Bad old dictionary definitions

[MAPNUT]

There isn't a forum for bad astronomy in print, but this seems to fit better here than in General Astronomy.

While looking up something else, I came across this definition in the 10-pound dictionary my wife has had since 1973:

Comet: a heavenly body having a starlike nucleus with a luminous mass around it, and usually a long, luminous tail; comets follow an elliptical or parabolic orbit around the sun.

Any way educated people could have thought the nucleus of a comet was starlike in 1973? And more of a quibble, but can a parabolic path be called an orbit?

Curious, I looked up "Star, sun, planet, and moon"; while the definitions were not very scientific, they were not specifically wrong. But this was a whopper:

Galaxy: 1. The Milky Way, a group of millions of stars apparently merging into a luminous band that extends across the sky. 2. Any similar but smaller group of stars.

Surely in 1973 it was widely known that there are many other spiral galaxies, and I should think, ellipticals. Is it reasonable to expect dictionary compilers to consult scientists?

[Candy]

What's the name of the Dictionary? Can you give the specifics of the Publisher, too? This might help others answer your questions.

[MAPNUT]

Webster's New 20th Century, 2nd edition.

[Candy]

Webster's New 20th Century, 2nd edition.

I'm googling. All I can find is Webster. Webster's New 20th Century Dictionary Unabridged 2nd edition, 1983. Yours is 1973.

What I am getting at is that sometimes dictionaries are not what they appear to be. I once bought a pocket dictionary with the Webster name, but it was not actually a real Webster. It was a cheap knock-off. It even had a misspelled word in it. :-? I now am a stickler with authenticating the publisher name.

I am trying to verify if your dictionary is a credible source. The ISBN number might help better. Sorry, if I appear to be a pest. 8-[

[ToSeek]

The name "Webster" isn't trademarked, so anyone can use it, and many do. The true heir to the name is "Merriam-Webster," which publishes very good dictionaries.

[Ut]

In Comet, the starlike nucleus doesn't bother me so much as the luminous mass surrounding it. Starlike could mean a couple of things, including point like, or twinkling. Luminous means it's radiating visible light.

As for Galaxy, I assume you're issue is with the idea that all other galaxies are smaller than the Milky Way. While that's a faux pas for sure, the sizes of other nearby galaxies weren't really known until the 40's, I think, and even then it was disputed. Sizes depend on good values for distance after all, and those are very hard to get. So, it's quite possible that they simply copied an older definition.

Galaxy, with a capital G, is defined as the Milky Way.

Also, in terms of general use, there's really no reason for cheaper dictionaries to go to authorities to get technical definitions of things. If I look up gasoline, for example, I don't expect to see an encyclopedia entry telling me about its composition and formation. I'm not necessarily expecting to even see the word "hydrocarbon". You get what you pay for, after all.

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

It could be worse ...

It could be dord.

[Candy]

ZaphodBeeblebrox, I would pay to have a copy of one of those dictionaries.

[jfribrg]

Sounds like all those definitions are based on our Earth-bound perspective. The other galaxies do appear smaller than the Milky Way, which does look like a band. My nit is about the star-like nucleus. The coma is what is starlike from our vantage point. Given the size of the nucleus, it is virtually invisible. But lets forget 1973. What kind of BA is there in a 2004 dictionary?

[A Thousand Pardons]

There isn't a forum for bad astronomy in print, but this seems to fit better here than in General Astronomy.

This forum is specifically for "something in the media" so you did good.

Just ignore the BA's timewarped sense of humor.

But lets forget 1973. What kind of BA is there in a 2004 dictionary?

Well, there's this.

[ngc3314]

Sounds like all those definitions are based on our Earth-bound perspective. The other galaxies do appear smaller than the Milky Way, which does look like a band. My nit is about the star-like nucleus. The coma is what is starlike from our vantage point. Given the size of the nucleus, it is virtually invisible. But lets forget 1973. What kind of BA is there in a 2004 dictionary?

As an old-timer, I'd have to point out that this is the standard, "classical" descriotion of a comet's visual appearance. If the coma were starlike, how would anyone have thought of a nucleus? The coma is spatially resolved or they would have been hard-pressed to know something is a comet. And "nucleus" was longstanding terminology for the starlike thing in the middle of the coma, even though it wasn't until (late 1983?) that the first bare nucleus (Halley inbound) was actually observed. The "luminous" part is more debatable, I suppose.

That reminds me I should one day start a long-contemplated thread on how much contemporary astronomy might be Bad based on lessons from history, but that needs to start with many more references checked...

[John Dlugosz]

I If I look up gasoline, for example, I don't expect to see an encyclopedia entry telling me about its composition and formation. I'm not necessarily expecting to even see the word "hydrocarbon". You get what you pay for, after all.

I checked a few at www.onelook.com, and about half do mention the word "hydrocarbon".

As for an encyclopedia definition, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline is certainly worth the cost.

In a dictionary, I would not expect to find out about the composition and formation in detail. I contribute to the wiktionary, and was criticised for saying that tropical hardwood faded due to exposure to UV. Describing that it can be silver is good; why sometimes its silver and other times its brown is too much detail.

What I would expect to find in the dictionary, but not in the encyclopedia, is a pronunciation guide, usage notes and synonyms with regionalisms, the etymology of the word, different word forms, and examples of the word used in sentences. And a link to the encyclopedia article.

--John

[jfribrg]

Recall also that the dictionary records how a word is used, not just the technical definition. Venus is often called an evening star or morning star, so one definition of star could be "a planet".

BTW: I checked the Miriam Webster dictionary c.2000, and did not find any BA definitions like the 1973 dictionary, so maybe the lexicographers are doing a better job now.

[Chip]

I cannot site specific examples in 1950s books right now, but I remember an old idea that spiral galaxies can pass through each other without disruption. Actually they probably meant without stellar collisions despite billions of stars. This idea is illustrated in an award-winning and splendid old Canadian film titled "Universe." The idea fails to consider the collisions of vast gas clouds within the galaxies, and the resultant intense star making activity. Many galaxies have also been seen that are in various stages of disruption due to gravitational interactions, near misses and direct collisions. It’s a puzzling notion to me because even in the 1940s/50s disrupted galaxies were seen.