There has been a lot of coverage recently of an apparent mistake in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) that has gone unnoticed for almost a hundred years. The OED definition of ’siphon’ states that siphons move liquids from one container to another using “the force of atmospheric pressure”. However, last week Physicist Stephen Hughes of Queensland University of Technology in Australia spotted and pointed out that it is actually the force of gravity that moves the liquid.
.
We have a great deal of sympathy for the OED editors here; it is surely inevitable that any piece of work that has around 290,000 entries is going to have the odd tiny error, and, as the OED’s Margot Charlton said, “The OED entry for siphon dates from 1911 and was written by editors who were not scientists”. Furthermore, it seems there is actually some debate about whether the definition is absolutely wrong (see this piece in The Register). However, the lively and entertaining debate that Hughes’ eagle eye has provoked just goes to show that sometimes a willingness to challenge even the highest of linguistic authorities can help make everybody better off.
.
Thankfully, the OED people’s relaxed and up-front approach is also to be commended. We are really pleased that they have not tried to pass the mistake off as a copyright trap or – as they are sometimes called – a Mountweasel. Editors and language lovers remember how The New Oxford American Dictionary, in August 2005, revealed that the second edition contained at least one fictional entry under the letter E, inspiring lots of people to go hunting for it. This was later determined to be the word ‘esquivalience’, defined as “the wilful avoidance of one’s official responsibilities”, which had originally been added in the first edition from 2001. As the text of the book was distributed electronically and therefore very easy to copy, it was a deliberate mistake intended to trip up the unwary. It certainly caught out dictionary.com, which was conned into including an entry for it – although funnily enough it has since been removed! We suspect that the next edition of the OED, due to be published later this year, will be absolutely clear about the forces of gravity and atmospheric pressure in its definition of ’siphon’ – or will, at the very least, be sure to refer to the debate!
.

