OMG lol is in the dictionary

[Retro_Link]

How very right-wing...

 

I don't really understand this snobbery. Use words you want to use. I'd prefer to have the option to look up the definition of pruk if I needed to.

 

Language is a living organism. Deal with. I hate the concept of having to appeal to Oxford to check whether a word is proper or not.

So you'd open the dictionary up to include mispronunciations would you?

[EEVILMURRAY]

I don't really understand this snobbery.

I don't believe your opinions though, so...

 

Also, cracking Janet Jackson image. Eating what appears to be an orange. Looks pretty rigid and shit.

 

 

I'd prefer to have the option to look up the definition of pruk if I needed to.

That's what Urban Dictionary is for.

Then why don't you type "hahaha"?

I do.

Edited March 28, 2011 by EEVILMURRAY

[chairdriver]

So you'd open the dictionary up to include mispronunciations would you?

 

No, I'd be less anal about the whole affair, and include words because they deserve to be there, rather than disincluding words because we're concerned about the chavification of the English language.

[EEVILMURRAY]

include words because they deserve to be there, rather than disincluding words because we're concerned about the chavification of the English language.

You believe a word like "pruk" deserves a place in the Oxford Dictionary?

[Diageo]

I will not fucking deal with it. I will not.

 

This matter is undealwithable!

Edited March 28, 2011 by Diageo

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

We then, lets just throw our language over to the chavs and include 'innit' and 'pruk' aswell.

 

But it's not a matter of "throwing the language over" or "giving it up". People already use the language that way. We're simply updating the dictionaries to reflect reality. Besides, it's not like standard English is "threatened". Standard English will develop along with people's use of it.

 

Language is, as chair so well put it, a living organism. It's not something that linguists sit down and make the rules for. Every grammatical rule in existence, every description of how to use a language is a result of observing how people actually use the language.

[chairdriver]

You believe a word like "pruk" deserves a place in the Oxford Dictionary?

 

Well considering I've never actually heard it being used / don't know what it is/means, I'd argue no.

[EEVILMURRAY]

Well considering I've never actually heard it being used / don't know what it is/means, I'd argue no.

I thought you'd want it in there, so you'd know what it means when you would like to know. We know how you dislike phoning up Oxford asking if a word is proper or not.

[chairdriver]

I thought you'd want it in there, so you'd know what it means when you would like to know. We know how you dislike phoning up Oxford asking if a word is proper or not.

 

My god. Could you be any more contrary / Diageo about things?

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

My god. Could you be any more contrary / Diageo about things?

 

It's just EEVIL being himself. If he diagrees with it, it needs to be mocked. Hard.

[Diageo]

My god. Could you be any more contrary / Diageo about things?

I don't believe my name is in the dictionary, therefore you can't use it.

[chairdriver]

I don't believe my name is in the dictionary, therefore you can't use it.

 

 

FUCK you. FUCK you. FUCK you. etc.

 

[said in time with swinging hands.]

 

 

[:p Don't really hate you.]

[EEVILMURRAY]

My god. Could you be any more contrary / Diageo about things?

I was just repeating what you said.

 

Except the phoning of Oxford. I thought you'd get impatient waiting for a reply if you emailed them.

 

 

On a serious note, please put that image in spoiler tags. It's making me gag.

Edited March 28, 2011 by EEVILMURRAY

[Ramar]

Ugh, whats worse than a topic about the dictionary?

 

A topic about the dictionary with a gif of a dirty middle aged woman* in a leotard.

 

 

 

 

 

*Yes, I am aware its Madonna. It changes nothing.

[chairdriver]

Except the phoning of Oxford. I thought you'd get impatient waiting for a reply if you emailed them.

 

[i have a friend who works for OUP/OED, so...]

[EEVILMURRAY]

Besides, most of you are ignoring the fact that "lol" isn't necessarily used in place of a laugh, it is used as a quicker, more flexible alternative for "laugh" ("Man, I lolled so hard", or "That was lol worthy")

But that's not what has it has been decreed:

 

abbreviation

informal

 

*

laughing (or laugh) out loud.

