manifeste

14:09 Mar 22, 2010 

what I call a dictionary! A little laborious to use, maybe, but intensely informative.
No, no "Merriam" in there. It's the "Webster's New World College Dictionary", previously titled "Webster's New World Dictionary of American English, third College Edition", its name being "a registered trademark of Simon&Schuster".

12:12 Mar 22, 2010 

orientation results in definitions being listed in chronological order of their first attested appearance in the language, rather than with reference to contemporary meanings (whether by frequency or by perceived preference, a notorious bugbear) as most dictionaries. It also will not remove obsolete words (or usages, though even descriptive dictionaries may retain the latter with words still in use) from listings, particularly if these appear in major authors--all the more so if earlier meanings, no matter how obsolete or thinly attested, help to clarify current definitions.

That Webster's you've got is a Merriam-Webster's right? A (to me) interesting situation: "Webster's " by itself is not under copyright. You and I could put out a Webster's this afternoon. Come to think of it...

11:54 Mar 22, 2010 

what is meant by "historical dictionary". One that lists words used only up till a certain date? One that lists all words used up until the date of preparation (as opposed to one that lists only words of current usage, say)? One that gives etymologies and dates of first usage? (my SOED gives dates, my Webster's doesn't). OED probably fits the second definition, which does not by any means make it antiquated, just thorough!

11:13 Mar 22, 2010 

...you are confusing the two meanings of "historical dictionary." The ODE is descriptive, where the OED is historical in orientation. The difference has less to do with "cashing in" than in fact its opposite: evidently the people at the ODE are not making sufficiently clear the distinction between the two works.

Furthermore, with English gaining some 4000-5000 new words and usages each year (notoriously hard to count but a decent ballpark figure), it would be hard to say that anything in print is the "last word" (no pun I'm sure!) nowadays-- certainly with regard to English, which tends to elude canonization.

The current OED staff have recognized a problem with the sluggishness of the OED's response to changes in the language, and have changed their manner of working: http://www.languagehat.com/archives/003067.php

The Internet has also changed their manner of maintaining entries: http://www.oed.com/news/updates/revisions0706.html

The OED3 will address this issue in its own way, but I wouldn't expect it until about 2040.

But admittedly we venture far afield from a discussion of manifesto.

09:43 Mar 22, 2010 

The fact that the OED contains small historical references (cf your example under 'bachelor', which is a small qualifying reference for a word that has different inferences in historical context) does not make it a historical dictionary. The Oxford English Dictionary has always been seen as the last word on current English word definitions, (and not the Oxford Dictionary of English, which must be somewhat different, and, from the name, would appear to be cashing in on the reputation of the OED).

20:07 Mar 21, 2010 

...most certainly is an historical dictionary (have a look at the first definition of "bachelor", for example), as suggested by its full original title, which contains the phrase..."on historical principles."

The Oxford Dictionary of English, by contrast, is a descriptive dictionary, albeit much smaller in scope.

I assure you I did not mean to be patronizing, and am sorry for that. I have, however, seen people refer to the OED in these forums, and get into trouble by using it as a tool for translation. I feel that it should never be a first resort, and should only be used at all if one is aware of the principles on which it is organized, and of its consequent (and other) shortcomings as a practical reference work for one translating contemporary texts.

Though it may be a politician speaking, the text is not "about a politician." The speaker unambiguously places the word "manifeste" in a cultural context. (Not to belabor the point; forgive me if I have.)

19:55 Mar 21, 2010 

I think there is a misunderstanding, here. I never said it was the exclusive preserve of politicians, simply that, as it was a politician giving this speech (- and manifesto is definitely in current usage in the UK to mean the policies of a political party, I live in the UK and that is definitely the case ). As it is about a politician, it could cause confusion to call it a manifesto. The OED is by no means a historical dictionary. There are historical dictionaries published by the OUP, but the one I refer to is a dictionary of current usage, and much more authoritative on the matter than Wikipedia. I find the comment 'use with care!' a little patronising.
Just to be clear about this, I have not, at any point, said that manifesto cannot be used about cultural matters.
I could also say that, from the sentence I have quoted, I don't know how Phil Goddard can presume that I am misrepresenting the person who wrote the text.

18:14 Mar 21, 2010 

I think this is a classic example of translators saying "I know better than the person who wrote the original text". Manifeste means manifesto! As Jim and others point out, this word is far from being the exclusive preserve of politicians.

15:34 Mar 21, 2010 

using it, no--but the speaker intends this usage figuratively rather than literally (there's no document involved either, after all). Probably in the speaker's mind is one of the Larousse definitions, specifically : "Exposé théorique par lequel des écrivains, des artistes lancent un nouveau mouvement."

The OED is of course an historical dictionary, rather than a period one (use with care! -- but that's another subject). I think since the first world war or so that "manifesto" is used at least as commonly of cultural movements than of political ones -- and the last 30 years or so have even seen the rise of the "technology manifesto" such as the Cyborg or the Hacker's.

(just running on -- chalk it up to coffee, no need to take this seriously)

12:59 Mar 21, 2010 

You may be correct in the sense that manifesto does seem to be used for a kind of 'art with a mission'. However, it wasn't the artists using it, here, and if we refer to the OED instead of Wikipedia, it is, very definitely, a mainly political idea:
'public declaration of policy and aims esp. as issued before an election by a political party, candidate, government etc.
It is possible that this is different in the US, but in the UK it definitely has political connotations. Nothing specifically about art is mentioned in the OED, although if art entails this kind of declaration, you probably could describe the artist(s) as having a manifesto.

11:35 Mar 21, 2010 

11:31 Mar 21, 2010 

As it is part of a speech by a politician, and isn't a political issue that is being discussed, really, I thought 'manifesto' was misleading.

11:09 Mar 21, 2010 

"Manifeste" is strong and means what it means. Why not the equally strong term "manifesto?"

12:30 Mar 20, 2010 

better than "manifesto"

10:38 Mar 20, 2010 

Could it mean 'press release', do you think?

10:35 Mar 20, 2010 

To add other context:
there is a heading 'Le Manifeste de xxxxxx - 1990'
'En 1990, xxxx publie dans la presse le manifeste...(title) (about worldwide works of art)
and another 'Les arts premiers au yyyy(museum): manifeste et polemiques'.