If these indeed are the usual distinctions in connotation, thanks for the clarification. Some kind of a connotational dictionary would be nice, but I suppose the contents might change quite rapidly.
I use it quite often and would recommend it to others, but don’t have the impression that it’s accurate considering how illiterate and random many of the authors seem to be.
Connotation is tricky enough that it’s dangerous to presume any single source is accurate. Submitted definitions of poor average quality aren’t a fatal problem, so long as the people who vote, in aggregate, can distinguish useful information from garbage.
If these indeed are the usual distinctions in connotation, thanks for the clarification. Some kind of a connotational dictionary would be nice, but I suppose the contents might change quite rapidly.
A strange idea, but not necessarily a bad one. I am intrigued.
How well does http://www.urbandictionary.com/ fit?
I use it quite often and would recommend it to others, but don’t have the impression that it’s accurate considering how illiterate and random many of the authors seem to be.
Connotation is tricky enough that it’s dangerous to presume any single source is accurate. Submitted definitions of poor average quality aren’t a fatal problem, so long as the people who vote, in aggregate, can distinguish useful information from garbage.
Moreover, connotations often depend on specific subcultures. In some connotations get inverted (e.g. “punk”).