Cracid

[pat]

I'd like to suggest cracid for inclusion. Just as corvids are members of corvidae, the crow family of birds, cracids are members of cracidae, a family that includes chachalacas, guans and curassows. It may be a word unknown to most people with no interest in birds but could it be considered as a rare word?

(According to the urban dictionary it has another meaning as a drug combination of crack and acid!)

[Alan W]

I feel cracid is a bit too rare to be a Chi word.

As far as I can see it's not in any dictionaries, other than two enormous, unabridged dictionaries - Wiktionary and the Century Dictionary (via the Wordnik site). And I didn't find any usage examples in some huge English language corpora. Via Google book search I found some uses, mainly in very specialist books and journals. Although, to be fair, the Atlantic in 1989 ran an article that used the word multiple times.

[pat]

I'll start by saying this is not a criticism, but a question out of curiosity. It may have been asked before (possibly even by me!) l but I don't know what search terms to use to check for it.

It's understandable that obscure words suggested by players are usually accepted as rare words, but if a perfectly valid word  is suggested, why is it rejected if it's considered to be too rare? It's obviously known by the person who suggested it, and possibly some of the other players, so if it is an actual word, no matter how rare, why can't it be accepted into the Chi lexicon?

There can't be many players  whose daily goal is to get a trophy (and such players that do probably keep their own word list, adding to it whenever a new word is accepted) so the inclusion of 'too rare' words wouldn't interfere with anyone's playing pleasure.

[Alan W]

It's a good question, pat, and one that we haven't discussed before, to my recollection.

Although the word list Chihuahua started with contained thousands of very rare words (where "very rare" means unknown to me), there's probably an even larger number of very rare words not in that list. So when presented with a request to include an additional word, I've tried to be somewhat selective - based on considerations like which dictionaries is the word in, how often is it used, and in what sort of publications, etc -  with the hope of maintaining a degree of consistency in the list. But perhaps this consistency is a bit of a pipe dream. And maybe nobody cares anyway.

I'd be interested to hear from other players.

But there remains the question of how to identify a "perfectly valid word". Are you suggesting I should accept every suggestion, since the person suggesting it knows it as a word, and probably somebody else does too?

[pat]

But there remains the question of how to identify a "perfectly valid word". Are you suggesting I should accept every suggestion, since the person suggesting it knows it as a word, and probably somebody else does too?

Well, yes and no. If a word is found in any 'reputable'  dictionary then I don't see any reason at all why it should be excluded. To use the example that started this discussion, cracid, if the only definition to be found was a combination of crack and acid then I'd suggest it might not be valid, but as it also means a type of bird I think it is valid. My view, for what it's worth, is that no genuine word should be excluded.

[pat]

I'd be interested to hear from other players.

Doesn't look as if anyone else has an opinion on this!

[mkenuk]

Totally agree with you, Pat. If a word is listed in any of the major, reputable dictionaries (Oxford, Chambers, Merriam-Webster, Macquarie etc) then it should be included in Chi.

[Greynomad]

I preface my comment that my opinion is as a person who satisfies themselves with finding the seed word (or should that be seed word), in each game.

On face value, I am inclined to run with Alan, based on including specialised words, such as fauna or flora names, medical or sporting term, and the like is fraught with nuances and arguments for and against. As at best it would be included as rare, I see no problem at leaving it out, as there are those who seek all words, and such words may be unfair to them somewhat.

As for including words based on “reputable dictionaries”, that is just going down the rocky “well read person” route, which while paved with good intent, is simply a problem waiting to happen. I am reasonable well read, and take an interest in the world around me, but I must admit there are times where I see that phrase, and think it is used more to make the person questioning the word feel inferior, rather than the commentator actually being well read. In many of those instances I think the phrase more often means “bloody lucky to guess it!”.

So to reiterate, happy with your decision Alan, and happy days to all.

[pat]

As for including words based on “reputable dictionaries”, that is just going down the rocky “well read person” route, which while paved with good intent, is simply a problem waiting to happen. I am reasonable well read, and take an interest in the world around me, but I must admit there are times where I see that phrase, and think it is used more to make the person questioning the word feel inferior, rather than the commentator actually being well read.

I'm sure that wasn't directed at me, Greynomad - at least I hope it wasn't. By 'reputable dictionaries' I was excluding those such as the Urban Dictionary which could well be the only one in which the definition of cracid as a drug might be found, for example. As a relatively uneducated person I am far from well read but I still feel frustrated when a word I know, usually due to my particular interests, is rejected because it's deemed too rare for inclusion. I'm sure others must feel the same frustration.

No doubt Alan will make a decision based on what he thinks is best for the game and the people who play it but I'll never be convinced that it's right to refuse to add a legitimate word to a word game's lexicon. I think more and more of these words will crop up due to the advent of the 7-by-many game.

[Greynomad]

Not at all Pat.

[Morbius]

I agree with Pat's view that valid words should be included regardless of their obscurity.  That suggests to me that we shouldn't discount sources like The Urban Dictionary and Wiktionary.  You could argue that these kinds of non-mainstream dictionaries are quicker to respond when new words enter the language. 

[Alan W]

About Wiktionary: I have in the past sometimes discounted its entries on the grounds that it's compiled by volunteers, rather than trained lexicographers. I'm coming round to the view that this isn't a significant factor in assessing Wiktionary's reliability. Like Wikipedia, it seems to be closely monitored by a core of dedicated contributors. While it might contain the odd dodgy entry, perhaps no more so than a professionally edited dictionary.

However I do have concerns about how widely Wiktionary casts its net. Unlike most dictionaries, it has documented its precise criteria for including words and phrases - see Wiktionary: Criteria for inclusion. The whole page is worth reading, to get a better idea of what Wiktionary is all about, but the main rules are summarised as follows:

A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means. This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of including a term if it is attested and, when that is met, if it is a single word or it is idiomatic.

It goes on to specify:

“Attested” means verified through

1.    clearly widespread use, or
2.    use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year (different requirements apply for certain languages).

This rule could admit to Wiktionary a vast number of specialist terms, jargon, regionalisms, slang, etc.

I suppose I've always been a bit concerned about opening up the floodgates. But possibly my fears are groundless, since a new word is not likely to be suggested for Chi unless somebody tried it in a puzzle.

Reading further in the Wiktionary criteria, you can see that they aim to include common misspellings. Also versions of words with a letter or syllable repeated for emphasis. Examples mentioned are pleeease and hahaha.

I think I'll always want to reserve the right to use some discretion in relying on the authority of Wiktionary.

[birdy]

I do know a fair number of birds, Pat - but not nearly as many as you! - and have seen chachalacas, guans, and curassows, but I'm not familiar with the word cracid. I checked my Birds of Costa Rica and saw them listed as Cracidae with no mention of the shorter form. Maybe a little too specialized for Chihuahua.

[Alan W]

As a result of the discussion in this topic, I've recently become more accepting of words that seem to me to be very rare. So it's probably only fair that I review my decision in this case.

As I said before, cracid is used in specialist publications, but was also used several times in an article in the Atlantic magazine in 1989. I notice it was also used in New Scientist in 1982. So it is a "real" word. It will be accepted from now on, as a rare word.

[pat]

Thanks, Alan.