The exercise began in 1993 and starting this year new material from the revision programme will be released quarterly to the OED Online subscribers.

The OED went online in March 2000 with a soft launch and now Oxford University Press is beginning to hardsell it. OED's chief editor, Mr John Simpson, was in India on a whistle-stop tour to speak with academic institutions and libraries in the country on the virtues of the online edition, subscription to which costs 250 per annum, with a 75 per cent discount for India. Vidya Deshpande spoke with Mr Simpson on contemporary language, grammar and relevance of dictionaries in the dotcom era:

How contemporary should a dictionary be? How long does it take before a word can be put into a dictionary?
A lot of new words keep finding their way into dictionaries. New words have been widely recorded by researchers. The big version of the Oxford English Dictionary has not seen too many changes, but the smaller, compact versions always have contemporary words. In the last few years, there has been a substantial growth in medical, computers and political terminology. But new words cannot be put in unless we find it used in four or five different places. We would rather wait before we put the word into the dictionary, than see it appear and drift away.

What kind of words are you referring to? Can you give us an example of words connected to political events?
Take the word chad, for example. It already exists in the dictionary. It first appeared in 1959 in the dictionary as a term referring to the waste material removed from punching holes in computer paper. There was an early reference to it in 1946. Now, there are a flush of quotations, like `pregnant chad'. We might include this reference later. Any major political event closely followed by the media always throws up new terms. Many of these words are already there in existence but suddenly a lot of people begin using it with a new meaning, especially journalists. Journalists covering the war, for example, start using military jargon when they get familiar with the troops, and the general public then gets to hear and read about it and some stick on. How much has the English language changed? Can we have a homogeneous language and spelling in the future? Over the last 20 years, the core of English language is expanding. Different varieties of language coming from new writers, correspondence between writers,magazines, newspapers, etc, are finding their way into English. There are different varieties of English-British, American, Canadian, Caribbean, New Zealand, Indian, etc, and it would be difficult to have one homogenised style of English. Spelling variations exist, though they are not too many. The use of single `l' and double `l', `s' and `z', etc. I'm sure that if the British and the Americans get together, we can agree on one spelling, but we never will.There was a movement to spell English phonetically. But this will not work.

Bernard Shaw tried it in one of his novels, but it was pathetically unreadable. I can't see anyone in world switching to phonetic spellings. The problem with phonetic spelling is that while it may work with British English, the meanings of words will change in the Caribbean and New Zealand English, for example. The present system of spelling in English is fine. Once familiar with the rules, one can can effectively use the language.

How gender-sensitised is the new Oxford English Dictionary?
The new dictionary takes note of gender-sensitive language. For example, all reference to man in generic terms has become human. But I find humankind one of the ugliest words to use. Society is generally more gender-sensitised, but you can't go over the top. One has to be moderate and editors have to exercise a choice. Language can lose its colour with too much gender-sensitisation. Sometimes you have to use man, even if it is against the sentiment.

How different is the OED Online version from the printed version?
Essentially, the dictionary has remained the same since it was first written in 1928. Researchers have been constantly sifting material for new words and shift in meanings of words. A lot of words have come in form other languages and scholars have been studying the variations of the language in Asia, Europe and Africa. Names of countries have changed, currencies have changed, terms of measurement have changed. The smaller editions have incorporated the changes but the big OED did not record too many changes. Never has such a large revision job been undertaken.

With the dictionary going online it has become easier to incorporate changes. Online you have the option of going into different sections -quotation, etymology, meanings, etc. Online you have the option of flexibility, you can add new material, review an entry and update it but it will need strict editorial control. The printed version will always be a snapshot of the online version. The printed version has taken more than 50 years to write, and is never going to be updated the way the online dictionary will be updated. Even I refer to the printed version only to check if an entry has been made correctly. It is quicker and simpler to use the online version. If fact, I have not been using the printed version since the CD-ROM version came out in 1993.

How does India interest OED editors?
Interest in India has increased over the years, with Indian food being a favourite with the British. Indian authors too have carved a niche for themselves and there is significant appreciation of Indian literature. In fact, at Oxford University, one can now study South Asian literature as a main subject, while earlier it was only a subsidiary option. Words in these novels have become of immense interest to readers, especially to understand the nuances of the novels. Indian films and culture are also areas of new interest. A lot of Indian words are already their in the OED but we are looking at new words, too. Bollywood is a being drafted for introduction into the dictionary, masala has been introduced with the film industry meaning.

India is an emerging market and is of great interest to us.