this is one of the words which made it into MWCD-11. do you agree with this article that they rushed the gun by including this?
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1201408,00.asp
Perhaps you could make of it a wwftd.
No, I don't think I agree. There are many terms that are not relevant to modern life but can be found in the dictionary although admittedly they were probably in use for more than five years. But the significance of the phenomenon (or whatever) to which the word referred must also play a part in the decision as to whether to store it up for posterity. The 'dotcom' fiasco probably falls into the same category as the 'South Sea Bubble'; that stock market crash dates back to 1720 and is still taught in History lessons. I suspect that in the future the 'dotcom' crash may also be taught.
For some stuff on the SSB see:
http://www.dal.ca/~dmcneil/sketch.html
Aside from the overall rush of the 'information age' *seemingly promoting/teaching common usage at an exponential rate (which may justify its inclusion), I imagine there are a number of slang (which is what I would call it) werds and spellings with a similar "distribution x frequency x age" product.
This one just ain't that special.
Yes - probably too rushed: how useful a piece of our language will it be in another ten years? But that seems to fit with the frame of reference, too!
Now we could mebbe use
dot-conner to refer to all those modern South Sea Bubblers who could see no further than the stinking riches of the IPO...
or
dot-comma for the multitudes who sprinkle their langauge with a haphazard scattering of puctuation marks without regard to intelligibility or style...
or dot-calm, when the computer gets shut off for the night...
But the significance of the phenomenon (or whatever) to which the word referred must also play a part in the decision as to whether to store it up for posterity.
I've been thinking about this since I first read this thread...what if someone starts to read old newspaper articles in 20 years, for a research project, and needs to know what "dot-commer" means? Even if the word has fallen out of use, it is still useful to have recorded its meaning. Haven't you ever read a book with an archaic word and looked it up, and been (a) thrilled it was in the dictionary anyway, or (b) annoyed because it wasn't?
Good thinking indeed, Bean! [nod of approval]
maverick--
Maverick, that was so subtle I had to go back and re-read after Jackie's post!
Bean, I agree with you. Now how 'bout we further refine it and have "dot-com" as the main entry with the adjectival form listed in that entry (as is the usual way)?
What the HELL is wrong with the guy who wrote that article? I think we should put all the prescriptivists on an island and in 100 years we won't be able to understand each other any more, anyway, so they won't bother us.
"Longneck," described as "beer served in a long-necked bottle," just now made it to Webster's.
Why NOT define it? They used to serve beer in "stubbies" here, and Newfoundland beer bottles are still stubbier than their mainland counterpart. Please tell me why "longneck" isn't useful as the opposite of "stubbies".
McJob Clearly this guy has never been unforunate enought to have had to work at one, or he wouldn't diss the cleverness (or conciseness) of the term.
Headbanger Has he ever watched anyone at a hard-rock or heavy metal show? What other more erudite word would he use?
Frankenfood This one is also clever, but maybe cleverness is no longer allowed in modern day. I'm sure the people who combined such words as "twist" and "fiddle" to make "twiddle" were just as clever as the ones who coined "Frankenfoods".
gastroesophageal reflux What's wrong with this one? Enough people have it that it's talked about in common conversations. Why NOT put it in the dictionary?
I don't get what this guy's problem is. Of eleven words he discusses, I don't see any, except maybe scuzzball, that are redundant with words already in existence.
>Of eleven words he [disses], I don't see any, except maybe scuzzball, that are redundant with words already in existence.
Bean, I think he was railing more against quality, not quantity.
But he doesn't give any arguments for why something is an undesirable word. He just dismisses them out of hand. I don't like it when people say "I hate xxxxx" without giving me a good reason! If he can think of a more concise word than, say "McJob", with the same meaning, more power to him. But he hasn't offered any alternatives nor any reason for his scorn.
