I just found this forum and am thrilled that I did. I've been a logophile since shortly after I had learned to read and write. For far too long I've wanted to express my irritability with the seemingly ever expanding dictionary entries which definitions are unbelievably absurd. I mean, who thinks that it's appropriate and/or helpful to use the word that's being defined in the definition? For example, Webster's definition for "coincidental" -
"1. in a coincidental manner : by coincidence. 2. it is or seems coincidental that"
Furthermore, it appears to me that #2 is an identical definition to #1 and therefore completely unnecessary.
The bad habit that gets under your skin goes by the name of “tautology”, short for “it’s cold because it isn’t hot”, or gibberish of the kind. I too find it rather irritating, especially in a dictionary that is supposed to tell you clearly the meaning of a word.
Most likely you’ll also find pretty upsetting when a dictionary shows the same kind of laziness by putting you into an infinite loop (e.g. “potato: see tuber — tuber: see potato”).
But such is life, take it or leave it. After all such dictionaries may still come in handy when you need to kindle a fire or when the object you’re reaching for is a trifle too high for you…
Allow me a question now: how did you manage to make your post so little legible? To make heads or tails of it I had to copy&paste it into a word processor…
