Vocab tune-up

[kyrathaba]

http://qz.com/119200/oxford-dictionary-adds-twerk-derp-selfie-phablet-and-more-voguish-vocabulary/

[IainB]

Depressing.

[Target]

clearly they're going to have to add a k to the spelling of dictionary...

[Stoic Joker]

clearly they're going to have to add a k to the spelling of dictionary...

+1 -

[tomos]

Dont see the problem
They're all words in everyday use (somewhere). Why not include them?

I guess the negativity is to do with the dumbing down of language (and entertainment, and maybe even life in general...).

I just read a book a while ago about Shakespeare (by Bill Bryson). English was in a state of flux around 1600, changing towards what we know today. Spelling was unbelievably flexible, and based on local pronunciation - at a time when English dialects would have been a lot stronger than today (and I'd have trouble with a lot of them today). Anyways, Shakespeare 'created' hundreds of words, and changed the use of many others. He started using nouns as verbs, verbs as nouns, etc etc (my memory for details is apalling, especially when it comes to grammar). I suppose the danger now is that although there's new words being added, I suspect there's a lot more words falling out of use - everyday use, at any rate.
And if that trend accererates, yeah, then we'll have a nice, eh, simple language ;-)

[Vurbal]

Language doesn't get dumbed down. I realize no one has actually said that, but it seems to be the general implication.

Meanings change over time to reflect what people are actually communicating. That's not only normal, it's the entire purpose of language in the first place. Words don't have any meaning beyond what we assign to them. Likewise the purpose of a dictionary is not to dictate meaning but rather to facilitate understanding. If the dictionary doesn't reflect the ideas people are communicating it ceases to be useful or relevant.

As to simplicity, the average person knows around 10,000 words in their native tongue but only actually uses around 10% of those in regular conversation. That's not because of intelligence (not entirely anyway) but because a smaller set of words makes for more effective communication on a number of levels.

I couldn't cut my vocabulary down that far, but for most people it's actually a good thing.

[Stoic Joker]

I guess the negativity is to do with the dumbing down of language (and entertainment, and maybe even life in general...).

+1 - Nailed it!

Sorry Vurbal, tomos and I are changing the meanings of a few words to allow for "properly" conveying the English language's newly acquired level of dumber-ness. 

[Vurbal]

I guess the negativity is to do with the dumbing down of language (and entertainment, and maybe even life in general...).

+1 - Nailed it!

Sorry Vurbal, tomos and I are changing the meanings of a few words to allow for "properly" conveying the English language's newly acquired level of dumber-ness. 

I'd love to see how you measure that. 

[Stoic Joker]

I guess the negativity is to do with the dumbing down of language (and entertainment, and maybe even life in general...).

+1 - Nailed it!

Sorry Vurbal, tomos and I are changing the meanings of a few words to allow for "properly" conveying the English language's newly acquired level of dumber-ness. 

I'd love to see how you measure that. 

Why using the formula you gave us earlier in another post of course!
2 + 2 = fish

[Vurbal]

I guess the negativity is to do with the dumbing down of language (and entertainment, and maybe even life in general...).

+1 - Nailed it!

Sorry Vurbal, tomos and I are changing the meanings of a few words to allow for "properly" conveying the English language's newly acquired level of dumber-ness. 

I'd love to see how you measure that. 

Why using the formula you gave us earlier in another post of course!
2 + 2 = fish

You got me there. I can't very well argue with that reasoning. 

But now I know who was foolish enough to read it 

[cranioscopical]

English was in a state of flux around 1600, changing towards what we know today.

And thank goodness for that — I mean to say,  who'd want to kiff onef fifter?

[tomos]

who'd want to kiff onef fifter?

slightly initial confusion here - because kiffen (to kiff) means something else here :-)

But seriously,
why would I want to kiff *my* fifter, maybe *you* have a fifter I could kiff ?

[Target]

I'd love to see how you measure that. 

with a dicktionary?

[kyrathaba]

Hey Vurbal, forgive my tardiness in welcoming you to the site. Welcome!

[cranioscopical]

maybe *you* have a fifter I could kiff ?

fo forry, fad to fay no fifter. 

[Vurbal]

Hey Vurbal, forgive my tardiness in welcoming you to the site. Welcome!

Thank you!

And congratulations on your novel!

[kyrathaba]

congratulations on your novel!

Oh! Thanks!

If you want an ebook copy, you can get one for $0.90 USD here: williambryanmiller.com

If you want a paperback and are in the US, I can get it for you cheaper than you can buy it yourself on Amazon.

Sadly, the novel doesn't distinguish itself by using any of the words mentioned in the link referenced in my OP...

[rjbull]

I think the Oxford dictionaries work on "historical principles," which means that they record how the language is being used and include new words as soon as they are established.  They aren't trying a top-down enforcement of Proper English.

[Vurbal]

congratulations on your novel!

Oh! Thanks!

I you want an ebook copy, you can get one for $0.90 USD here: williambryanmiller.com

If you want a paperback and are in the US, I can get it for you cheaper than you can buy it yourself on Amazon.

Sadly, the novel doesn't distinguish itself by using any of the words mentioned in the link referenced in my OP...

I literally have no money to spend right at the moment but it's on my short list of books to check out when that changes.

[tomos]

I think the Oxford dictionaries work on "historical principles," which means that they record how the language is being used and include new words as soon as they are established.  They aren't trying a top-down enforcement of Proper English.

I read an article from Slate yesterday about the Oxford dictionaries - they've diversified :-) These words were added to the Online dictionary (and maybe the next "Shorter" Oxford Dictionary?), but not to the main "Oxford English Dictionary" (OED).

• The dictionary content in ODO [Oxford Dictionaries Online] focuses on current English and includes modern meanings and uses of words
• The OED, on the other hand, is a historical dictionary and it forms a record of all the core words and meanings in English over more than 1,000 years, from Old English to the present day, including many obsolete and historical terms. Words are never removed from the OED.

THe OED one has about 20 (or whatever) volumes. The OED 'style' is based on Johnson's English dictionary. (I know that from Henry Hitching's book about Dr. Johnson's Dictionary - which was a suprisingly entertaining read btw).

the slate article was relevant to this thread, but I didnt bother posting it at the time cause the tone was just too self-righteous Reminded me of people who insist the system tray should actually be called something else...

[Target]

then this from doghouse diaries today...



perhaps I should be posting in the 'what annoys me no end' thread

[techidave]

a saying that I picked up somewhere along the line, "even if you were using perfect english, who would know it?" 

[kyrathaba]

"even if you were using perfect english, who would know it?" 

Spot on!

[Renegade]

"even if you were using perfect english, who would know it?" 

Spot on!

Yep.

English grammar in textbooks is polluted with Latin grammar. That makes for some rough learning.

"Smoothing" is a linguistic process where words and grammar change. This makes for even rougher learning.

English is a very young language, and isn't very smooth, although there is some smoothing going on right now.

For example, "There's 23 replies in this thread so far." That uses incorrect textbook grammar, but is becoming more popular (part of linguistic smoothing). The grammatically correct version is, "There're 23 replies in this thread so far."

(Number agreement is a pet peeve of mine. Just how hard is it to know the difference between 1 and any other number?)

Grammar is more important than most people think. It is the basis of all contracts and really needs some attention from more than just most people.

[kyrathaba]

I completely concur regarding the importance of grammar.

[attach]