Talk:Roget's Thesaurus

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Roget's Thesaurus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Books

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	It is requested that a picture or pictures be included in this article to improve its quality.

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Roget's Thesaurus be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Page title

Does anyone object to moving this to Roget's Thesaurus? -- Zoe [09:17, January 12, 2003‎ (UTC)]

I've never heard of "Roget's" being used as a synonym for Thesaurus, rather than a specific thesaurus. Similarly, I've never heard "Webster's" used instead of dictionary. I suspect both are Americanisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.21.194 (talk) 01:25, April 26, 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'm from the UK, and neither of those words are in use as generics. (And no, we don't call dictionaries "Oxfords" as generics, either!) I'm changing the text to specify the US, but leaving the "citation needed" tag in. Loganberry (Talk) 17:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Para:

Roget's schema of classes and their subdivisions is based on the philosophical work of Leibniz (see Leibniz — Symbolic thought), itself following a long tradition of epistemological work starting with Aristotle. Some of Aristotle's Categories are included in Roget's first class "abstract relations"…

I submit the folowing sources: Jamshydf (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SOURCE: Roget's Thesaurus of English words and phrases, New edition prepared by Susan M Lloyd, Longman, 1985

Preface to the 1982 edition, page vii:

"Roget arranged his far more extensive material into a comprehensive framework with a clearly visible structure … In this, he was following in the steps of seventeenth-century philosophers such as Leibniz, who had attempted the classification of concepts as a preliminary to inventing a Universal Language … had to create a hierarchy of concepts … "

Page xxi (Introduction to the original edition of 1852 written by Peter Mark Roget):

"In constructing the following system of classification of the ideas which are expressible by language … thus establishing six primary Classes or Categories… The further subdivisions and minuter details will be best understood from … the Tabular Synopsis of Categories prefixed to the Work [ie Roget's Thesaurus] …"

Jamshydf (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SOURCE: The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner, second edition, Penguin Books, 2005

Category, page 100:

"The term was introduced by Aristotle … Kant used the term for the twelve forms … by which the intellect structures all experiences."

Jamshydf (talk) 07:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

I have added a References section to include at least one edition (Longman 1982) of the original work. This will enable me to make proper footnote references to the main body of the article.--Михал Орела (talk) 11:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i added the americanized edition of this work. im pretty sure this was a standard edition for years, if not decades, in american editorial and academic offices. it completely preserved the rogets structure, unlike a lot of other american editions which just use the name. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

I have introduced a Notes section in order to provide citations to the References.--Михал Орела (talk) 12:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OED

I can't find any reference stating that "OED" is used as a general term for dictionaries in the US or elsewhere, that seems a very weird assertion. Given no citation I've removed that reference.Gymnophoria (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Roget's Thesaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150121120555/http://poets.notredame.ac.jp/Roget/contents.html to http://poets.notredame.ac.jp/Roget/contents.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Major changes to the categories listing

In the Colonies, Roget's International is considered the "official" Roget's. Up through the 4th edition, it maintained Mark Roget's "Classical" selection and organization of categories. With the 5th edition, it switched to what might be considered a more obvious relation to "the real world". This threw some people into a tizzy, claiming that the work was ruined (even though it still contained the same word lists and indexing). This needs to be discussed. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Created in 1805?

"...a widely used English-language thesaurus, created in 1805 by Peter Mark Roget..." Is to create the right word in this circumstances? Maybe PMR started collecting words in 1805. Is this already creating? --Delabarquera (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]