"When you look back at older versions of dictionaries, there were lots of
examples of flowers for instance. That was because many children lived in
semi-rural environments and saw the seasons. Nowadays, the environment has
changed. We are also much more multicultural. People don't go to Church as
often as before. Our understanding of religion is within multiculturalism,
which is why some words such as "Pentecost" or "Whitsun"
would have been in 20 years ago but not now."
So here's the logic: Kids are using blogs and MP3 players now, and they're not going to church anymore. So, they know what a blog is, but they don't know what a Bishop is or what Pentecost is. Therefore we are going to remove the definitions of words they don't know and replace them with the definitions of words they do. This strikes me as one of those examples of someone trying to be relevant and ending up being completely irrelevant. I didn't even grow up on blogs and MP3 players, but I would never think to look in a dictionary to find out what something new and "techy" means. An example from my own childhood in the early 90's might be "CD" or "e-mail." I knew what those things were (even though at the time I didn't have e-mail and I still listened to cassette tapes), I didn't need the dictionary for words like that. I needed the dictionary to tell me what "marzipan" and "budgerigar" mean. Aside from that, there's also a real concern among educators in Britain about losing touch with their country's long, rich, and very religious heritage.
Read the full story at The Telegraph.
(HT: Heidelblog)