And I think he misses the whole point of Frankenfood. I think we can safely assume that the good folks at ADM don't refer to it as Frankenfood.
he doesn't give any arguments for why something is (an) undesirable It is the democratisation of language that is under debate. In the war between the will of the majority and the rights of the minority, the scales are tipped heavily in favour of the majority and consequently, art, culture and language are increasingly becoming populist. Whilst such trends cannot be controlled, there is a very real fear amongst the classical minded, of the erosion of standards. On the matter of language, I swing capriciously between both points of view.
Ahem...Mav, am the resident comma queen, and suffer deeply from the prediliction that you so lucidly describe! 
art, culture and language are increasingly becoming populist
Are they really? Before there were dictionaries for prescriptivists to refer to, language must've been pretty populist. When most of the population couldn't read the dictionaries, actual usage must've still determined whether or not something was accepted by others as a word. Art - weren't Shakespeare's plays written "for the masses"? Wasn't Mozart pretty much writing popular music in his time? I'm sure you can think of visual artists who did the same. It's only we who consider such stuff "art" and modern popular stuff "not art". In two hundred years what we consider "popular music" will have moved into the realm of "classical*" or "art" music. And the words and meanings that most people use will still be understood by most people, whether or not they've made it into a dictionary.
* by this I mean the popular definition of classical music, oh pickers-of-nits
* by this I mean the popular definition of classical music, oh pickers-of-nits.
Don't get me stYARTed, Bean.
----------------
Frankenfood This one is also clever, but maybe cleverness is no longer allowed in modern day. I'm sure the people who combined such words as "twist" and "fiddle" to make "twiddle" were just as clever as the ones who coined "Frankenfoods".
I don't think it's all THAT clever, but...
the corruption of our language
I think it's worse than a dialectic between classical/populist ~ in my experience this kind of prescriptivist nonsense not only begs the question, but is founded on a less than adequate understanding of the ongoing process which constitutes language. He tacitly assumes a model that sees 'the English language' as a finished artwork, not to be touched or tampered with...
I see it much more as an evolutionary process, a (number of varieties of) continuous flows to which we all add and subtract. Like any other human social product, it has the meaning, and only the meaning, that we collectively invest in it.
I'll fight yah fer that dubious honour, maahey! ~ I chose the name maverick more because of my errant spelling and punctuation than my social outlook, but just try harder nowadays!
I see it much more as an evolutionary process, a (number of varieties of) continuous flows to which we all add and subtract. Like any other human social product, it has the meaning, and only the meaning, that we collectively invest in it.
Yeahbut®, Humpty said the same thing 120 years ago, and much more concisely.
True. So did some damn Yankee lexo, which was quoted only recently on AWAD's final line...
>So did some damn Yankee lexo, which was quoted only recently on AWAD's final line...
Sorry, I don't get the AWAD mail.
hmmm. Think it was one of the dailies but.
Can’t find the file with Anu’s citation, but here’s where I used the same quote a while back:
http://wordsmith.org/board/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=theme&Number=18236I also just found this quotation in David Crystal’s ‘Words on Words’ (pub Penguin Books, 2000):
The notion that anything is gained by fixing a language in a groove is cherished only by pedants. ~ HL Mencken, 1919,
The American Language
How odd, he complains of additions to the English Language. I don't mind new additions whether I would use them or not. Especially if they describe something new or in a new way eg. Frankenfood or McJob. What makes me sad is the words which drop out of common use. I'm afraid that losing words will simplify the way we think. The first example which comes to mind is color, things used to be cerulean or teal or azure or periwinkle blue. Now they are light, dark or "sort of a medium bluey-greeny kind of colour". If we only have a generic word for it do we only see a generic colour.
My high school English teacher devided words into weedy, those often overused words with imprecise meanings eg. you look nice and woody those that gave a specific meaning eg you look elegant. Papers were often handed back to be weeded.
My high school English teacher devided words into weedy, those often overused words with imprecise meanings eg. you look nice and woody those that gave a specific meaning eg you look elegant. Papers were often handed back to be weeded.that's splendid!
