Merriam-Webster changing definition of vegetarian?

Question

I just read a post that took me to an article written by the Associated press. They apparently are adding "pescetarian" to the dictionary as " A vegetarian that eats fish". They are changing the meaning of what a vegetarian is.

Is this even really possible? Can a dictionary company change the meaning of a word? Don't they have to do research to publish a correct meaning?

Here is the contact info to call or write to them:

http://www.merriam-websterunabridged.com/contact.htm

Answer 1

They didn't change the definition of vegetarian, they defined pescatarian, though incorrectly.

Do write them. I received a reply from them in about an hour stating they would add it to their meetings but their meetings are infrequent so it'll take a while before they even discuss it.

EDIT: Give it a rest. They didn't change the lame definition they have for vegetarian. They definitely diluted it. Don't let your emotions drive you to present disinformation.

Answer 2

I am so confused....I thought eating the flesh of some poor defenseless fishie made you an omnivore? At least that is what my science teacher taught me in the 3rd grade...

I am a meateater. At least I am not confused about that. I wish more "vegetarians" were less confused.

Thanks for the contact, now I am going to petition them to add the word "Meatarian'.

Answer 3

They can because they own the dictionary. Whether you subscribe to their definition is another matter. Nobody is stopping you from using another dictionary that agrees with you or suits your particular definition.

If you read the article, their new "definitions" are based on their own research on the popular context of how the word is or can be used. Apparently, the use of "vegetarian" to define even those who eat fish on occasion has been acceptable (right or wrong) and/or widely used for some time.

A dictionary company does not give meaning to a word. They simply list down what is generally accepted as the definition to be used for reference. This is not done on a whim but based on extensive research. For example, the word "blue" which is a color is also an acceptable word to use in defining  state of emotion. "Nuts" is another. Etc.

Answer 4

They didn't change the definition of vegetarian, they defined pescatarian, though incorrectly.

Do write them. I received a reply from them in about an hour stating they would add it to their meetings but their meetings are infrequent so it'll take a while before they even discuss it.

I think I might be retarded.

Answer 5

they arent changing the deffinition of vegetarian, they are adding pescetarian. they are also adding edamome. these are both good things for vegetarians- they show we are becoming more mainstream and our weird words are becoming relavent. be happy. everything isnt a scandal, these are victories.

Answer 6

It doens't matter what they make the definiton of a vegetarian.  As long as you are choosing to be a "vegetarian" for yourself that should be all that matters.  Some pescetarians do wish that they were vegetarians but some bodies can't survive without meat.

In my personal opinion, I don't think it matters what they define it.  I chose to not eat meat for the sake of the animals people who are pescetarians help out a lot buy not buying meat products.

The love and care of the animals is truly my concern, who cares what the definition is, it's the CAUSE that has all of the effect.

Answer 7

I am going to email them under comments and suggestions. A pescatarian is an omnivore who only eats fish.

Answer 8

Wait, so who set the definition in the first place?

In the English language, there is no central board that decides what words mean.  Dictionaries do their own research and determine current usage, and then publish it.  The word "pescatarian" is now widely used in the US to describe a particular diet, so they publish it.  Just because you don't approve of this diet for whatever reasons doesn't mean that people who follow it shouldn't be allowed to describe it.  

Their definition is perfectly accurate as well. "A vegetarian who eats fish" is simply a short way of saying "a person who is vegetarian except for the fact that they eat fish".

Answer 9

people do what they can

i'm a vegan so i do more than others

pescetarians choose to eat fish... what's the problem?

a full vegetarians doesn't eat fish...

i don't see why you are pissed... does it truly offend you or did somebody say "that's not right" and rather than fight it you just buy into it

Answer 10

I'm not sure it's really doing that.

I saw the article. I know that's what the article said, but the article did not quote directly from Merriam Webster. It was paraphrasing. So it's possible they didn't get it right.

Edit: Hey, don't be hatin', I'm on your side. It would have helped if you provided a link to the article. I found the article again and it does look like you might be right.

Yes, I'd be annoyed if they did that and I will send an email.

Here is a link to the article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080707/ap_o...

Second edit: I just contacted Merriam-Webster by email. Thank you for letting me know.

Answer 11

Omg, that isn't right. A vegetarian that eats fish isn't actually a vegetarian! That is a totally wrong and not accurate definition. The definition should be something like: Someone who eats fish, but doesn't consume meat..... nvm, that doesn't make sense, fish IS meat!