Word 2004 oddness: English (Aust) dictionary has non-Aust spellings

[Matthew Stevens]

Word 2004's English (Australian) dictionary seems to have lost a word or
two. It doesn't recognise "organise" or "organisation", wanting to
substitute "organize" and "organization". I haven't yet found any other
-ise words that it has lost. Obviously this can be easily rectified by
adding these words to the personal dictionary.

Has anyone else found any odd omissions in their dictionaries (of any
language) that we should add to our personal dictionaries?

 

[John McGhie [MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]]

Mi Matt:

Sorry... ""organize" and "organization" are now 'officially' correct in
Australian English {Yuk!}

Sorry about that

Generally you will find that the latest aussie dictionary is a big
improvement on what you're used to ...

Cheers

Word 2004's English (Australian) dictionary seems to have lost a word or
two. It doesn't recognise "organise" or "organisation", wanting to
substitute "organize" and "organization". I haven't yet found any other
-ise words that it has lost. Obviously this can be easily rectified by
adding these words to the personal dictionary.

Has anyone else found any odd omissions in their dictionaries (of any
language) that we should add to our personal dictionaries?

--

Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie <[email protected]>
Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Consultant Technical Writer
Sydney, Australia +61 (0) 4 1209 1410

 

[Matthew Stevens]

Sorry... ""organize" and "organization" are now 'officially' correct in
Australian English {Yuk!}
Eew.

Generally you will find that the latest aussie dictionary is a big
improvement on what you're used to ...

I've got about 2 dozen dictionaries, though ...

 

[Clive Huggan]

Hello Matthew,

I'm not sure you have the English (Australian) dictionary operating on the
text you mention.

I have the same language applied to most work that I do, and I tested the
dictionary with "organise" and organize". Both were accepted without wiggly
red lines (which is as it should be, since both are widely used in
Australia).*

Thinking I might have customised / customized many such words, I opened my
custom Word 2004 dictionary. These are almost all of the variations from US
or UK spellings that I have given the OK to during the past several years;
there aren't many:

aluminium

behaviour

colour

coloured

colouring

corporatised

honourable

Mr (no full stop)

marvellous

maximise

practised

realise

recognise

recognised

recognises

salinisation

travelling

trialled

trialling

unfavourable


I may have marked some as OK when I've pasted in text marked as US spelling
(I have a macro that almost always pre-empts that, so it's very rare). You
might like to try some of these words and see what happens. If you get one
not showing as discrepant, select the word and use Tools => Language to see
what it says. Post back if it isn't Australian English.

* Note for any non-Australian who wonders why "ize" isn't used: some
academics at a second-rate Australian university sold lots of their new
dictionaries by saying the ize/ise convention had changed. Standardisation
[sic] appealed to the lazy streak in most Australians and it did not take
long for most to change. Now, if anyone uses "ize" there is a collective
sucking-in of breath by the Nomenklatura, followed by worried requests to
change the offending letters. Meanwhile, the rest of the world goes on ...

PS: John McGhie, I still happen to like zeds...

Cheers,

Clive Huggan
Canberra, Australia
(My time zone is 5-11 hours different from the US and Europe, so my
follow-on responses to those regions can be delayed)
============================================================

* A SUGGESTION -- WAIT FOR CONSIDERED ADVICE: If you post a question, keep
re-visiting the newsgroup for several days after the first response comes
in. Sometimes it takes a few responses before the best or complete solution
is proposed; sometimes you'll be asked for further information so that a
better answer can be provided. Good tips about getting the best out of
posting are at http://word.mvps.org/FindHelp/Posting.htm (if you use Safari
you may see a blank page and have to hit the circular arrow icon -- "Reload
the current page" -- a few times) and
http://word.mvps.org/Mac/AccessNewsgroups.html

* AVOID SPAM: To avoid spam directed at contributors of newsgroups, you can
set up a "send-only" dummy e-mail account. Full guidelines are at
http://www.entourage.mvps.org/tips/tip019.html
========================================================

Mi Matt:

Sorry... ""organize" and "organization" are now 'officially' correct in
Australian English {Yuk!}

Sorry about that

Generally you will find that the latest aussie dictionary is a big
improvement on what you're used to ...