Taken from http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0479030#m_en_gb0479030

 

Sadly it mentions nothing about using it in such a context.

[i have a friend who works for OUP/OED, so...]

So you may get an answer quicker due to your inside contact. Awesome.

 

Ask them if they're planning on adding the Jonnas context amendments to "lol".

Edited March 28, 2011 by EEVILMURRAY

[Daft]

[Diageo]

 

FUCK you. FUCK you. FUCK you. etc.

 

[said in time with swinging hands.]

 

 

[:p Don't really hate you.]

Of course not, I'm just the worst person in your life.

[Raining_again]

braaaaaap!

 

this thread is just getting silly

[Supergrunch]

Facepalm at this thread. Dictionaries aren't intented to be definitive records of what's correct, they're just supposed to be (inevitably partial and incomplete) records of usage, though of course they can also be useful if you want to know a spelling. This doesn't mean that anything not in the dictionary isn't part of the language - after all, dictionaries only list headwords, so even eats isn't included. The OED in particular is a record of written English, and so if something gets written enough, it's fair enough that it gets included. Although I don't know what they count as "enough" or which written sources are acceptable. So yeah, they call themselves "the definitive record of the English language," but that's just marketing speak for "we think we're the best dictionary."

TTYL? Who even uses that? I had to google it to find out.

 

Is google in the dictionary? What about hoover and biro?

My sister does I think, it does seem like an odd candidate to include though. And google, hoover and biro are all in the OED, I just checked.

I hate the concept of having to appeal to Oxford to check whether a word is proper or not.

As above, this basically stems from a misinterpretation of what dictionaries are for. Unless of course you're a second language learner of English, in which case there are much better sources than the OED, which are actually oriented towards learners.

I don't see what's so wrong with <3. It's a symbol just like "I" is, or "A" is.

It's actually quite different to I or A - instead of (roughly) representing a phoneme, it represents a concept. So it's more like a Chinese character than an English letter, although far more ideographic than most Chinese characters are.

Language is, as chair so well put it, a living organism. It's not something that linguists sit down and make the rules for. Every grammatical rule in existence, every description of how to use a language is a result of observing how people actually use the language.

That's kind of the right idea, but people come up with "rules" all the time that were never actually used, like the one about splitting infinitives. Also I think the organism metaphor is a bit odd as it implies that language somehow exists outside of speakers.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Supergrunch

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

And once again Supergrunch wins a thread about language! Let's just close this now, shall we?

[heroicjanitor]

It's actually quite different to I or A - instead of (roughly) representing a phoneme, it represents a concept. So it's more like a Chinese character than an English letter, although far more ideographic than most Chinese characters are.

 

Which is exactly why I don't think it should be included(also reminded me of Chinese). There are enough rules in the language already but the basic one is that words are made up of letters from the alphabet, which is great for keyboards, but now we can draw a picture of a heart? It doesn't even mean heart... Just a quick question on what your opinion is on including an entirely new symbol is?

[Supergrunch]

Which is exactly why I don't think it should be included(also reminded me of Chinese). There are enough rules in the language already but the basic one is that words are made up of letters from the alphabet, which is great for keyboards, but now we can draw a picture of a heart? It doesn't even mean heart... Just a quick question on what your opinion is on including an entirely new symbol is?

Well, language as studied by linguists is actually spoken language rather than written language, as the first is natural whereas the second is basically just convention. So it's up to them really - they have to decide whether they want to restrict themselves to the standard writing system or not, as what they're dealing with is conventions. But it's definitely used quite a lot in writing, although usually in fixed idiomatic things like I [heart] NY. Note also that the heart symbol isn't actually a picture of a heart, it's more of a cultural icon, which makes it more like a character too. So yeah, hard to say, but I'm not too bothered either way.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Supergrunch

[Diageo]

It's not like you have to add it to every keyboard. It's a symbol like many others that you find in the symbols section of Word or whatever program you are using.

[MoogleViper]

It's not like you have to add it to every keyboard. It's a symbol like many others that you find in the symbols section of Word or whatever program you are using.

 

But those symbols aren't in the dictionary.