Round 3462 JIIBRAAN results

[Glenn Thomas Davis]

Closing early because I've received votes from everyone who submitted a definition, plus Tim Bourne.

I'm honestly flabbergasted that no one picked the one TRULY implausible definition; I was expecting Dixonary's first D12. Instead I am D0. A jiibraan, according to the Urban Dictionary, is a person who like planes and golf:

(Ducking to avoid all the shoes people are hurling at me for choosing a definition from the Urban Dictionary.)

ANYway, Mike Shefler is the dealer with a mind-blowing 8 natural points for his imaginative devil-stoning practice, with Tim Lodge bringing up the rear. Take it away, Mike!!

	Definition	Submitted By	Vote 1	Vote 2	Unnatural	Natural	Total	Voted For By
1	An Indian curry dish using paneer made from milk fermented with massaaga (green amaranth) and a sauce made by cooking ilish (hilsa) fish in mangosteen.	Johnny Barrs	11	12		1	1	Paul Keating
2	[Farsi] A balladeer.	Dave Cunningham	11	13		3	3	Nancy. Shepherdson, Judy Madnick, Debbie Embler
3	A censer for burning incense.	Nancy. Shepherdson	2	12			0
4	A traditional Jordanian dish featuring lamb over rice with jameed (yogurt) sauce.	Efrem Mallach	8	12			0
5	A person who like planes and golf. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jiibraan)	Dictionary					D0
6	An ethnic minority of Sudan.	Judy Madnick	2	9			0
7	A system for transporting water from an aquifer or water well to the surface through an underground aqueduct.	Debbie Embler	2	9		1	1	Tony Abell
8	In the desert, the coldest part of the night.	Shani Naylor	9	12		1	1	Efrem Mallach
9	An Arab dagger with a curved blade.	Tim Lodge	12	13		5	5	Shani Naylor, Daniel Widdis, Tim Bourne, Judy Madnick, Debbie Embler
10	A prized hardwood from the kwaakatipu tree.	Tony Abell	7	12			0
11	In ancient folklore, a legendary being believed to act as a protector of forests, often depicted as a wise and benevolent spirit.	Daniel Widdis	9	12		4	4	Johnny Barrs, Dave Cunningham, Mike Shefler, Paul Keating
12	[Arab.] During the Hajj, the practice of symbolically stoning the devil by throwing stones at 3 pillars.	Mike Shefler	11	13		8	8	Tim Lodge, Johnny Barrs, Nancy. Shepherdson, Efrem Mallach, Shani Naylor, Tony Abell, Daniel Widdis, Tim Bourne
13	Used as an exclamation imparting magical power; in extended use, connoting any sudden transformation or happening [an invented word uttered by genies in Burton’s Arabian Nights (1885) and subsequently taken up in American medicine shows].	Paul Keating	1	11		3	3	Dave Cunningham, Tim Lodge, Mike Shefler
		Tim Bourne	9	12			0

—Glenn

. . .

The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled.

—Plutarch

[Efrem Mallach]

Interesting word, Glenn!

That said, a philosophical issue that is not intended to raise any questions about this deal: Should we accept definitions from Urban Dictionary, where (like Wikipedia) anyone can post anything, but where (unlike Wikipedia) wiser heads who come along later can't edit them out? In particular, should we accept definitions that have no corroboration elsewhere, no (according to Google) no usage anywhere except as a name, and came from a poster whose real identify is hidden, who posted no other definitions, and who, from his/her use of "who like," is probably not a native speaker of English?

Just wondering what others think, for guidance going forward.

Efrem

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Dixonary" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dixonary+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/CAMeToPUZvOmQRE_F_CMRoVw3higCV1SQv0ZYGgZJKhC69qwHnQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Glenn Thomas Davis]

Good at finding edge cases, aren't I?

—Glenn

. . .

The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled.

—Plutarch

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/9517CFEF-E97B-4E03-8608-84DDF9F39730%40gmail.com.

[Efrem Mallach]

Nothing like edge cases to encourage rigorous thinking! Just wondering what everyone else thinks.

Personally, I'd be agin it if a word has only one definition (or only one that relates to the sense we have in mind). I can define a horse there as "an insect similar to a bumblebee, but bright green" using a random handle, and nobody would be the wiser.

