• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Decline of English Language continues - new words added to Oxford Dictionary

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NoblesseOblige

Banned
Novocaine said:
As long as 'alot' doesn't get added I'll be fine with whatever. I'm totally calling someone a fatberg today, that's a cool word.
Click to expand...

ALOT.png
Click to expand...

Only a matter of time until this fellow is added.
 
O

Opiate

Member
Opiate's helpful guide to whether the creation of new words is good or not:

Is the new word a unique tool to describe something which heretofore required lengthier description? If yes, then this new word is good. "Hangry" is an example here. Another previous example would be "selfie," which is something I don't personally like but it's good that we now have a word for that specific thing.

Is the word just a retread of already existing concepts? Then the word is bad. An example here would be "bants." Another example would be "bae." A classic example would be "inflammable." These words are redundant and unnecessary as we already have words to describe these concepts.
 
P

params7

Banned
I really feel the quality of colloquial English has gone down compared to how people spoke on a day to day basis 100 years ago. But then again, all people did then where read books while today we have all kinds of awesomesauce degeneracy like the internet and pop culture where you look weird if chose not to speak with dumb, simple ass words.
 
S

Shokifer

Member
Opiate said:
Opiate's helpful guide to whether the creation of new words is good or not:

Is the new word a unique tool to describe something which heretofore required lengthier description? If yes, then this new word is good. "Hangry" is an example here. Another previous example would be "selfie," which is something I don't personally like but it's good that we now have a word for that specific thing.

Is the word just a retread of already existing concepts? Then the word is bad. An example here would be "bants." Another example would be "bae." A classic example would be "inflammable." These words are redundant and unnecessary as we already have words to describe these concepts.
Click to expand...

I always thought it was a good thing to have multiple words for the same idea. It helps prevent repetition and if you need to express a concept you can choose which word sounds or fits best.

I'm not sure our vocabulary needs to be purely utilitarian, especially with the existence of art and such.
 
M

marrec

Banned
NoblesseOblige said:
I am fine with slang being added if it has any long-standing or cultural value. I do not see 'awesomeauce' as being either of those things. But maybe I'm wrong and the word is used more than I think. Or maybe in 20 years someone will play Life is Strange and be absolutely baffled by the vernacular, requiring them to consult a dictionary. Though even today all they have to do is type 'define: awesomesauce' into a search bar and likely get a result. I'm just not sure why the OED is including it. It devalues the reason for me to use it.

I fear soon I may just need to surrender and accept that 'nite' and 'lite' are proper spellings, or 'moot' means 'irrelevant' opposed to its more classical use of 'open to discussion'.
Click to expand...

I gave up on strict meanings and spellings a long time ago. No need to bog down discussions or conversations with pedantry!
 
F

Featheredkitten

Banned
Are we really, really going to do prescriptivist talk? Look, dictionaries don't decide word use. Dictionaries are reflections of actual word use, they are descriptions of how people are using words in actual real life. Adding words to dictionaries doesn't automatically flip a switch and make it a true word, those words are already real words. Language changes, it's not a decline, it's natural language evolution. Accept it.
 
U

Unfathomability

Neo Member
The dictionary should reflect common language use, and evolve as the language evolves. For those worried if the slang terms has staying power, the unabridged OED is full of slang that has not been in common use in centuries. If it appears with a certain frequency or in a certain context in the corpus, it goes in the book. The dictionary is a reference for word meanings, not a list of "good words". A word being added is not an endorsement (nor is leaving it out a condemnation).
 
M

mre

Golden Domers are chickenshit!!
2018 will be the year the OED just says "fuck it" and adopts all of Urban Dictionary.
 
H

helloresolven

Member
Novocaine said:
As long as 'alot' doesn't get added I'll be fine with whatever. I'm totally calling someone a fatberg today, that's a cool word.
Click to expand...

Cupboard used to be spelled 'cup board'. It's only a matter of a time until people realize the stupid space in between a and lot isn't worth getting that worked up about.
 
