Lexico/Oxford English Dictionary Search Plugin?

[Tharthan]

(I'm not sure if this is the right subforum for this, but this one looked like it made sense to me.)

I would do this myself if I knew how best to do it, but is there a way to add a search plugin for Lexico/the Oxford English Dictionary?

I was honestly surprised that the Pale Moon Add-Ons website had a search plugin for Merriam-Webster's dictionary, but not one for some form of Oxford. It wouldn't bother me if there were an easy way to do this myself that was apparent, but I can't seem to find one.

Might someone explain to me how to do this myself, if there is a way?

One can get to Lexico via:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/[INSERT WORD HERE]

or

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/[INSERT WORD HERE]

[Konrad]

The former https://en.oxforddictionaries.com now redirects to https://www.lexico.com/en/. You can use the search plugin I have compiled for ‘Lexico by Oxford’. Put the xml file into the searchplugins folder in your profile and start the browser.

Additionally, I would recommend two other excellent sources:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/

[Moonchild]

Off-topic:
Apparently, checking out the site today, Oxford (well... Lexico now) thinks that "apothecary" (to designate the person perparing and selling medicine) is an archaic word that is no longer in use... Certainly dropped my appreciation for them a notch.

[Tharthan]

Off-topic:
Apparently, checking out the site today, Oxford (well... Lexico now) thinks that "apothecary" (to designate the person perparing and selling medicine) is an archaic word that is no longer in use... Certainly dropped my appreciation for them a notch.

Collins English Dictionary lists it as dated, as does WIktionary. So I wouldn't be too harsh on good old Oxford. They've just jumped the gun.

Also, we must remember that archaic is not synonymous with obsolete, obviously.

A word like "thester", which is an obsolete English word meaning "darkness" (cognate with Dutch duister and German düster) that was still in use even into the Early Modern English period, is blatantly obsolete. Big difference from an archaic word, which could still potentially be used in a book trying to give an archaic flavour and that might well still be understood by the more educated and aware.

The former https://en.oxforddictionaries.com now redirects to https://www.lexico.com/en/. You can use the search plugin I have compiled for ‘Lexico by Oxford’. Put the xml file into the searchplugins folder in your profile and start the browser.

Thank you, good fellow.

I have put it in both the main searchplugins folder, as well as its %appdata% equivalent. Will it make much of a difference?

I assume that the main one will carry it over to the Pale Moon profile that I make when I create that standard user account that I have mentioned before. Is that correct?

[Konrad]

I have put it in both the main searchplugins folder, as well as its %appdata% equivalent. Will it make much of a difference?
I assume that the main one will carry it over to the Pale Moon profile that I make when I create that standard user account that I have mentioned before. Is that correct?

It’s enough to only have a search plugin in one searchplugins folder.
As far as I know, it’s not recommended to alter anything within the browser’s main folder (that is not to add an extra search plugin to the default searchplugins folder). It’s better to put your custom search plugins into the searchplugins folder located in your profile (AppData\Roaming).

By the way, when you install a search plugin from any website that plugin only appears in your profile not in browser’s main folder.

[back2themoon]

https://mycroftproject.com/search-engin ... ame=lexico

[Moonchild]

Off-topic:

Collins English Dictionary lists it as dated, as does WIktionary. So I wouldn't be too harsh on good old Oxford. They've just jumped the gun.

Also, we must remember that archaic is not synonymous with obsolete, obviously.

A word like "thester", which is an obsolete English word meaning "darkness" (cognate with Dutch duister and German düster) that was still in use even into the Early Modern English period, is blatantly obsolete. Big difference from an archaic word, which could still potentially be used in a book trying to give an archaic flavour and that might well still be understood by the more educated and aware.

So what -would- the designated term for an apothecary be now?... It is still an active profession, after all.

I also think that "archaic" is actually beyond obsolete. "Obsolete" would mean people still generally know what it means even though it's not a commonly-used term because what it applies to no longer exists. "Archaic" means it's completely fallen out of use; not the other way around.
Lexico seems to agree with me by having an opening sentence on this list, stating "These words are no longer in everyday use or have lost a particular meaning in current usage[...]"
Unfortunately they do list it as an archaic word in a list presented as if nobody would ever use it in that meaning any longer. That's not jumping the gun, that's making a mistake, IMHO. Other words in that list that are still perfectly normal to me in their stated meaning: asunder, behold, cannonade, cutpurse, fair, handmaid(en), perchance, recipe (another apothecary thing...), rude (is their any other meaning than that stated?), slay, soil (rather more common as a verb), up to snuff, and verse. And the there* and where* words are common in legal texts to indication unambiguous relationships between terms and applicability.

But then again, maybe my English education was above standard netting me a significantly larger vocabulary than the average...

[Tharthan]

Off-topic:
So what -would- the designated term for an apothecary be now?... It is still an active profession, after all.

Off-topic:
Either druggist, which is itself beginning to become somewhat dated now in some areas of life, or pharmacist. I hear pharmacist more often, personally, but druggist is still plenty used.

I agree, though, that it is interesting that apothecary is coming to leave general, everyday usage (as a word to label this profession) in English even though its equivalents are still perfectly common in other languages (except French, where apothicaire is in a limbo akin to that of its English equivalent, although from what I understand the French term may actually be somewhat worse off, with pharmacien(ne) having greatly stolen the spotlight, so to speak.

But the word "druggist" is the most accurate more recent word, as "pharmacist" almost seems to imply that a contemporarily-styled pharmacy must be present.

