| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tee
Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 4048
Location: Detroit Metro
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 11:15 am Post subject: OMG and LOL added to Oxford English Dictionary... |
 |
|
New words, in addition to OMG and LOL, have been added to the Oxford English Dictionary. Interesting. Not sure how I feel about this, but you can't say they're not used almost consistently these days. Don't forget to catch the blurb about the tweak to "heart." It now has the option of being a verb. Whoa! Some use it that way, but does that mean it's correct?
There's a saying: "Truth is not determined by majority vote." — Doug Gwyn
http://digitallife.today.com/_news/2011/03/24/6335138-omg-and-lol-added-to-the-dictionary |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Linda in sw va
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 4707
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hmmm, I don't think I'm bothered by it, I imagine if someone wants to find out what these terms mean they will find it helpful?  I'm curious, does it label them as slang? I can't recall the last time I even used a physical dictionary, I look everything up online.
Linda
_________________
"The Bookshop has a thousand books, all colors, hues and tinges, and every cover is a door that turns on magic hinges." ~ Nancy Byrd Turner |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tee
Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 4048
Location: Detroit Metro
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Linda in sw va wrote: | | I'm curious, does it label them as slang? I can't recall the last time I even used a physical dictionary, I look everything up online. |
This is what the Oxford dictionary staff had to say about it--
Of course in such a context initialisms are quicker to type than the full forms, and (in the case of text messages, or Twitter, for example) they help to say more in media where there is a limit to a number of characters one may use in a single message. OMG and LOL are found outside of electronic contexts, however; in print, and even in spoken use (see, for example, the 2003 quotation for LOL int.), where there often seems to be a bit more than simple abbreviation going on. The intention is usually to signal an informal, gossipy mode of expression, and perhaps parody the level of unreflective enthusiasm or overstatement that can sometimes appear in online discourse, while at the same time marking oneself as an ‘insider’ au fait with the forms of expression associated with the latest technology.
I too look up words and such online these days. But I believe the Oxford dictionary is available online also. Including things like this in dictionaries is definitely the sign of the times. I'm not saying it's wrong or right, just that losing a certain way to speak is rather sad. I use all of these shortcuts, mostly in cyberspace messages, but they have a way of infiltrating our verbal speak too. Again--wrong or right? Don't know that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Linda in sw va
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 4707
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tee wrote: | | Linda in sw va wrote: | | I'm curious, does it label them as slang? I can't recall the last time I even used a physical dictionary, I look everything up online. |
This is what the Oxford dictionary staff had to say about it--
Of course in such a context initialisms are quicker to type than the full forms, and (in the case of text messages, or Twitter, for example) they help to say more in media where there is a limit to a number of characters one may use in a single message. OMG and LOL are found outside of electronic contexts, however; in print, and even in spoken use (see, for example, the 2003 quotation for LOL int.), where there often seems to be a bit more than simple abbreviation going on. The intention is usually to signal an informal, gossipy mode of expression, and perhaps parody the level of unreflective enthusiasm or overstatement that can sometimes appear in online discourse, while at the same time marking oneself as an ‘insider’ au fait with the forms of expression associated with the latest technology.
I too look up words and such online these days. But I believe the Oxford dictionary is available online also. Including things like this in dictionaries is definitely the sign of the times. I'm not saying it's wrong or right, just that losing a certain way to speak is rather sad. I use all of these shortcuts, mostly in cyberspace messages, but they have a way of infiltrating our verbal speak too. Again--wrong or right? Don't know that. |
Tee, I don't look at it like losing a certain way to speak, I see it as adding rather than taking away. It's a reference and I don't mind slang being included there as well as some people may not know what these terms mean, the dictionary should continue to stay current. It's not something new, every few years we hear about words they've added to the dictionary that are newly used and were not there before, some with more surprise factor than others.
I do agree though that there is a time and place to use them. I'm no expert but I don't think we necessarily talk the same way we did a hundred or two hundred years ago, isn't there a saying along the lines of the only constant is change? I don't think even the dictionary can ignore that.
Linda
_________________
"The Bookshop has a thousand books, all colors, hues and tinges, and every cover is a door that turns on magic hinges." ~ Nancy Byrd Turner |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark
Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 1241
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Most dictionaries are DEscriptive, not PREscriptive--they report language as observed. There are a few exceptions, such as dictionaries for artificial languages like Esperanto or loglan or manuals for computer programming languages, and of course any dictionary will reflect biases of the compilers (like American English spellings heavily influenced by a Webster a couple centuries ago).