M

Mr Git

Member
Unfathomability said:
The dictionary should reflect common language use, and evolve as the language evolves. For those worried if the slang terms has staying power, the unabridged OED is full of slang that has not been in common use in centuries. If it appears with a certain frequency or in a certain context in the corpus, it goes in the book. The dictionary is a reference for word meanings, not a list of "good words". A word being added is not an endorsement (nor is leaving it out a condemnation).
Click to expand...

This. The additions are mostly informal stuff so still not going to be seen everywhere. Lexicographers follow word usage with corpora - biggest these days being a search engine like Google - if these words are being used very frequently they become part of the language. It's how it is.
 
N

NoblesseOblige

Banned
helloresolven said:
Cupboard used to be spelled 'cup board'. It's only a matter of a time until people realize the stupid space in between a and lot isn't worth getting that worked up about.
Click to expand...

Cupboard comes from cuppebord. And nobody even pronounces the p. Abolish that bastard of a word as well. It's a cabinet (or closet since I think that's the UK use of cupboard).
 
A

Agent Gibbs

Member
oh god, if there was only one or two i'd rant about them, but man that list! Awesomesauce, Manspreading, Hangry, beer-o-clock etc etc etc jesus its like someone got every slang word they could find and added them so they could be down with the kids.

all those words are buzz words, words of the moment, they'll be as dead as using radical for something cool - with cool equally being replaced!
Words should only be added if they last over a decade of popular use

what next a sub dictionary with every word starting with a #HASHTAG - the Oxford Hashtag Dictionary, all words explained for the twittersphere
 
S

SoundLad

Member
me and the missus have been using "hangry" for years (usually after work, before dinner).

Glad it's an official now bruh
 
P

ppor

Member
Opiate said:
Opiate's helpful guide to whether the creation of new words is good or not:

Is the new word a unique tool to describe something which heretofore required lengthier description? If yes, then this new word is good. "Hangry" is an example here. Another previous example would be "selfie," which is something I don't personally like but it's good that we now have a word for that specific thing.

Is the word just a retread of already existing concepts? Then the word is bad. An example here would be "bants." Another example would be "bae." A classic example would be "inflammable." These words are redundant and unnecessary as we already have words to describe these concepts.
Click to expand...

w/e bae
 
V

Vincent Grayson

Member
Agent Gibbs said:
oh god, if there was only one or two i'd rant about them, but man that list! Awesomesauce, Manspreading, Hangry, beer-o-clock etc etc etc jesus its like someone got every slang word they could find and added them so they could be down with the kids.

all those words are buzz words, words of the moment, they'll be as dead as using radical for something cool - with cool equally being replaced!
Words should only be added if they last over a decade of popular use

what next a sub dictionary with every word starting with a #HASHTAG - the Oxford Hashtag Dictionary, all words explained for the twittersphere
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're being facetious, but a #dictionary would actually be a pretty useful resource for people unfamiliar with Twitter and hashtags in general.
 
P

Polip Fawn

Banned
They should but asterix's next to almost all those words and put thejm under the "slang section" if they keep this up "facebooking, Tweeting, Binging, and Googling" will be words.
 
B

Blue Lou

Member
markofhavoc said:
I find it interesting that awesomesauce is one word, but lame sauce is two. Anyhow, on my way home once I listened to an entire npr show about words, I found it strangely fascinating. Did you know that an apron was originally a napron? Just because it sounded like an apron, rather then a napron, we changed it? Dumb things I learned
Click to expand...

it sounds like you'd like The Allusionist podcast.
 
U

Unfathomability

Neo Member
Polip Fawn said:
They should but asterix's next to almost all those words and put thejm under the "slang section" if they keep this up "facebooking, Tweeting, Binging, and Googling" will be words.
Click to expand...

The verb "to google" was added to the OED in 2006. Googling is already in :)
And of course they are words, what else would they be? Collections of letters does not magically turn into words by being in the dictionary.
 
N

NoblesseOblige

Banned
Well I hope they add 'bro-job' next. If we're going to be silly then I want to include the heterosexual act of a man blowing his male buddy to prove their straightness in the dictionary.
 
H

Hilbert

Deep into his 30th decade
Everytime these threads come up I think people misunderstand the purpose of a dictionary. It is not to create a standard for the language, but to record the use of language.

