How Jeff Bezos Pwned Publishing

[lilac_jive]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Kan U be cleanin ur florz if I be takin ur bukkit?

Oh noes!!1 He be stealin mah bukkit!

[lemon lime]

Ever wonder what "OK" might stand for?

There have been numerous attempts to explain the emergence of this curious colloquial expression, which seems to have swept into popular use in the US during the mid-19th century. Most of them are undoubtedly pure speculation. It does not seem at all likely, from the linguistic and historical evidence, that it derives from the Scots expression 'och aye', the Greek ola kala ('it is good'), the Choctaw Indian oke or okeh ('it is so'), the French aux Cayes ('from Cayes', a port in Haiti with a reputation for good rum) or au quai ('to the quay', as supposedly used by French-speaking dockers), or the initials of a railway freight agent called Obediah Kelly who is said to have written them on lading documents he had checked.

The oldest written references to 'OK' result from its adoption as a slogan by the Democratic party during the American Presidential election of 1840. Their candidate, President Martin Van Buren, was nicknamed 'Old Kinderhook' (after his birthplace in New York State), and his supporters formed the 'OK Club'.

This undoubtedly helped to popularize the term (though it did not get President Van Buren re-elected!). During the late 1830s there had been a brief but widespread craze in the US for humorous misspellings, and the form orl korrekt which was among them could explain the initials 'OK'. Such a theory has been supported by more than one distinguished American scholar, and is given in many dictionaries, including Oxford dictionaries.

The only other theory with at least a degree of plausibility is that the term originated among Black slaves of West African origin, and represents a word meaning 'all right, yes indeed' in various West African languages. Unfortunately, historical evidence enabling the origin of this expression to be finally and firmly established may be hard to unearth.

http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexper...wordorigins/ok

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Slang has existed long before the internet was ever created. This is nothing different from "cool", "jive" and whatever else existed going back as far as language itself.

Too true. Oh well, I'll just add the following to my "Commandments of the Wolf"

to wit: Thou Shalt Not Mozzle Nor Misspell for both abhorrent in My sight

Originally Posted by Phogg

Kan U be cleanin ur florz if I be takin ur bukkit?

Originally Posted by lilac_jive

Oh noes!!1 He be stealin mah bukkit!

I donz uses a bukkit!! I gotz me a steeeem mopp!! It wurkz reeely gud an ennertains my LOLcats, which iz fun!!

[Daithi]

(im)c-a-t(mo)
b,i;l;e

FallleA
ps!fl

OattumblI
sh?dr

IftwhirlF
(U1) (1Y)


e.e. cummings was just born a 75 years too late.

[hogleg]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I know all about kiddies trying to make up their own words because they made a typo. It originally came into being because of a typo. And it's not a real word. never will be.

You aren't an idiot, so why would you say that?

Words are, at their very essence, an extensional abstraction layer between thought and reality. The concept of "red" is a concept that derives its power just from you and I knowing and agreeing (for the most part) what red is. If I think this is blue, and 1,000,000 people agree with me, and you're the only one to call it red, you're the one who's wrong. It won't change the physical aspects, but the idea is what associates with the object, not the word.

Likewise, get on to World of Warcraft, and 6 out of 10 people will get you if you use that word (try"woot" some time. That's even older). Maybe you can argue about whether it's jargon or vernacular, but it's certainly a word.

Just because the OED asshats don't call it a word doesn't mean its not. With the pervasiveness of instant mass communication I foresee more and more of this.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by hogleg

You aren't an idiot, so why would you say that?

I could dispute your initial assumption, but then I might end up with a wolf bite in my rear end.

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by Andurian

On a more serious note, though I find "pwned" and (far more so) "cul8r" to be inelegant because they don't look and feel much like the rest of the language and would advise against their general usage for just that reason, I really wonder what would justify the claims from some above that such things aren't real words. Do you really think God came down in a fiery chariot and handed us the OED, fully formed?

It seems one thing to begrudge that the language is heading in an language you (we, actually) don't like. Another entirely to pretend it isn't doing so.

The reason that "cul8r" isn't a sentence, or even a word, is because it's just a phoneticization of English (which is a language) used as shorthand. Further, the reason that the first person to use it should, if there was a just God in the universe, rot in Hell for all eternity, world without end, amen.

[montsnmags]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

...
Further, the reason that the first person to use it should, if there was a just God in the universe, rot in Hell for all eternity, world without end, amen.

And yet, ironically, this last "sentence" does not quite scan as a sentence.

Perhaps people who parse grouses shouldn't post moans.

cul8r,
Marc

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by montsnmags

And yet, ironically, this last "sentence" does not quite scan as a sentence.

Perhaps people who parse grouses shouldn't post moans.

cul8r,
Marc

And, perhaps they should make a better study of the English language. So many "shorthand" phrases that have become words (and are even in most "proper" dictionaries these days).