All natural languages evolve. For a modern English speaker, Shakespearean English is approaching the edge of readability, the older English of Chaucer is a struggle, and Old English is a foreign language.
New words and new uses for old words can come from new technologies (computer, Internet, message board), new social phenomena (social network, unfriend), or the jargons of specialized fields.
I coined the word "mindo" years ago to make a distinction between mental errors and typographical errors (typos) when discussing books. I haven't yet seen it picked up in any dictionary, but I still use it because it is a short way to convey a useful distinction. LOL & OMG and other initialisms have become widespread because they are short and useful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tee
Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 4048
Location: Detroit Metro
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Linda in sw va wrote: | | ...isn't there a saying along the lines of the only constant is change? I don't think even the dictionary can ignore that. |
Checkmate, Linda. You've gotten me back with a gimmick of my own--quotes. 
| Mark wrote: | | Most dictionaries are DEscriptive, not PREscriptive--they report language as observed. |
I think I knew that. But it's good you reminded me of that. I guess where I was coming from is that I look to the dictionary (online, now) to be sure of using the correct word and/or form of the word in a sentence. I still don't accept the word ain't, even though I think it was used back in the 1800s. It just sounds wrong to me. But it is in the dictionary, so I assume it's correct. It sounds horrible when hearing it, though, so I'm sorry it's acceptable. I have used it myself when trying to make a point in a sarcastic way (or cute, whatever), but never in the proper structure of a sentence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Linda in sw va
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 4707
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tee wrote: | | Linda in sw va wrote: | | ...isn't there a saying along the lines of the only constant is change? I don't think even the dictionary can ignore that. |
Checkmate, Linda. You've gotten me back with a gimmick of my own--quotes.
| Mark wrote: | | Most dictionaries are DEscriptive, not PREscriptive--they report language as observed. |
I think I knew that. But it's good you reminded me of that. I guess where I was coming from is that I look to the dictionary (online, now) to be sure of using the correct word and/or form of the word in a sentence. I still don't accept the word ain't, even though I think it was used back in the 1800s. It just sounds wrong to me. But it is in the dictionary, so I assume it's correct. It sounds horrible when hearing it, though, so I'm sorry it's acceptable. I have used it myself when trying to make a point in a sarcastic way (or cute, whatever), but never in the proper structure of a sentence. |
Tee, you should come down south to the country! Ain't is used even by the school teachers here, one of which is my MIL - who is a retired school teacher. It's even used by our local politicians. I notice it because I was not born and raised here, at first I would wince but it is so common now I no longer cringe when I hear it.
Linda
_________________
"The Bookshop has a thousand books, all colors, hues and tinges, and every cover is a door that turns on magic hinges." ~ Nancy Byrd Turner |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CD
Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 654
Location: London, UK
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2011 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
"ain't" is also still used in Britain - although now has strong working class connotations. It rather startled me to read 18th century aristocrats using it!
_________________
"Socialism to help sick people - bad.
Socialism to help billionaires - good." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tee
Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 4048
Location: Detroit Metro
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2011 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Linda in sw va wrote: | | Tee, you should come down south to the country! Ain't is used even by the school teachers here, one of which is my MIL - who is a retired school teacher. It's even used by our local politicians. I notice it because I was not born and raised here, at first I would wince but it is so common now I no longer cringe when I hear it. |
You learn something new every day or at least you should! And I did today. Didn't know that, Linda. Quite frankly, I've only been to a few southern states and didn't spend much time in them. So this would not have been one of the things I noticed. It's a word that sounds crude to me, something like the phrase "shut up" when used as a command, rather than a surprised expression.
And, CD, I didn't know that in the UK it's still a bit popular. My daughter has lived in London for the last 2 1/2 years. Thank goodness, she hasn't picked up on it, or at least that I haven't noticed it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dick
Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 2252
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2011 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Agreed that none of us can stop English from changing, but we can resist those changes which, to me at least, are harmful to its central purpose--communicating. For that reason, I believe dictionaries in common use should do a bit of prescribing while describing--the OED in particular. When words like "heart" and "friend"--which have acquired all the prefixes and suffixes that verbs can have as well--are only described with no prescriptions, language loses precision. As with bad money, imprecise language drives precise language out, communication becomes vaguer, and the entire point of language becomes dimmer.
