It's far beyond stupid. It's mendacious. Here's the whole quote:
One definition for chariot in the Oxford Dictionary specifies “a stately vehicle for the conveyance of people,” and “vehicle” is defined as a “receptacle in which anything is placed in order to be moved.”19 Wheels would assist in moving but are not implicit in the definitions.
Parse the language carefully.
"One definition for chariot" Red flag for cherry pick.
"in the Oxford Dictionary" OK, so one of several definitions in the same dictionary. Guaranteed Cherry Pick.
Which dictionary? Check the footnote. ALWAYS check the footnote.
The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary: Complete Text Reproduced Micrographically, 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971) 1:383, 2:3599.
And what, exactly, is the Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (1971)? It's a reprint of the Second Edition of the OED (1933). Now, that's not an unreasonable choice. The OED is an excellent English Dictionary -- maybe the best English Dictionary. And "chariot" has been around for a long time and we've no reason to suspect that it's changed much in meaning. However, one of its strengths is the historical information and detailed etymologies of words. Just ask the publisher:
Now comes the Compact Edition of OED II, which captures all the wealth of scholarship found in the original edition in just one volume. The Compact is not an abridgement, but a direct photoreduction of the entire 20-volume set, with nine pages of the original on every nine-by-twelve page of the Compact (a magnifying glass comes with it). As in the Second Edition, the Compact combines in one alphabetical sequence the sixteen volumes of the first OED and the four Supplements--plus an extra five thousand new words to bring this monumental dictionary completely up to date. And it is monumental, with definitions of 500,000 words, 290,000 main entries, 137,000 pronunciations, 249,300 etymologies, 577,000 cross-references, and over 2,412,000 illustrative quotations. But as large as it is, perhaps its most important feature is its historical focus. The OED records not only words and meanings currently in use but also those that have long been considered obsolete. Moreover, under each definition of a word is a chronologically arranged group of quotations that illustrate the word's usage down through the years, beginning with its earliest known appearance. The result is a dictionary that offers unique insight into the way our language has, over the centuries, grown, changed, and been put to use.
More than 100 years in the making, The Oxford English Dictionary is now universally acknowledged as the world's greatest dictionary--the supreme arbiter on the usage and meaning of English words, a fascinating guide to the history and evolution of the language, and one of the greatest works of scholarship ever produced. The Washington Post has written that "no one who reads or writes seriously can be without the OED." Now with the Compact, the world's greatest dictionary is within the reach of anyone who wants one.
https://global.oup.com/academic/product ... us&lang=en&#
But, given that wealth of information, why does the author limit himself to one part of the definition of chariot from that dictionary? In particular, what are the odds that none of the other definitions in that dictionary define "chariot" without using the word "wheel"? Well, about zero. Just Google the word chariot and you will find that the most common definition by far is some type of wheeled cart or wagon or vehicle. Did the most comprehensive English dictionary just happen to miss the "wheel" part. Or did the author pour through the dictionary most likely to include some definition of "chariot" that does not include the word "wheel" and pick that one?
This kind of cherry picking dictionary game is dishonest pseudo-scholarship. It's also Nibleyesque -- make sure to cite a source that is not easily accessible so that no one is likely to fact check you.
But the chicanery continues. Note the last sentence of the quote: "Wheels would assist in moving but are not implicit in the definitions." I suppose this is technically true, because the vast majority of definitions of "chariot" explicitly refer to wheels. Not implicit -- explicit. Or does the author mean "are not implicit in the definitions that I cherry picked?"
Any other evidence for wheelless anythings called "chariots?" Not in the paper. Just dishonest dictionary cherry picking.
Just another of many examples of why Interpreter is a vanity publication and not a scholarly journal.