Cheers

============================================================

 

[Elliott Roper]

* Note for any non-Australian who wonders why "ize" isn't used: some
academics at a second-rate Australian university sold lots of their new
dictionaries by saying the ize/ise convention had changed. Standardisation
[sic] appealed to the lazy streak in most Australians and it did not take
long for most to change. Now, if anyone uses "ize" there is a collective
sucking-in of breath by the Nomenklatura, followed by worried requests to
change the offending letters. Meanwhile, the rest of the world goes on ...

PS: John McGhie, I still happen to like zeds...

Now look here Huggan! I dragged my Macquarie off the bookshelf above my
desk, where (this is honest truth) it happened to be sandwiched between
"Bend Word to Your Will" and Gödel Escher Bach. (you will be flattered
to learn which of the three gets used most) and the entry for
standardisation had both spellings. No fuss. Don't give me this
second-rate Australian University stuff.. (No bias me. If you must know
I was chucked out of Melbourne Uni. after simultaneously discovering
girls, computers and racing cars, in the days when they only had one
7090 and they wouldn't give me time on it. I had about the same success
with girls, but I was an OK assistant mechanic on FJ series touring
cars.)

The Macquarie is an *ace* dictionary. It is one of the few books that
can make me homesick. What other dictionary offers four such scholarly
definitions of "dag"?
I offer definition (4) for those unlucky enough to lack a copy of this
second rate university's dictionary.

*dag* /dæg/ /n/ 1. an untidy slovenly person 2. a person who, while
neat in appearance and conservative in manners, lacks style or panache.
[backformation from DAGGY(1)]

Now I ask you. How could that be bettered? In what way could those dags
at Macquarie be regarded as second rate?

In the interest of academic rigour, I trudged downstairs and compared
it with the OED *and* the Supplement. In two columns of waffle, they
didn't get close. Even claiming a New Zealand origin for the farming
usage. NZ???

 

[Paul Berkowitz]

The Macquarie is an *ace* dictionary. It is one of the few books that
can make me homesick. What other dictionary offers four such scholarly
definitions of "dag"?
I offer definition (4) for those unlucky enough to lack a copy of this
second rate university's dictionary.

*dag* /dæg/ /n/ 1. an untidy slovenly person 2. a person who, while
neat in appearance and conservative in manners, lacks style or panache.
[backformation from DAGGY(1)]

Now I ask you. How could that be bettered? In what way could those dags
at Macquarie be regarded as second rate?

In the interest of academic rigour, I trudged downstairs and compared
it with the OED *and* the Supplement. In two columns of waffle, they
didn't get close. Even claiming a New Zealand origin for the farming
usage. NZ???

Where's no. 4? (Or no. 3 for that matter?) Curious minds want to know.

 

[Elliott Roper]

On 4/7/06 5:08 PM, in article 080420060108403709%[email protected], "Elliott
Roper" <[email protected]> wrote:

I offer definition (4) for those unlucky enough to lack a copy of this
second rate university's dictionary.

*dag* /dæg/ /n/ 1. an untidy slovenly person 2. a person who, while
neat in appearance and conservative in manners, lacks style or panache.
[backformation from DAGGY(1)]

Now I ask you. How could that be bettered? In what way could those dags
at Macquarie be regarded as second rate?

In the interest of academic rigour, I trudged downstairs and compared
it with the OED *and* the Supplement. In two columns of waffle, they
didn't get close. Even claiming a New Zealand origin for the farming
usage. NZ???

Where's no. 4? (Or no. 3 for that matter?) Curious minds want to know.

The full Macquarie 1st edition 1981 has four. The Concise Macquarie has
three, the last of which is an attenuated version of of the full's
definition 4.
If you are interested in the way Australian's bugger about with
English, the Macquarie is essential. It is not comedy, it is a serious
dictionary. Honest.
Now the real challenge is how to make this thread relevant to Word
again.
I guess we have to note that spell checking is not as easy as it looks.
If only people could have was one that could correct there mistakes as
soon as they put them in their.

