possess first languages other than English—third party candidates will be admitted as well.

I’ll get things started.
My vote is for Johnson.
His dictionary is not merely a compendium of linguistic data, it is literature. And, he was first.

[Logos]

My vote is for Johnson.
His dictionary is not merely a compendium of linguistic data, it is literature. And, he was first.

I agree, he was the first, publishing A Dictionary of the English Language in 1755; Webster's An American Dictionary of the English Language was published first in 1828 (according to Wiki which is dodgy at times)

I'm a purist (so it doesn't really matter my nationality) but I can't stand it when spell checkers and various options to choose language preferences on web-based applications (like MS Word, Skype etc) default to US English because I am on a North American server. argh.. I'm Canadian not American thankyouverymuch and in attending schools here I was taught UK English and daily still cringe at bastardis(z!)ations that we were duly reprimanded for by our teachers

[subterranean]

I have only use Webster and so far I'm satisfy with it. So, I guess I'm not eligible to post a vote

[Jean-Baptiste]

Subterranean, your lack of a vote constitutes a vote in this despotic thread. HaHa.
Logos, I agree completely. I don't actually know if there is an entry in Johnson's dictionary for "solipsistic," so I'm going to assume that Webster coined the term for his new American language.

[ShoutGrace]

Have you guys read Johnson's Dictionary?

“Language, Johnson knew, cannot be fixed once and for all . . . .”






From Johnson’s Dictionary:

NA’TURE. n.

1. An imaginary being supposed to preside over the material and animal world.

Thou, nature, art my goddess; to thy law
My services are bound. --- Shakespeare


11. Physics; the science which teaches the qualities of things.

Nature and Nature’s laws lay hid in night,
God said, Let Newton be, and all was light. --- Pope.

NE’TWORK. n.

1. Anything reticulated or decussated, at equal distances, with interstices between the intersections.

PA’STERN. n.

1. The knee of an horse.

(A lady once asked Johnson how he came to define Pastern the knee of a horse; instead of making an elaborate defense, as she expected, he at once answered, ‘Ignorance, madam, pure ignorance’.)

You have to love a guy who uses literature as a basis for his definitions, and uses fictual prose quotations in their explanation!

His dictionary is not merely a compendium of linguistic data, it is literature.

An ingratiating entanglement of both, equally representative of one or the other.

[Jean-Baptiste]

ShoutGrace, thanks for your double vote (if I read that last sentence correctly.)

Yes, no I haven't read Johnson's dictionary--well, other than the selections that are available. That reminds me, my birthday will be here someday, and someone somewhere could get me a first edition of Johnson's dictionary. I've seen a copy for sale somewhere in the world, but I usually prefer to spend money on eating for years and years. Anyway, was this a quote from Boswell that you started out with? Perhaps the doctor would have written Webster's dictionary, had that worthy not gotten around to doing so.

As for you're leading question, the point is not, as may be said about most literature, use(d)(ful)ness. It is the influence that his work has had on the English speaking world. Nobody knew how to spell anything before Dr. Johnson came along. There was no Spelling! Sir Thomas Moore decided to spell than as then, and vice versa--William Strachey spelled every word he could think of as many different ways as he could invent, hoping to stumple on the proper spelling.

Great contribution; thanks for the quotes!

[Wild Apple]

I'm always amazed by the fact that Dr. Johnson completed his Dictionary almost entirely through his own doing, much unlike other dictionaries of the time (such as the French), which were compiled by many, many men.

I read Boswell's biography of the man all the time, coming back to it for inspiration. His critical pieces appear to be art in themselves. I've only skimmed the surface of his life's work and I get very excited knowing how much left there is to learn about his life and work.

I know compartively little about Webster. I don't feel right pointedly not voting for Webster, so I will just say that I am taking a positive vote for Dr. Johnson and remaining unspoken about Webster.

