Definitions

Of all the different types of debates that erupt in the carpool, the debates that are likely to be settled most efficiently and definitively are those that involve the meaning of a word.

Although many of our debates require later research on wikipedia, our "definitional" debates can be laid to rest in the car -- at least, Sparky's and mine -- because we carry pocket dictionaries for that very purpose. Given how common our word debates have become, my very own American Heritage pocket dictionary (pictured) has become somewhat well worn. (For those of you who know us -- which, I'm guessing, is everyone willing to read this damned blog -- we can debate about far pettier things that the meaning of a word. Don't make me prove that, by the way.)

Just last Friday, in fact, we used the AH dictionary to settle a word debate on the way home. I will refrain from saying what word we needed to look up, but it is a verb that can have two meanings: one (it's usual usage) that is very "men's locker room," and a second, whose proper usage probably fell out of favor in the early 1800's, when locker rooms were invented. The purpose of this blog entry, however, is not to point out which one of us was right and which one of us was wrong about the second usage of the word (although that would be a legitimate point to make as well). Instead, I wanted to discuss an issue that Mumbles raised after Friday's debate was settled: Who in the hell picks the photographs that illustrate dictionaries, and on what guidelines are those photographs based?

My AH dictionary, for example, has a photo to illustrate the definition of "swan dive." But why? I would think that the point of having a picture in a dictionary would be to make an obscure definition clearer with the help of an illustration. Was the written definition of "swan dive" so vague that it was deemed necessary by Dell Publishing to include a photo? ("A dive with the legs straight together, the back arched, and the arms stretched out from the sides" seems pretty frickin' clear to me.) Was the editor receiving bagloads of mail from dictionary readers everywhere, complaining that they wanted to go try a swan dive, but just couldn't figure it out from the definition? And who the hell looks up "swan dive" anyway? Was the professional diving lobby somehow involved?

The AH dictionary also has photos to illustrate "George Bush," both senior and junior. Once again, why? Do the photos really help to understand that they were the 41st and 43rd presidents of the United States, respectively?

And yet, while AH provides us pictures of the Bushes, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter, the dictionary folks decided that we didn't need to see what "poison oak" looked like. Wouldn't that be more helpful? And if they are not out to be helpful -- and, instead, are seeking to be entertaining -- then I say go ahead and include a photo to illustrate "skinny dip" (yes, there actually is a definition for that).

Or what about "buttocks"? C'mon, that's entertaining. Instead, we get to see what Calvin Coolidge looked like. Whoop-dee-frickin'-doo.