 

[CyberTaz]

That wouldn't be intended as sarcasm, would it, Elliott?

Certainly you must understand that expecting *people* to both proofread
their work *AND* have gathered the knowledge to do so effectively is an
infringement on their Civil Liberties, a violation of their Personal Rights
as well as an imposition on their time. It's bad enough they have to
actually show up to collect a pay check in the first place - Hurrah for
Direct Deposit and Remote Access!!!

Regards |:>)
Bob Jones
[MVP] Office:Mac

On 4/7/06 5:08 PM, in article 080420060108403709%[email protected], "Elliott
Roper" <[email protected]> wrote:

I offer definition (4) for those unlucky enough to lack a copy of this
second rate university's dictionary.

*dag* /dæg/ /n/ 1. an untidy slovenly person 2. a person who, while
neat in appearance and conservative in manners, lacks style or panache.
[backformation from DAGGY(1)]

Now I ask you. How could that be bettered? In what way could those dags
at Macquarie be regarded as second rate?

In the interest of academic rigour, I trudged downstairs and compared
it with the OED *and* the Supplement. In two columns of waffle, they
didn't get close. Even claiming a New Zealand origin for the farming
usage. NZ???

Where's no. 4? (Or no. 3 for that matter?) Curious minds want to know.

The full Macquarie 1st edition 1981 has four. The Concise Macquarie has
three, the last of which is an attenuated version of of the full's
definition 4.
If you are interested in the way Australian's bugger about with
English, the Macquarie is essential. It is not comedy, it is a serious
dictionary. Honest.
Now the real challenge is how to make this thread relevant to Word
again.
I guess we have to note that spell checking is not as easy as it looks.
If only people could have was one that could correct there mistakes as
soon as they put them in their.

 

[Elliott Roper]

That wouldn't be intended as sarcasm, would it, Elliott? Sarcasm? *Me*?

Certainly you must understand that expecting *people* to both proofread
their work *AND* have gathered the knowledge to do so effectively is an
infringement on their Civil Liberties, a violation of their Personal Rights
as well as an imposition on their time. It's bad enough they have to
actually show up to collect a pay check in the first place - Hurrah for
Direct Deposit and Remote Access!!!

Eek, there was one pair of deliberate and two accidental mistakes in my
post. Spoiled the pose value eh?

 

[Paul Berkowitz]

On 4/7/06 5:08 PM, in article 080420060108403709%[email protected], "Elliott
Roper" <[email protected]> wrote:

I offer definition (4) for those unlucky enough to lack a copy of this
second rate university's dictionary.

*dag* /dæg/ /n/ 1. an untidy slovenly person 2. a person who, while
neat in appearance and conservative in manners, lacks style or panache.
[backformation from DAGGY(1)]

Now I ask you. How could that be bettered? In what way could those dags
at Macquarie be regarded as second rate?

In the interest of academic rigour, I trudged downstairs and compared
it with the OED *and* the Supplement. In two columns of waffle, they
didn't get close. Even claiming a New Zealand origin for the farming
usage. NZ???

Where's no. 4? (Or no. 3 for that matter?) Curious minds want to know.

The full Macquarie 1st edition 1981 has four. The Concise Macquarie has
three, the last of which is an attenuated version of of the full's
definition 4.
If you are interested in the way Australian's bugger about with
English, the Macquarie is essential. It is not comedy, it is a serious
dictionary. Honest.
Now the real challenge is how to make this thread relevant to Word
again.
I guess we have to note that spell checking is not as easy as it looks.
If only people could have was one that could correct there mistakes as
soon as they put them in their.

Nevertheless, you say:

and then provide only definitions (1) and (2), not (4) so there's no way to
know what you're talking about. You have not in fact offered (4).

Now you follow up by saying that the Concise's (3) is "an attenuated version
of the full's definition 4."

Great. But you don't provide that either.

Once you've gone this far and got our (or my, anyway) attention, how about
providing (3) and (4) so we know what in the world you're talking about?

