Total posts : 45366
Somewhere deep in the threads I encountered a rather laborious discussion pointing out the rather poor definitions found in the expected reference sources as to the definition of the word “radio”.
This raises an issue about dictionaries that has bothered me for a long time. In the old days when I occasionally actually went to the local library, I remember the huge dictionary (Oxford or Webster?) that sat on a podium in the center of the first floor. It was about a foot thick as I remember. That podium was like an alter where rested the sacred history of the English language. There was never any question about authenticity or accuracy.
The old, respected dictionaries were likely very accurate. At least they were stable.
Now, most people get their definitions from Wikipedia or Wiktionary, or worse yet, some blog that shows up in Google.
The old, respected dictionaries now cost big bucks, but the Wiki dictionaries are free and instantly accessible. The Wikis have the latest street-talk words, but how much of the sacred basis of the language is being lost in the wiki free-for-all?
BTW, my free searches seem to indicate the etymology of the word “radio” is simply the Latin word “radius”. The first usage was as a prefix in the word “radioconductor”. It was used a a prefix in “radio-telegraphy” apparently before the advent of audio radio when AM modulation was invented by Fessenden.
But, don’t believe what I say. I would love to see the Oxford English Dictionary definition of “radio”. Not going to happen. That would require a trip to the library or a subscription to the on line version.
