• 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.
A

Arthr2ShdsJcksn

Banned
The Oxford dictionary continues to understand that language is always changing. It does not judge, only documents, and that is pretty awesomesauce.
 
K

KimiNewt

Scored 3/100 on an Exam
genjiZERO said:
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.
Click to expand...
They can remove words from the dictionary, in case they don't last (like "gullible").
 
C

Chipotle

Member
I like the definition of social justice warrior. Will annoy Gamergate types who have a propensity to go for pedantic, dictionary-definition arguments and see themselves as somehow progressive.
 
S

StoneFox

Member
Did a past generation have this same reaction when "cool" was added to the dictionary and it didn't just mean the opposite of warm anymore? :p

Some of you guys are overreacting, just because the dictionary has definitions of words you don't agree with doesn't mean you are forced to use them. lol
 
O

Opiate

Member
Hilbert said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, flammable was "bad," in that it was inefficient. We have to deal with it now, of course, because both words exist. I think making inflammable mean "especially dangerously flammable" is a reasonable solution to the currently existing problem.

Language grows more efficient over time, and anything which detracts from that efficiency is bad. Of course, that progress is gradual and uneven, occurring in two steps forward one step back fashion, but it's certainly true that the step back is a bad one.
 
C

Chipotle

Member
Opiate said:
Yes, flammable was "bad," in that it was inefficient. We have to deal with it now, of course, because both words exist. I think making inflammable mean "especially dangerously flammable" is a reasonable solution to the currently existing problem.

Language grows more efficient over time, and anything which detracts from that efficiency is bad. Of course, that progress is gradual and uneven, occurring in two steps forward one step back fashion, but it's certainly true that the step back is a bad one.
Click to expand...
Does language grow more efficient over time? I'd be interested in seeing a source for that. I like the inefficiencies in English, feels like they add more flavour to it and benefit things like literature and poetry. Of course, I don't think any one language is better than another and you could imagine how a simpler, more efficient language would bring it's own benefits.
 
H

Hilbert

Deep into his 30th decade
Opiate said:
Yes, flammable was "bad," in that it was inefficient. We have to deal with it now, of course, because both words exist. I think making inflammable mean "especially dangerously flammable" is a reasonable solution to the currently existing problem.

Language grows more efficient over time, and anything which detracts from that efficiency is bad. Of course, that progress is gradual and uneven, occurring in two steps forward one step back fashion, but it's certainly true that the step back is a bad one.
Click to expand...

You are changing your argument, just because something is efficient does not mean it is better then something expressed less so. Efficient has a specific meaning, and how I was supposed to get that from "bad" and "good" is completely beyond me. Nor do I agree that an inefficient way to say something is always a worse way. That seems like a ridiculously strict and unpleasant way to view language.

Wouldn't flammable be the more efficient way to express the concept? Fewer syllables, and less chance of confusion in thinking that the 'in' prefix says that it isn't flammable? Like indestructible. In terms of purely efficient, flammable is preferable to inflammable.

And again, I would like to stress: Labelling language like this as good or bad is not only not helpful and silly, it can lead to assumptions that can hurt people.
 
G

Goldenroad

Member
how are things like Cat Cafe and Pocket Dial "words in the dictionary", I mean "cat", "cafe", "pocket" and "dial" are in the dictionary already...can't people figure these things out based on looking up the individual words? Shouldn't every combination of any two words be included in the dictionary?
 
Z

Zophar

Member
People in this thread understand the OED catalogs the language's lexical evolution and records -anything- that falls into common usage, whether we believe it's a real word or not, right? It's functionally different from everything else we typically understand is a "dictionary".
 
D

DonasaurusRex

Online Ho Champ
rage-quit and fatberg now thats funny.....

I guess it gives you something to do , but these words are soon to be..forgotten as well. I suppose being mostly digital allows for more things to be included with less hassle.
 
O

Opiate

Member
Hilbert said:
You are changing your argument, just because something is efficient does not mean it is better then something expressed less so.
Click to expand...

I am not changing my argument. I am saying something is good or bad. You clearly wanted me to elaborate on that: I am defining "good" as "efficient." In case that needs further elaboration, efficient language is language which is concise and specific.

Efficient has a specific meaning, and how I was supposed to get that from "bad" and "good" is completely beyond me. Nor do I agree that an inefficient way to say something is always a worse way. That seems like a ridiculously strict and unpleasant way to view language.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you were supposed to understand that (although it could be inferred), but regardless, I am telling you now. This is how discussion occurs: one person makes a statement. Another person disagrees. The other person clarifies and elaborates on their argument, and so forth.

I definitely believe efficiency is good, because I believe being able to say the same thing more specifically and in less time is valuable. If you do not believe time or specificity are valuable, then you are fundamentally challenging some pretty basic human values, which is such a big argument that I'd rather not get in to it here.

Wouldn't flammable be the more efficient way to express the concept? Fewer syllables, and less chance of confusion in thinking that the 'in' prefix says that it isn't flammable? Like indestructible. In terms of purely efficient, flammable is preferable to inflammable.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is certainly not easy. I'd also be happy with inflammable disappearing and being replaced by flammable.

And again, I would like to stress: Labelling language like this as good or bad is not only not helpful and silly, it can lead to assumptions that can hurt people.
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate on how this can hurt people? Because that seems very silly to me. Labeling language is highly valuable, so explaining why labeling is bad will need some elaboration.
 
