Have you ever come across something that the major English dictionaries disagree about?

Oh, sure. I have a lot of dictionaries and consult them frequently. One reason I have so many is that the first one I check may not agree with me. (joke) My main references are the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), Webster’s—the big one and also the abbreviated ones—and the American Heritage, 4th edition, but I use numerous others as well.

Most commonly it’s a difference in pronunciation—which pronunciation is preferred. Sometimes one will give a first and second pronunciation and another will reverse them; sometimes one source will offer both and the other will list only one. Sometimes it’s hyphenation. Hyphenation is one of the more rapidly evolving traits of words (for example, on-line -> online), so an older dictionary is apt to be less helpful.

Definitions should be worded differently because the wording of a definition is proprietary; but there are only so many ways to say something, so there is bound to be overlap. After the first sense of a word, the additional senses are not always in the same order, and the abridged dictionaries do not list nearly so many archaic and obscure senses. I love the dictionaries that give tons of information and all the senses of a word, so I like the big ones best.

At times I have seen different accounts of derivation too; for example, some will give Latin as a source and others French, and it does point to a different historic process even though the true origin is Latin.

Of course you know that not all words are found in all dictionaries—and that it is possible to form legitimate English words that will not be in any dictionary.

Yes the big ones are the ones to go to, never the tiny ones (unless it is an emergency) that fit in the palm of your hand.
It is complicated enough, but some dictionaries are very unhelpful, because of the “usage” thing. I mean if I am going to go by “usage” why do I need to consult the expert? The nutritional books don’t say junk food is okay to eat regularly in the same breath that they are saying junk food is bad for health. It makes no sense to me.

Preferred spellings may also differ, not just between UK dictionaries like OED and US dictionaries like Merriam-Webster’s, but between different US dictionaries.
For most purposes the unabridged dictionaries are not necessary. Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Edition or Oxford’s Concise Edition are more than adequatre.

I only use the OED so I don’t have much experience cross-referencing words. I’m wondering however – what constitutes a “legitimate English word” – aside the Shakespearean method of turning nouns into verbs. @Jeruba

Exactly what @Jeruba said. This is why it’s best to have a big honkin’ dictionary at hand, especially while playing Scrabble. Several of the words I’ve used in that game don’t even appear in smaller dictionaries. I need my big book to prove I’m using an actual word!

The difference is timescale – a health book will not recommend a Big Mac diet because eating nothing but junk food is bad for the human body and will remain so until human bodies evolve to better process the diet.

Using a noun as a verb, on the other hand, or shifting a verb from intransitive to transitive doesn’t cause physical damage – it’s much easier to innovate with something that doesn’t kill you.

Usage in dictionaries is generally derived from empirical data these days, that means that dictionaires are essentially compendia of observed languaege use.

There’s an important question here – how do standards in a language arise? After all, we must agree on meaning in order to communicate, right? There are undeniably conventions in how we communicate. It’s tempting to think that someone must set them, but I don’t think this is the case. There are influences on conventions, but no one absolute authority.

Dictionaries just record the conventions – I believe there are certain criteria a word must meet in order to be included in a dictionary, but that doesn’t prevent entries_not_ in a dictionary from being valid.

@phoebusg, I’ll explain what I meant.

As long as you follow the rules of standard English when it comes to verb forms, parts of speech, prefixes and suffixes, etc., you can extend the language legitimately. Some of the results will sound so normal and common that they won’t raise an eyebrow, and some will sound poetic or arcane, but that does not make them illegal.

I am terrible at thinking of good examples for things. But perhaps you can imagine a verb that does not have a standard ”-er” or ”-or” form for an agent or doer. Most common verbs do: player, thinker, worker, etc. If you choose a verb for an action that someone or something can do, and you add the ”er” suffix for “doer of —,” you will usually have a legitimate English noun even if it’s not in the dictionary.

Similarly, you can add ”ly” to most adjectives to make an adverb. You can add various noun endings to verbs and adjectives. You can add ”ish” or ”ic” or ”istic” to things to make adjectives. You can put “re” in front of a lot of verbs to mean doing it again. And so on. Some of these forms will be in the dictionary and some of them won’t. If you work by analogy to something that you know is legitimate—and you are very careful about your parts of speech, for you can’t just attach any old affix to any old word and get a hit—you’ll probably be declared “safe” by someone who understand the rules, even if some narrow-minded stickler who thinks the dictionary is a Bible calls you “out.”

@Jeruba – who makes the rules?

language is fluid…we all make the rules

@the100thmonkey, are you asking me rhetorically? It was my impression that you had implicitly invoked the “educated man” [person] standard and also that you were pointing to a distinction between prescriptive and descriptive references.

The fact that we don’t have an Academy to protect and preserve the language and dictate its proper use leaves us to follow a flexible standard, but a standard nonetheless, that is derived from numerous authorities both traditional and current. The process may be a bit messy, but on the whole I think it is effective.

@Jeruba – I don’t buy the educated man argument.

Ok, mistaken inference on my part. What do you regard as appropriate influences on conventions, then? Do you just say anything goes?

If I saw a dictionary that told me “learning” is okay to use to refer to a “teaching” or vice versa for example, I would think that I was hallucinating.

@flo – if people used it that way, then any dictionary would publish the description of the word used in that context with that sense. Dictionaries should be descriptive.

Why do we not all speak Elizabethan English?

@Jeruba – I don’t hold that anything goes: if there are no conventions, there is no communication. It was a genuine question – one I’m trying to get my head round. The issue in this question is, as @flo mentioned, about innovation, mistakes and usage that one is not familiar with.

However, I find arguments from authority unsatisfying. L’academie Française advise against words like le tee-shirt or le sandwich, yet French people still go right ahead and use them.

Dictionaries should just give me the accurate meannigs of words, and not glamorize the misuses of them. And by the way, there are many regions where English is spoken, and so many ways of misusing words. So which region are they picking? and why? I will go some other source if I want to know how a word is used in different regions of the world. I don’t know what that source is, but it shouldn’t be the dictionary. Otherwise no wonder students are dropping out of school thinking that they are too dumb.

@flo: there is nothing to talk about then. Your mind is closed and you are committed to your misunderstandings.

This thread can continue without the OPer. It is the topic that is more important.