 

[Elliott Roper]

Nevertheless, you say:


and then provide only definitions (1) and (2), not (4) so there's no way to
know what you're talking about. You have not in fact offered (4).

Now you follow up by saying that the Concise's (3) is "an attenuated version
of the full's definition 4."

Great. But you don't provide that either.

Once you've gone this far and got our (or my, anyway) attention, how about
providing (3) and (4) so we know what in the world you're talking about?

Heh! I supppose I must. By now I'm acting like a complete dag!
The numbers were the dictionary's not mine.

*dag* 1 n. v. *dagged*, *dagging*. -n 1. wool on a sheep's rear
quarters, often dirty with mud and excreta. *2*. *rattle your dags*,
/Colloq./ hurry up. -v.t. *3*. to shear dags from (sheep). Also
*daglock*. [ME /dagge/; orig. uncert.] - *dagging*, n.

*dag* 2 v.t. *dagged, dagging* /Horseracing./ *1*. to follow (a jockey)
offering assistance in the expectation of receiving racing information
[? from DAG ?] - *dagger*, n

*dag* 3 n. *1*. -> *dag picker* *2* /Colloq./ an odd eccentric or
amusing person. -*daggish*, n

*dag* 4 - you already have that.

We are all in *big* trouble when Clive gets back from Brisbane....
(hope the slash and star markup works for italic and bold in *your*
newsreader.)

 

[JE McGimpsey]

Nevertheless, you say:


and then provide only definitions (1) and (2), not (4) so there's no way to
know what you're talking about. You have not in fact offered (4).

I just assumed that the definition offered was the fourth, with two
variants...

 

[Paul Berkowitz]

*dag* 1 n. v. *dagged*, *dagging*. -n 1. wool on a sheep's rear
quarters, often dirty with mud and excreta. *2*. *rattle your dags*,
/Colloq./ hurry up. -v.t. *3*. to shear dags from (sheep). Also
*daglock*. [ME /dagge/; orig. uncert.] - *dagging*, n.

*dag* 2 v.t. *dagged, dagging* /Horseracing./ *1*. to follow (a jockey)
offering assistance in the expectation of receiving racing information
[? from DAG ?] - *dagger*, n

*dag* 3 n. *1*. -> *dag picker* *2* /Colloq./ an odd eccentric or
amusing person. -*daggish*, n

*dag* 4 - you already have that.

Ah - a _higher_ numbering level, omitted in your previous excerpt. Got it
now. Thanks.

Nevertheless, interesting to see the derivation of all of them including
your *dag* 4 and even *dag* 2 above (with a bit of imagination) from *dag*
1. no. 1. That's something I'd never have had a inkling of without the
entries above, so I'm glad I kept nagging you. (nag <> dag)

 

[Paul Berkowitz]

I just assumed that the definition offered was the fourth, with two
variants..

And you were evidently spot on. I thought Elliott was giving us the
putatively full list and directing us to no. 4 (which wasn't listed as
such). Two different levels of numbering, misunderstood.

 

[Clive Huggan]

And you were evidently spot on. I thought Elliott was giving us the
putatively full list and directing us to no. 4 (which wasn't listed as
such). Two different levels of numbering, misunderstood.

Stop being pleasant to him, you lot!

I much preferred your, er, spirited querying, Paul, to this sheepish <refer
definition of "dag"> retreat.

Actually, so persuasive is Cobber Roper that when I saw his first response
to my post a few moments ago I was overcome to the extent that I was simply
going to say "I prostrate myself in front of your superior epistemology".

Now, waking up a little more at 7.30 on a Sunday morning, I realize [sic]
that my fleeting bonhomie was just the after-effects of the haggis from
yesterday's Highland Games. [No, OP Christopher MacLeod, my attachment to my
beloved clan MacDuff wasn't sufficient to cross-dress for the day.]

I think I'll stagger back to bed for a while. I have the feeling that this
post might belong to the category of "Greatly regretted that I hit the Send
button" ......

Raw prawn received, Elliott. ;-)

CH
====