Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

And heh sounds like a regular exclamation, so why only now? Same about hmm, really.

Share this post


Link to post

I sure hope that dictionary has twittering in it. If it's in the context of the website, though, I'll have to express disrespect.

Share this post


Link to post
Nomad said:

I sure hope that dictionary has twittering in it. If it's in the context of the website, though, I'll have to express disrespect.

It probably means it added another definition of the same word.

Collins Dictionary is teh fail. (I wonder if "teh" would ever make it in, considering how much it's used...)

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps "Your", "you're" and "fail" will also make it in the dictionary. As in "you're dictionary is teh fail, and your a moron". Also "sight" as in "I urge you to remove this web page from your sight"

Share this post


Link to post

BLAME TEH TEENAGORZ! Damnit I hate being 15. Everything is our fault...

But who cares about this dictionary? Now if Webster Dictionary adopted the words... then... I think I may have to kill someone.

By the way, what's the definition of 'word'? I wouldn't think 'hmm' would be a goddamn word.

Share this post


Link to post
Ninjalah said:

BLAME TEH TEENAGORZ! Damnit I hate being 15. Everything is our fault...


Uhh, yeah actually. 100% correct.

Though plenty of adults have sought to ruin the internet as well, so don't feel too bad.

Share this post


Link to post

Alright!!! Young People 1! Old Farts 0!

Now we need to get " Sup , Lol , Leet and Zomg " in the Dictionary.. gonna sign up for one of those free Online pettition sites now.. Democracy will prevail!!

Share this post


Link to post

I thought the world was coming to an end when "noob" was in the running for the 1,000,000th word in the English dictionary. iHatetheinternet

Share this post


Link to post

I'm unsure of the purpose that dictionaries should ideally serve. They certainly shouldn't attempt to be the definitive rule book for communication, because to do so goes against their very nature. Dictionaries are necessarily more descriptive than injunctive: the concrete definitions of words in a dictionary are just snapshots of words' evolving meanings, as they are used organically in everyday society, and what might be an imprecise usage of a word one day could be the correct usage the next. Because of this, treating a centuries-old dictionary definition of a word as sacrosanct, as the Truth, is utter folly. It is better for the makers of dictionaries to allow their definitions to evolve with the words themselves, and also to include newly-appearing words within their auspicious tomes. I appreciate that "cromulent" appears to be receiving some degree of mainstream respect, a word which Danarchy used in a post the other day, perhaps without realizing that it has a guttersnipe's origin: a Simpsons gag. Yet, when a dictionary's editors embrace the vocabulary of contemporary culture, and within its pages include definitions for volatile corruptions, onomatopoeic grunts and brand-name verbs, I find this reprehensible. I wonder where one could draw the line - but then I wonder if any line whatsoever could be justified as anything but a double standard. The only rational positions that avoid said double standard would be to fully embrace every new meaning of every new word that appears in the public lexicon and demand that they be preserved in print - but only for as long as each meaning continues to be used - or to insist that dictionaries should exist merely as history books, genealogies, museums of original meanings that plumb the deepest depths of time, but are hopelessly inapplicable to contemporary communication.

There you go, Myk, something to respond to.

Share this post


Link to post

I remember seeing a thread similar to this one in the losers forum, not even kidding.

It was 3 pages, I'm pretty sure, of people saying "heh" though.

Share this post


Link to post

█░█░███░█░█
█░█░█░░░█░█
███░███░███
█░█░█░░░█░█
█░█░███░█░█

Share this post


Link to post

Dictionaries have been full of crap since they were invented. Seriously, read Samuel Johnson's dictionary some time. It's hilarious.

Unlike most modern lexicographers, Johnson introduced humour or prejudice into quite a number of his definitions. Among the best known are:

* "Excise: a hateful tax levied upon commodities and adjudged not by the common judges of property but wretches hired by those to whom excise is paid"
* "Lexicographer: a writer of dictionaries; a harmless drudge that busies himself in tracing the original and detailing the signification of words"
* "Oats: a grain which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people"

A much less well-known example is:

* "Monsieur: a term of reproach for a Frenchman"

Share this post


Link to post

On the one hand I have strong reservations about these words being included in any official dictionary since they are simply slang words, onomatopoeia, or copyrights turned into verbs. On the other hand, words such as fuck and cunt are slang used to describe various actions, organs, or acts. However the versatility and the evolution of those words far exceeds words such as "twitter" and "google". Still there is a certain credibility to words such as "meh" "heh" and "hmm". They are used to express a specific mental or emotional response, and since "sigh", which is basic onomatopoeia, is in the dictionary and means tiredness, disappointment, and boredom, then I must concede that they belong. I will still stand by the opinion that copyrighted names turned into verbs should be in the dictionary though. I've never heard someone saying they "Webstered" something. You have used a source to research something, you say you researched the topic, then you site sources. If you send a message via twitter, you say you sent a message on twitter. You did not 'tweet', you are not a bird.

Share this post


Link to post
Danarchy said:

Dictionaries have been full of crap since they were invented. Seriously, read Samuel Johnson's dictionary some time. It's hilarious.


Even "esteemed" academics can sometime include controversial terms: e.g. the famous George Babiniotis, whose opera omnia is easiest the largest and more comprehensive modern Greek dictionary, made the "mistake" of including the term "bulgarian" and giving it the alternate definition of "violent footbal fan, hooligan, especially one supporting a particular northern greece FC".

In the same manner we could use "Albanian" as "poor, hungry and dirty" etc. (and most of our dictionaries give the above meaning to the word "Gypsy").

Share this post


Link to post
avery1555 said:

I remember seeing a thread similar to this one in the losers forum, not even kidding.

It was 3 pages, I'm pretty sure, of people saying "heh" though.

3? It's actually close to 40 pages, but yeah, it's still no match for that old blogs thread.

Share this post


Link to post

"Twittering" isn't as cringe-worthy as some other words added to that dictionary -- read the article! wtf, noob, woot, soz and omg have all been included.

Share this post


Link to post

Ebonics should NOT be recognized as a language, as all it is a gibberish and fucked up version of American English.

Share this post


Link to post

Heh, I "say" heh, and I'm no teenager. :P

Anyway, Collins dictionary gets an article like this every year. I'm pretty sure that they do it as a bit of publicity as much as anything else.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×