Off-topic:
"Obsolete" would mean people still generally know what it means even though it's not a commonly-used term because what it applies to no longer exists. "Archaic" means it's completely fallen out of use; not the other way around.

Off-topic:
I think that it depends upon who you are consulting, and for what. My understanding has indeed been the other way around. Archaic is a step above dated, but a step under obsolete. But I can understand where you are coming from, though, as in simple, plain usage "that's obsolete" would imply that something is known (even well-known, in some cases), but outdated (having been replaced by something else that is usually believed to be better), whereas "that's archaic" would imply something stronger. I don't think that all language resources use those terms that way though.

Though I could be wrong, of course.

Off-topic:
Other words in that list that are still perfectly normal to me in their stated meaning: asunder, behold, cannonade, cutpurse, fair, handmaid(en), perchance, recipe (another apothecary thing...), rude (is their any other meaning than that stated?), slay, soil (rather more common as a verb), up to snuff, and verse. And the there* and where* words are common in legal texts to indication unambiguous relationships between terms and applicability.

Off-topic:
I agree with you here. That is odd.

Perhaps Lexico is taking chiefly into account British usage, or similar? I did hear that there are official British documents in some areas (such as their National Health Service) that are using "poo" (rather than "stool" or "feces") with no qualifiers (and not in a way intending to be childish), so perhaps there is some sort of vocabulary degradation going on. It wouldn't surprise me, although I have not heard of anything like that happening in Britain that is any different from the rest of the English speaking world.

I have no idea. That is simply mere speculation based upon little to nothing.

[Moonchild]

Off-topic:
I can tell you that I have never heard the term "druggist" used before your above post. Curious about the etymology, if it even exists.

[adesh]

Off-topic:
I can tell you that I have never heard the term "druggist" used before your above post. Curious about the etymology, if it even exists.

Off-topic:
To me it sounds more like someone who takes drugs.

[adisib]

Off-topic:

I can tell you that I have never heard the term "druggist" used before your above post. Curious about the etymology, if it even exists.

"1610s, from French droguiste"
According to https://www.etymonline.com/word/druggis ... ne_v_37784

[Tharthan]

Off-topic:
I can tell you that I have never heard the term "druggist" used before your above post. Curious about the etymology, if it even exists.

Off-topic:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... h/druggist
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/druggist
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/druggist (I detest Merriam-Webster, but I'm linking to them to make a point here)
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... h/druggist

Off-topic:
I can tell you that I have never heard the term "druggist" used before your above post. Curious about the etymology, if it even exists.

Off-topic:
To me it sounds more like someone who takes drugs.

Off-topic:
That'd be a druggie, bossman.

Be glad that it is what it is now. Its (now obsolete) predecessor was "drugger", which sounds much worse, I think that you would agree.

[Falna]

Off-topic:
In UK English 'apothecary' is certainly archaic and is only found in history books and the world of Harry Potter.

'Chemist' was used widely used until a couple of generations ago (the pharmacy chain Boots the Chemists Limited finally changed to Boots UK Limited in 2007), but 'pharmacist' is now almost universal.

As for the other words mentioned:
asunder - archaic; last time I head it was in a wedding service a few decades ago
behold - archaic
cannonade - archaic
cutpurse - probably unknown except by literary scholars
fair - common use
handmaid(en) - archaic; only widely known because of The Handmaid's Tale
perchance - archaic
recipe (in the pharmacy usage) - archaic; 'formula' commonly used (hence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_N ... _Formulary)
rude (meaning rough) - archaic, almost obsolete.
slay - uncommon outside the its literary use, except in newspaper headlines (because its short)
soil (as a verb) - uncommon
up to snuff - still used by some
verse (as a verb) - archaic

[Tharthan]

Off-topic:
In UK English 'apothecary' is certainly archaic and is only found in history books and the world of Harry Potter.

'Chemist' was used widely used until a couple of generations ago (the pharmacy chain Boots the Chemists Limited finally changed to Boots UK Limited in 2007), but 'pharmacist' is now almost universal.

As for the other words mentioned:
asunder - archaic; last time I head it was in a wedding service a few decades ago
behold - archaic
cannonade - archaic
cutpurse - probably unknown except by literary scholars
fair - common use
handmaid(en) - archaic; only widely known because of The Handmaid's Tale
perchance - archaic
recipe (in the pharmacy usage) - archaic; 'formula' commonly used (hence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_N ... _Formulary)
rude (meaning rough) - archaic, almost obsolete.
slay - uncommon outside the its literary use, except in newspaper headlines (because its short)
soil (as a verb) - uncommon
up to snuff - still used by some
verse (as a verb) - archaic

Off-topic:
Asunder is not necessarily archaic, at least where I live. It is simply seen is essentially literary or particularly formal.

Behold is also more literary or (more commonly) sarcastic. You could probably argue that it could be seen as archaic in a number of places, but due to its sarcastic or mocking usage, there might be some opposition to that.

With regard to slay, I would simply say that the real problem with that word these days is that far too many English speakers don't know how to conjugate strong verbs, or don't even understand the concept itself. This problem is also seen with the word "tread" and (in some cases) "grind". Far too many people think that they can just conjugate any verb as if it were a weak verb.

[Moonchild]

Off-topic:
I must have slid a few planes over re: word use... This is almost like a Mandela effect to me.

[Tharthan]

Off-topic:
I must have slid a few planes over re: word use... This is almost like a Mandela effect to me.

Off-topic:
Would you mind elaborating? I'm not sure what you mean by this post.