Curmudgeonly? You bet! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tee
Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 4048
Location: Detroit Metro
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2011 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dick wrote: | | Curmudgeonly? You bet! |
Yes, I rather suspect that's where I'm coming from, also, dick. Liberal in some things, but not everything. After all, there are still some of those sacred cows lying around, thank goodness. What flows out of a person's mouth says so much about him, especially as a first impression. I'll agree that this first assessment isn't always accurate; but it's a measurement that is used by everyone, whether they're aware of it or not. First impressions usually stick--and count. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Linda in sw va
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 4707
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2011 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tee wrote: | | Linda in sw va wrote: | | Tee, you should come down south to the country! Ain't is used even by the school teachers here, one of which is my MIL - who is a retired school teacher. It's even used by our local politicians. I notice it because I was not born and raised here, at first I would wince but it is so common now I no longer cringe when I hear it. |
You learn something new every day or at least you should! And I did today. Didn't know that, Linda. Quite frankly, I've only been to a few southern states and didn't spend much time in them. So this would not have been one of the things I noticed. It's a word that sounds crude to me, something like the phrase "shut up" when used as a command, rather than a surprised expression.
And, CD, I didn't know that in the UK it's still a bit popular. My daughter has lived in London for the last 2 1/2 years. Thank goodness, she hasn't picked up on it, or at least that I haven't noticed it. |
Tee, it's funny, after I got done typing that response to you I walked out and asked my daughter about her homework, her response back to me was "I ain't gonna finish it all tonight anyway, mama." She is definitely a product of her environment, on the other hand our son has picked up my more 'yankee' way of speaking, as they would call it here. At least she didn't say 'no way' instead of anyway, which is also very common here. To be fair, I don't know that it's so much southern as it is 'country' southern, this is rural area and most people are working class - farmers, factory workers, etc.
The reason I asked before if these were labeled as slang was because I know often dictionaries will include all forms of use. Let's take 'cool' for example, it can be many things but you can see here it's slang usage is also listed.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cool
Linda
_________________
"The Bookshop has a thousand books, all colors, hues and tinges, and every cover is a door that turns on magic hinges." ~ Nancy Byrd Turner |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tee
Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 4048
Location: Detroit Metro
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2011 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Linda in sw va wrote: | | To be fair, I don't know that it's so much southern as it is 'country' southern, this is rural area and most people are working class - farmers, factory workers, etc. |
Another mistake of mine--jumping to a conclusion. You did say "come down south to the country" and I automatically assumed a southern state. In fact, we have country here in Michigan. An enlightening discussion with colloquialisms common to different areas. Something like slacks/pants? Nope, I don't want to resurrect that one, but it's related. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Linda in sw va
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 4707
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2011 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tee wrote: | | Linda in sw va wrote: | | To be fair, I don't know that it's so much southern as it is 'country' southern, this is rural area and most people are working class - farmers, factory workers, etc. |
Another mistake of mine--jumping to a conclusion. You did say "come down south to the country" and I automatically assumed a southern state. In fact, we have country here in Michigan. An enlightening discussion with colloquialisms common to different areas. Something like slacks/pants? Nope, I don't want to resurrect that one, but it's related. |
Well I also meant a southern state, I've been to rural areas that didn't have the southern country accent we have here. For instance, here often 'can't' sounds like 'caint' when you hear it spoken. But by contrast if you go to Richmond they have that southern accent but not necessarily the 'country' version, if that makes sense, it's more of a 'upper class' southern.
Linda
_________________
"The Bookshop has a thousand books, all colors, hues and tinges, and every cover is a door that turns on magic hinges." ~ Nancy Byrd Turner |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
willaful
Joined: 02 Jan 2008
Posts: 1468
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2011 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dick wrote: | | Agreed that none of us can stop English from changing, but we can resist those changes which, to me at least, are harmful to its central purpose--communicating. For that reason, I believe dictionaries in common use should do a bit of prescribing while describing--the OED in particular. |
I feel exactly the opposite. To me the primary purpose of the OED is to observe and preserve how language is being used for future knowledge. If everyone agreed with you, we would not have the record of how our language has changed over time.
I might feel differently about them entering other dictionaries.
_________________
"I say, don't read the classics -- try to discover your own classics; every life has its own." -- Rudolf Flesch, _How to Make Sense_ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