English is not Spanish or French, we do not have a group that determines the official course of the language. Personally I think that is a good thing.

Opiate said:
Opiate's helpful guide to whether the creation of new words is good or not:

Is the new word a unique tool to describe something which heretofore required lengthier description? If yes, then this new word is good. "Hangry" is an example here. Another previous example would be "selfie," which is something I don't personally like but it's good that we now have a word for that specific thing.

Is the word just a retread of already existing concepts? Then the word is bad. An example here would be "bants." Another example would be "bae." A classic example would be "inflammable." These words are redundant and unnecessary as we already have words to describe these concepts.
Click to expand...

There are probably more redundant words in English than non. I don't think that labeling these redundant or non redundant words as "good" or "bad" is helpful or useful, or even remotely correct.
 
N

NoblesseOblige

Banned
Hilbert said:
Everytime these threads come up I think people misunderstand the purpose of a dictionary. It is not to create a standard for the language, but to record the use of language.
Click to expand...

A dictionary is simply a collection of words with definitions. They may either exist to create a standard, or to record the use of language, or even something else. That depends entirely on a specific dictionary's objective. In the end I can't think of a single dictionary that isn't curated in some way. So I don't think any are truly meant to serve as a record of language. There would just be way too much to be of any value. Oxford has (or had) a history of claiming to be the authority on the English language. That is part of the reason why many expect a more heavily discriminate listing from it.
 
Xisiqomelir

Xisiqomelir

Member
I opened OP with great trepidation....

...but "irregardless" is still not a word, so I'm fine. I can live with "cupcakery" and "weaksauce".
 
H

Hilbert

Deep into his 30th decade
NoblesseOblige said:
A dictionary is simply a collection of words with definitions. They may either exist to create a standard, or to record the use of language, or even something else. That depends entirely on a specific dictionary's objective. In the end I can't think of a single dictionary that isn't curated in some way. So I don't think any are truly meant to serve as a record of language. There would just be way too much to be of any value. Oxford has (or had) a history of claiming to be the authority on the English language. That is part of the reason why many expect a more heavily discriminate listing from it.
Click to expand...

OED describes itself as "The definitive record of the English language" and as a "Historical Dictionary". It does not, and never has, promoted a discriminate listing or an authority on correctness. That is sort of assumed on your part.
.
http://public.oed.com/about/
 
G

genjiZERO

Member
It's all shitty slang terms again it seems. I don't mind adding them for historical preservation, but lets get real almost all of these are trendy colloquialisms that won't make it through the decade.
 
O

Opiate

Member
Hilbert said:
There are probably more redundant words in English than non. I don't think that labeling these redundant or non redundant words as "good" or "bad" is helpful or useful, or even remotely correct.
Click to expand...

There are a relatively small number of redundant words (synonyms are not necessarily redundant, although of course they can be), and it useful, and I do think it's correct to label redundant words as bad.
 
H

Hilbert

Deep into his 30th decade
Opiate said:
There are a relatively small number of redundant words (synonyms are not necessarily redundant, although of course they can be), and it useful, and I do think it's correct to label redundant words as bad.
Click to expand...

So tell me, between flammable and inflammable which is good and which is bad? Inflammable came first, it is directly derived from latin. However flammable is simpler. When flammable appeared was its creation bad? And where does combustible fit in? And while they may be the same officially now, I see inflammable as evolving to imply something more dangerous than flammable.

Labelling language like this as good or bad is not only not helpful and silly, it can lead to assumptions that can hurt people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

[Atlantic] America Has a Drinking Problem
2 3
149
21K
Hawking Radiation replied
  • Locked
The 150 new words to get added to the dictionary this year
2
95
7K
Kinyou replied
  • Locked
You won't believe which words Merriam-Webster added to dictionary
2
51
4K
Moosichu replied
  • Locked
Dia de Muertos 2016 - A tradition that refuses to die.
2
63
12K
Mdk7 replied
  • Locked
Atlantic: The Poor & the Well Off Rebelling Against the Rich in the Republican Party
2 3
114
15K
Infinite replied
Top Bottom