Webster's dictionary

This may seem pointless, but it is really just indicative of the pretentious bets which I make to stave off working. As far as I'm concerned, ‘homogeneous’ and ‘homogenous’ are two completely different words; their similarity is resulting from a common etymology, but does not equate them: as far as I know, they have two separate definitions; that's what the Oxford English Dictionary says. However, if one looks up ‘homogenous’ in the online Merriam Webster's dictionary, as was pointed out to me, it gives ‘homogeneous’ as a synonym (but the reverse isn't true). Can anybody clear up the confusion with a referenceable source?

 

You could always email the folks at Webster. I did that once when I realized that they had failed to include 'kazooist' as a form of the word 'kazoo', when everybody knows that this is the appropriate term for a person who plays said instrument. They got back to me within a day or two and told me that 'kazooist' wasn't in common enough usage to merit being included in their dictionary, though the more exhaustive Oxford English dictionary did list it as a form of the word 'kazoo'.

 

Funny that they should assume an instrument, but not a player of that instrument... That seems a tad ridiculous. And it also looks like a bit of a Catch-22 situation, where people look up words in the dictionary to find out what they mean, but everyone needs to know what the word means before it's considered for the dictionary.

 

Any living, evolving language has that problem, I would imagine. Especially one as adaptable as English.

As to your specific question, I have no idea, sorry. I can tell you from my vague recollections of my composition classes that the Oxford Dictionary is likely a better source than Merriam-Webster.

 

I do know that the Oxford dictionary included such terms as "lol," "omg," "taquito," and "muffin top," within its pages. I found this out while watching the daily show;
Jon Stewart was slamming NBC for not reporting on how GE made $14.3 billion in profits without paying a single dollar in taxes, and showed what they decided to report on those four terms recently placed within the dictionary.
However, I also understand homogenous and homogeneous as two separate words, with independent definitions. I can't rightly explain why Merriam Webster insists on calling the words synonyms. However, on the Wiktionary, Homogenous is proscribed as a common error in the spelling of homogeneous, as reported by the Oxford English Dictionary.

 

I imagine the dictionary lists them as synonyms because most people say homogenous when they mean homogeneous. I certainly do.

 

That ain't no reason, none!

 

That doesn't make them synonyms, that just means they're similar. Homogeneous began its use in the 1600's, homogenous began in the 1890's. It's like people using there when they mean they're or their.
Wayne, just use http://www.Dictionary.com. They're pretty much on the ball, and they don't list homogeneous as a synonym for homogenous. They say the words are indeed similar, and that one is commonly confused for the other, and even go into etymological classifications and origins of both words.

 

The point of the whole thing was for a bet, and the arbitrator turned out to be somewhat of an idiot, as he is using this as proof that I've lost; and the other guy isn't going to admit I'm right and hand over my money as long as people are stupid enough to consolidate in argumentum ad verecundiam.

Following the 'Contact Us' link to the point where one would request, and argue for, a word's being removed from the dictionary seems to produce a somewhat unsatisfactory result.

 

Yes, but a dictionary is a snapshot of the current state of a language. So if everyone uses the word homogenous in a particular way, that's how it will be listed in the dictionary.

In fact, any dictionary which doesn't mention their synonymity is arguably at fault for the omission.

 

Argumentum ad populum.


However, I did find this on the Oxford Dictionary's site:

which just seems like nonsense to me. What I find I'm reading here, is that so many people made the mistake that it was easier to just not care anymore. I wonder how this sort of blind idiocy would go down in a scientific or historical journal; manipulating - actually, creating - facts based on ignorant misconception. That's democracy for ya!

 

Quite. That's what a dictionary is. A record of the language as spoken by the people. Modern people, that is - not ones who still use Latin.

 

And yet I'm a modern person that uses Latin; and there are Latin dictionaries, too. By your reasoning, I could begin to coin new terms with no etymology, or switch words around as I see fit, because someone has to be the first fool to do it. In fact, it's amazing that we all cowed into conformity with regard to certain languages if we could use any sounds we wanted all the time, since they're all equally valid. I guess that's why different gestures convey no meaning by being logically connected to their denotation, and it's just convention that knives cut and toasters toast, &c. Numerals derived from ancient tally marks (e.g., I, II, III, IIII, /, I/, &c.) seem like a handy coincidence, too; where'd they come up with that? I wonder.

 

Isnt this how all languages evolved? French, Spanish, and Italian evolved from Latin using this very premise. Old, middle and modern English is similar too. Stealing grammar and words from other languages, using them in a manner that the native speaker of the word did not and therefore applying a new meaning. For example in English if one has a certain "je ne sais quoi" then it means they have a certain flair and way of carrying themselves that is unique, instead of a literal translation of "I don't know what."

 

Yes, you could. And if they catch on they'd end up in the dictionary. And the etymology would be recorded as "wayne-scales made this up in order to prove a point." But if you don't like it, don't use a modern dictionary - use one from the 1920s. Then everything will be right and proper and how it should be, chum chum.

 

Yes, but by logical projection and/or derivation; not just arbitrarily. In your own example, there is a direct connection between the two phrases where they overlap, but are not completely equal: 'Je ne sais quoi' and 'I don't know what' both denote a certain intangible thing or quality, while the French use this to display, as you said, "a certain flair and way of carrying themselves that is unique", and the English could in fact mean that, but don't always; but this is not illogical. That's what I'm trying to say when I say that it's logical.

However, since your reasoning is faulty, the word would not objectively be a word which means what people take it to mean.

 

Hindsight. It NEVER goes out of fashion.

I wasn't using any reasoning, I was just telling you how dictionaries work. Your new word would mean whatever people used it to mean. That's how language works.

 

My Spanish teacher told me the reason those speaking Spanish pronounce a "v" with a "b" sound is because initially, people started it to make fun of their king, who had a speech impediment, and it ended up sticking.

 

Irrelevant (I'm not going to go on about fallacies here, again!)

Assuming you've based this on some form of reference, I'd love to see the reasons why a form of communication based on logic has its basis in illogic; and perhaps even a point in the direction of somewhere that can explain the logical necessities and tendencies of language itself, wherein they are simply coincidental.