Talk:Roget's Thesaurus

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Roget's Thesaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add 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.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)