I'm of the opinion that if a dictionary is designed to be a reference book rather than a text book - and I assume that this is the case - then any word (or meaning of a word) which gains more than a very local or regional currency, even for a short time, should be included. Think how many archaic or "obsolete" words and definitions of words which are vaguely attributed at best or are a pure and simple guess at worst - ?1320, for instance - simply because no one went to the trouble of defining how the word was used at the time. Do we want future generations to be put in the same position simply to somehow keep dictionaries "pure"? That's horseshit!
And if I'm correct, then all of the words mentioned above should be included in all dictionaries. To hell with the purists. Their continued position in the gene pool seems less than certain, anyway. Too fussy to breed, most of 'em ...
To be fair to the man, I think he was saying that he was surprised longneck wasn't in the MW dictionary long ago.
Bingley
words which drop out of common use
This raises the question: Is the loss of words cause or effect? That is, does the loss of words restrict our choices in thinking or do we lose words because they have no more use?
do we lose words because they have no more use?Ah, this reminds me of Dr. Bill's thread(s) on obsolete occupations from a while back:
http://wordsmith.org/board/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=miscellany&Number=69547http://wordsmith.org/board/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=miscellany&Number=70168Presumably once the occupation becomes obsolete, people no longer remember the word.
once the occupation becomes obsolete, people no longer remember the word
Unless, as noted in the second thread, it becomes fossilized in a name.
...errant spelling and punctuation...
Spoken like a true prescriptionist.
What's the difference if you make a mistake with linguistic *protocol, intend to alter it, don't know "better" and/or have someone misinterpret ones' intentions?
-----------
That is, does the loss of words restrict our choices in thinking or do we lose words because they have no more use?
What see ye the difference between these two?
That is, does the loss of words restrict our choices in thinking or do we lose words because they have no more use?
What see ye the difference between these two?
I think Zed's post answers this, at least partially: I'm afraid that losing words will simplify the way we think. The first example which comes to mind is color, things used to be cerulean or teal or azure or periwinkle blue. Now they are light, dark or "sort of a medium bluey-greeny kind of colour". If we only have a generic word for it do we only see a generic colour.
Faldage, the "b" part of your question, we lose words because they have no more use, is much more common than the "a" part, I feel sure. I think we very much need to be on guard against a; although this will inevitably lead to disagreements, as exemplified by this thread. I really hate the idea of our whole society being dumbed down.
Hmm--do you-all think that our harried, hurried lifestyle contributes to this [off-the-cuff thought e]? I was looking back at Zed's example; I can envision a person needing to direct someone to their car, let's say, and simply saying, "It's the blue Nissan", without worrying about specifying azure, midnight blue, etc. Can anyone think of any other examples, or am I off the wall, here? (I may well be; I haven't had the best of days, so far.)
I think Zed's post answers this, at least partially:
I'm afraid that losing words will simplify the way we think.
The first example which comes to mind is color, things used to be cerulean or teal or azure or periwinkle blue. Now they are light, dark or "sort of a medium bluey-greeny kind of colour". If we only have a generic word for it do we only see a generic colour.
Well, this here is an example of the old Sapir-Whorf hypothesis; i.e., language shapes thought. Eskimos have forty-eleven names for snow so this must mean they can distinguish as many. Some Polynesian groups have only two words for colors, meaning warm and cool, therefore they can only see two colors. Hogwash®, I say!! While this theory once pulled me by my little college-girl ears, I think it's for the most part a bunch of baloney.
We discussed this elsewhere, can anyone with time and talent do a YART search?
Well, dunno about the time and especially the talent, but:
http://wordsmith.org/board/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=miscellany&Number=100849Odd--in the Search window, the markup tags are spelled out, and not carried out.
Thanks for the reminder; I still find that theory fascinating. Have to point out, though, that it didn't seem to me that Faldage's question, or my quote from Zed, involved actual capability: it seemed to me (let me emphasize
seemed) that they were speaking more of habitual thinking.
Yes, I was referring to habitual thinking. I should have said do we bother to notice differring colours or specifics. not can we see them.