[mono]

I agree, he was the first, publishing A Dictionary of the English Language in 1755; Webster's An American Dictionary of the English Language was published first in 1828 (according to Wiki which is dodgy at times)

I'm a purist (so it doesn't really matter my nationality) but I can't stand it when spell checkers and various options to choose language preferences on web-based applications (like MS Word, Skype etc) default to US English because I am on a North American server. argh.. I'm Canadian not American thankyouverymuch and in attending schools here I was taught UK English and daily still cringe at bastardis(z!)ations that we were duly reprimanded for by our teachers

Logos said it best for me to agree. Though I come from the United States, I usually prefer standing by the Oxford English Dictionary (which has quite a story behind it, if you ever read The Professor and the Madman: A Tale of Murder, Insanity, and the Making of the Oxford English Dictionary by Simon Winchester). Of the two choices, I have used Webster's Dictionary more, yet must also consider myself a 'purist.'

[PeterL]

I vote for Johnson for several reasons. As has already been noted, Johnson created a dictionary which is a work of literature. Webster produced a list of words with some definitions. Johnson's dictionary was descriptive. Webster's dictionary was prescriptive.
The largest reason why I prefer Johnson's dictionary is that it didn't not diminish the English language, while Webster's dictionary was designed to show what he supposed to be best, at the expense of what he didn't like.

Althoufh Bierce's "Devil's Dictionary" was designed as a work of literature rather than as a reference book, it is an excellent dictionary in its way.

[Jean-Baptiste]

HaHa--let's all have a vote for the "Devil's Dictionary." That is a wonderful work.

Yes, it's true, as mono says, I have also used Webster's dictionary lots. But the thing that irritates me about it is the politics involved in its conception. It was merely a political statement, as though the Revolution didn't quite make the point. It was a completely unnecessary and arbitrary change. Johnson didn't create new spellings for the words that he compiled. Webster said, Well in America, We spell it this way.

Wild Apple, I like your point about the French lexicon. Do you have any specifics for us on that particular endeavor?

[ShoutGrace]

ShoutGrace, thanks for your double vote (if I read that last sentence correctly.)

Ah, no, actually. My last sentence referred to the "linguistic data" and "literature" elements contained in your statement that I quoted. Sorry for not making that clear. I was making the point that Johnson's Dictionary is generally an amalgamation of "linguistic data" and "literaure".

I've seen a copy for sale somewhere in the world, but I usually prefer to spend money on eating for years and years.

How sad it is that you have such little dedication and love for Dictionaries.

As for you're leading question, the point is not, as may be said about most literature, use(d)(ful)ness.

It seems as if a couple of other people have described actually "using" the dictionary, or finding it of a better quality for usage.

I personally could not use either of these dictionaries, as the language has changed so drastically in the past 200 years. The definitions and usage examples are painfully outdated.

It is the influence that his work has had on the English speaking world.

Here, it would seem intuitive that Johnson's has the edge, given the reasons you stated. Though I think it might be hard to gauge how much influence each Dictionary has commanded over the English language . . . . I've not seen my influence o' meter for some time now.

[mono]

Although Bierce's "Devil's Dictionary" was designed as a work of literature rather than as a reference book, it is an excellent dictionary in its way.

HaHa--let's all have a vote for the "Devil's Dictionary." That is a wonderful work.

I can list several books of which I cannot live without, and, certainly, among them exists The Devil's Dictionary (for those unfortunately unfamiliar, click here). I apologize to wander from the intended purpose of the thread, but - wow, what a book!

[Wild Apple]

HaHa--let's all have a vote for the "Devil's Dictionary." That is a wonderful work.

Yes, it's true, as mono says, I have also used Webster's dictionary lots. But the thing that irritates me about it is the politics involved in its conception. It was merely a political statement, as though the Revolution didn't quite make the point. It was a completely unnecessary and arbitrary change. Johnson didn't create new spellings for the words that he compiled. Webster said, Well in America, We spell it this way.

Wild Apple, I like your point about the French lexicon. Do you have any specifics for us on that particular endeavor?

Your question returned to me as I read this today:

"The Italians had a national dictionary, published in 1612, which it had taken their academy 20 years to prepare. The French followed with their dictionary which it took an Academy of forty scholars 55 years (1639-1694) to prepare, and another 18 (1700-1718) to revise."

Appropriately, I stumbled on it while reading about Johnson. Just thought you'd like to know.

[Jean-Baptiste]

That's great, Wild Apple! So Johnson was quite a late-comer, as lexicographers go? That must be the most phenomenal fact I've ever heard: "forty scholars 55 years...to prepare, and another 18...to revise." What an incredible effort! Thanks for sharing this.