Snafu comes to mind .... and the less well known, but always reliable, fubar. As well as the previously mentioned "thru" which is just a phonetic spelling of "through" and yet is making its way into the dictionary.

Gasp .... where will it end????

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

And, perhaps they should make a better study of the English language. So many "shorthand" phrases that have become words (and are even in most "proper" dictionaries these days).

Snafu comes to mind .... and the less well known, but always reliable, fubar. As well as the previously mentioned "thru" which is just a phonetic spelling of "through" and yet is making its way into the dictionary.

1) Snafu isn't shorthand. It's an initialism. That's very distinct from abominations like "c u l8r". I'll happily stipulate that there are many such initialisms in the English language.


2) Something being in the dictionary doesn't make it a word. "D'oh" is in Webster's:

2.


Main Entry:
d'oh
Variant(s):
or doh \ˈdō\
Function:
interjection
Date:
1993

—used to express sudden recognition of a foolish blunder or an ironic turn of events

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/d%27oh

"Thru" is listed in Webster's as a variant spelling of "through". I find that unfortunate, but it has to do with the general, and growing, illiteracy of the American public.

Literacy is more than the ability to read at a 5th grade level. It also implies being able to string two words together without hurting yourself. This is becoming very rare. My girlfriend is a professor teaching graduate students, and is horrified by their lack of writing skills.

"Texting" spelling represents more than just trying to save a few keystrokes on a phone. If that was all it was, it wouldn't be leaking into undergraduate papers. Instead, texting spelling represents a general inability to communicate using written English. Unless we want an illiterate population, these trends need to be extinguished with extreme prejudice.

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by montsnmags

And yet, ironically, this last "sentence" does not quite scan as a sentence.

Perhaps people who parse grouses shouldn't post moans.

cul8r,
Marc

The last sentence, while complex, is, indeed a sentence, although I admit the ending is a bit confusing, as it parodies the Gloria Patri prayer:

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost/Spirit,
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

My original sentence was:

"Further, the reason that the first person to use it should, if there was a just God in the universe, rot in Hell for all eternity, world without end, amen."

My use of the word "was" is probably questionable, but I would contend that the existence of God at the present time is independent as to whether or not there is a Hell in the present time, Hell being contingent only on whether God ever existed.

[montsnmags]

[EDIT: decided I don't want an iron in this fire (not that there's a fire - it's just a turn of phrase)]

[tompe]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

So basically the internet has made crappy words come into being because of script kiddies who cannot be bothered to type properly.

No it has created a new word and concept. Like the typo "filk song" that is now totally accepted as a concept and it appeared long before internet.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

1) Snafu isn't shorthand. It's an initialism. That's very distinct from abominations like "c u l8r". I'll happily stipulate that there are many such initialisms in the English language.


2) Something being in the dictionary doesn't make it a word. "D'oh" is in Webster's:



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/d%27oh

"Thru" is listed in Webster's as a variant spelling of "through". I find that unfortunate, but it has to do with the general, and growing, illiteracy of the American public.

Literacy is more than the ability to read at a 5th grade level. It also implies being able to string two words together without hurting yourself. This is becoming very rare. My girlfriend is a professor teaching graduate students, and is horrified by their lack of writing skills.

"Texting" spelling represents more than just trying to save a few keystrokes on a phone. If that was all it was, it wouldn't be leaking into undergraduate papers. Instead, texting spelling represents a general inability to communicate using written English. Unless we want an illiterate population, these trends need to be extinguished with extreme prejudice.

OK .... here's one for you and it's a corker, because it doesn't really stand for anything. It's not an initialism, it's not a word, it's not anything more than a translation from code. A code originally created by Samuel Morse, although this particular code sequence was created by the Germans in 1905.

I'm talking about SOS. A better "spelling" of which would be ---...--- Just for your information, the "initialisms" involved in that code translation came well after it was created. And, it was created as such because pretty much any moron could remember it in code.

Texting spelling represents small keyboards and for some people a limited number of characters one can send without incurring additional fees. It has become part of the language out of habit. Most of the new words one finds start out as a habitual usage.

Thru didn't used to be an "alternative spelling" it became so because people were either illiterate or lazy and didn't want to remember how to type the actual word. Really tough that you find that unfortunate.

So, give us some more examples of what you clearly don't understand. I'm interested in hearing them, if only because I need a good chuckle. My mother was an English professr at the university level (before she gave it up to teach elsewhere), but she didn't have a huge stick up her ass. She had the good sense to teach me that English is a living language.

If you can't evolve along with the language, it is you and your girlfriend who will become illiterate and unable to communicate. Let me guess, you two don't even allow your participles to dangle in everyday conversation.

[HarryT]

I'm pretty sure that "thru" was, in fact, the result of one of the many attempts in the US to "rationalize" the spelling of the language, rather than being "slang". I can't find any references to that at present, but I'll try to find one.