Talk:Dord

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 28, 2024.

untitled

Wikiquestor's note: This needs to be made a bit less POV. Other than that, I am linking it into the main body of articles. -- EmperorBMA / ブリイアン 07:46, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Should we mention the Stone Roses song, I Wanna Be a Dord? —Ashley Y 01:27, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

I hope this doesn't mean this entry will be deleted from Wikipedia. PedanticallySpeaking 18:52, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Accident?

Are we sure that it was accidentally inserted in the dictionary? There is wide speculation that some publishers actually include "nihilartikel" in their dictionaries to see if the word catches on. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 22:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have no source that suggests otherwise.--Prosfilaes 20:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The editor of the dictionary published an account in a linguistic journal detailing how it was inadvertantly printed in the dictionary. This is cited in the article's page. PedanticallySpeaking 15:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How long was it printed?

I ask because all references imply it was only there for about five years...yet, my 1943 printing still contains the word - that's nine years minimum... I'm thinking this page should mention that more specifically. Crizzly (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a copy of W2 dated 1947 in which the dord entry is still present 91.105.46.183 (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How long do you think until this word will get into actual usage?

I give it 50 years. SmroWofnaC (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is shorter than "density", just one syllable as opposed to three. We're all linguistically lazy, always shortening and abbreviating words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.67.197 (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dord as a Unit of Measure

I've noticed this ghost word and started using it as a unit of density, rather than just a synonym for density. Equal to 1 kg/L or equivalently 1 g/cm³. Obviously, that does not make it a real word or an actual unit, but I did have my reasons.

First: there seems to be a need for such a unit, and lack of an existing one.

Second: such a word should need to be concise, and not already defined in a contradictory way. "Dord" fits this description, and even though it already has a ghost definition, this existing association with density does not assign it any alternative value if used as a unit thereof, and should make the new definition easier to remember.

Third: "Dord" can easily be abbreviated "Dd", which both honours the ghost word which inspired it, and is conveniently not already used as an abbreviation for any other unit of measure.

I chose the value 1 kg/L as this converts 1:1 with standard SI units. I could use imperial or Planck units instead, but I opine SI to be the most convenient and widely used system thus far, and unlikely to change or be supplanted before "Dord" finds common usage with a lesser purpose. I have been using "Dord" this way with friends and associates, sometimes combined with SI prefixes, and this practice has generally met with their approval.

I've even considered making some afterthought section of the Wikipedia article, laced with appropriate disclaimers, so that I can use the term this way with strangers and if I forget or neglect to define this term, and if they Google it rather than asking me to define it, they will most likely find the same definition I'm using - making it a viable means to exchange information, without need to introduce the term every time. However, I decided against it, as the number of people to whom I've spread this definition is quite limited, and it seems just as likely that someone with a contrary definition might have gained more popularity and my decision would thus create more confusion than communication.

Any thoughts?

--172.97.178.38 (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need this citation?

"Boole's Rule - from Wolfram MathWorld". Mathworld.wolfram.com. 2009-10-27. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BoolesRule.html. Retrieved 2009-11-13.

Doesn't really seem relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billiam1185 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is for the benefit of people who don't bother to read the other article and need to have it explained to them how a See also entry is relevant before deleting it due to their own ignorance. 9³ (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]