H

Hilbert

Deep into his 30th decade
Opiate said:
I am not changing my argument. I am saying something is good or bad. You clearly wanted me to elaborate on that: I am defining "good" as "efficient."

I'm not sure you were supposed to understand that (although it could be inferred), but regardless, I am telling you now. This is how discussion occurs: one person makes a statement. Another person disagrees. The other person clarifies and elaborates on their argument.
I definitely believe efficiency is good, because I believe being able to say the same thing in less time is valuable. If you do not believe time is valuable, then you are fundamentally challenging basic human values, which is such a big argument that I'd rather not get in to it here.
Click to expand...

It would be nice if you could cut out the snide remarks, and just admit you weren't clear. I do not require an explanation on how a discussion works as if I were a small child.

Calling efficiency as always being fundamentally better, to the point that is a "basic human value" is so ridiculously hyperbolic and obviously an attempt to shut down the conversation, I am beginning to question if this is worth engaging in a conversation with you at all.

Opiate said:
Yes, it is certainly not easy. I'd also be happy with inflammable disappearing and being replaced by flammable.
Click to expand...
You called the creation of flammable as inefficient, when it clearly is not so. Your other premise is that language always evolves toward efficiency, which doesn't make sense if you already claim the creation of a more efficient word is in itself an act of inefficiency.


Opiate said:
Can you elaborate on how this can hurt people? Because that seems very silly to me. Labeling language is highly valuable, so explaining why labeling is bad will need some elaboration.
Click to expand...

Because, describing the way some people talk as "good" or "bad" is such a judgement call, not a useful label, it can cloud perceptions of people. The way people talk comes from culture and upbringing. If you have two people that say the same thing, but one is what you perceive as "bad" where does that lead you? Do you make assumptions about that person's educational level or background? And even if you do not, supposed this idea of good and bad is propagated, can you not see how it will quickly grow out of control, with unintended consequences? We already judge people on the way they talk, in particular minorities, such as saying that football player spoke like a thug, or Obama is so well spoken. It is dangerous to add another way to judge people that talk differently than your arbitrary judgement call to the mix.
 
O

Opiate

Member
Hilbert said:
It would be nice if you could cut out the snide remarks, and just admit you weren't clear. I do not require an explanation on how a discussion works as if I were a small child.
Click to expand...

That's not intended to be snide. I believe that could be inferred, but since it was not I elaborated. I have no idea why you're taking this so personally.

Calling efficiency as always being fundamentally better, to the point that is a "basic human value" is so ridiculously hyperbolic and obviously an attempt to shut down the conversation, I am beginning to question if this is worth engaging in a conversation with you at all.
Click to expand...

Yes, efficiency is a basic human value. Almost everything about human existence has been gradually but relentlessly increasing in efficiency since the beginning of civilization.

You called the creation of flammable as inefficient, when it clearly is not so. Your other premise is that language always evolves toward efficiency, which doesn't make sense if you already claim the creation of a more efficient word is in itself an act of inefficiency.
Click to expand...

Neurolinguistics are not a new field and the gradual increase in information density has been noted for a long time. There are multiple methods to achieve higher information density per second,
but most languages seem to be evolving at approximately the same rate.


Because, describing the way some people talk as "good" or "bad" is such a judgement call, not a useful label, it can cloud perceptions of people. The way people talk comes from culture and upbringing. If you have two people that say the same thing, but one is what you perceive as "bad" where does that lead you?
Click to expand...

Hopefully the person with poor language skills improve those skills, but I know everyone has struggles. Saying that a person has X or Y flaw does not mean I think they are universally bad, as everyone has flaws.

Do you make assumptions about that person's educational level or background? And even if you do not, supposed this idea of good and bad is propagated, can you not see how it will quickly grow out of control, with unintended consequences? We already judge people on the way they talk, in particular minorities, such as saying that football player spoke like a thug, or Obama is so well spoken. It is dangerous to add another way to judge people that talk differently than your arbitrary judgement call to the mix.
Click to expand...

I do not know if "ebonics," as it is colloquially known, is worse than proper English. It's not my field of study. Maybe it's better, in which case those who speak "proper" English are wrong . It shouldn't be unacceptable for us to say that any more than it's unacceptable for us to say that fat people are worse than fit people, ceteris paribus.
 
G

GtwoK

Member
I don't mind the inclusion of the majority of these (unlike most people ITT), but I don't understand the inclusion of Redditor. Should we include words for users of ever exist in company? That fact that it's company-specific annoys me; it's not a generic term like "to google", where you're referring to Internet searching in general. It can only be used to describe someone on reddit. Why not "YouTuber", or other website-specific term? Or hell, even things like "McEmployee". It really has no place in there, especially when for all we know Reddit may not even be around in 2 years (hypothetically). It reeks of some kind of licensing thing.

In the same vein, cat cafe: there are so many kinds of ____ cafes, why did they pick cats specifically? It seems so weird to single out a specific one.
 
N

Niel

Member
There hasn't been a single point in history in which people did not believe that their language was 'declining'.

It's called evolution. That's why languages exist as we know them.
 
H

Hunkasaurus Rex

Banned
Aeris130 said:
Does "Redditor" stop being a word if the website shuts down or changes name?
Click to expand...
I kind of hope it will. I've been going to Reddit for 4 years now and it's gotten boring. I go there out of habit. Someone needs to shake up the game. The site doesn't encourage as interesting discussion as I'd hope because of the hivemind and karma system. I almost thought it'd go down with all that Ellen Pao nonsense.
 
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