I use Urban Dictionary myself, especially to check on current slang used by people younger than my grandchildren, but I don't trust it unless at least two people posted substantially similar definitions. If three or more did, I'd trust it completely and think we should as well. If a word has three definitions with the same general meaning on UD, though, it's likely to also be used in that sense - though not necessarily defined in anything resembling a dictionary - elsewhere on the Web, and to turn up in a search.

Efrem

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/CAMeToPXc7%3DQviHSpgkjco6jJ_Z_Vp87h2Etkv-KUp7VfJSLpBw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Keating]

Crowdsourced references are not created equal. Wiktionary has and enforces attestation criteria to keep fanciful nonsense out. You can’t just post a made-up word there: if your addition is very rare, it goes into a verification queue, and if actual use of the word cannot be verified, your word will be deleted. And in the meantime, only you can see it.

But that is too high a bar for Urban Dictionary, whose raison d’être, and value, is that it welcomes in-group slang, register switches out of English, taboo words, passing fads, hashtags, and more. That also means there is a lot of silliness and downright rubbish there.

I entirely agree with your point that there is safety in numbers. If you think your source is suspect (or you surmise that other players might) then finding the word in another source will give everyone more confidence in it.

This applies at all levels of scholarship. For example, I don’t look for words in The Middle English Dictionary (because it’s not a dictionary of English; despite the overlap of lexis, Middle English is a different language: the two are not mutually intelligible), but I have more than once checked an OED headword there, and sometimes (godivoe, envesure, envined) taken its modern definition in preference to the OED’s 19th-century one.

Efrem Mallach wrote on 2024-07-05 22:24:

Nothing like edge cases to encourage rigorous thinking! Just wondering what everyone else thinks.

Personally, I'd be agin it if a word has only one definition (or only one that relates to the sense we have in mind). I can define a horse there as "an insect similar to a bumblebee, but bright green" using a random handle, and nobody would be the wiser.

I use Urban Dictionary myself, especially to check on current slang used by people younger than my grandchildren, but I don't trust it unless at least two people posted substantially similar definitions. If three or more did, I'd trust it completely and think we should as well. If a word has three definitions with the same general meaning on UD, though, it's likely to also be used in that sense - though not necessarily defined in anything resembling a dictionary - elsewhere on the Web, and to turn up in a search.

--
Paul Keating
Soustons, Nouvelle Aquitaine, France

You can find the answer to most questions about Dixonary at
dixonary.net which has been hosted at Google Sites since May 2007.

[nancygoat]

I would prefer we not use Urban Dictionary and the like because, as noted, they are not sourced. Technically, the dealer of any round (or anticipating dealing) could do there and create a word out of whole cloth to play, right?

Nancy

[collect (null)]

Wikis intrinsically have tons of erroneous claims …  and I, personally, would not use any definitions which are not citable to real sources … 

Dave 

Sent from my iPad

On Jul 5, 2024, at 4:12 PM, Efrem Mallach <efrem....@gmail.com> wrote:

Interesting word, Glenn!

That said, a philosophical issue that is not intended to raise any questions about this deal: Should we accept definitions from Urban Dictionary, where (like Wikipedia) anyone can post anything, but where (unlike Wikipedia) wiser heads who come along later can't edit them out? In particular, should we accept definitions that have no corroboration elsewhere, no (according to Google) no usage anywhere except as a name, and came from a poster whose real identify is hidden, who posted no other definitions, and who, from his/her use of "who like," is probably not a native speaker of English?

Just wondering what others think, for guidance going forward.

Efrem

On Jul 5, 2024, at 3:52 PM, Glenn Thomas Davis <gl...@gdcreative.com> wrote:

Closing early because I've received votes from everyone who submitted a definition, plus Tim Bourne.

I'm honestly flabbergasted that no one picked the one TRULY implausible definition; I was expecting Dixonary's first D12. Instead I am D0. A jiibraan, according to the Urban Dictionary, is a person who like planes and golf:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/9517CFEF-E97B-4E03-8608-84DDF9F39730%40gmail.com.

[Daniel B. Widdis]

A bit late to this discussion, but I would never use the Urban Dictionary definition of a word. I've occasionally found words there and found/posted the definition from some other more reputable source.

Granted, I've posted some words from dictionaries of slang from hundreds of years ago which are that generation's equivalent, I suppose.  So maybe these words will be useful for players in the next century.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dixonary/3197C5C7-0C03-4AA0-9840-7B90E7F67B8F%40compuserve.com.