OMG, LOL, FYI added to Oxford English Dictionary Online

Fbone · 03-25-2011, 10:45 AM

Yes, a bunch of initialisms have been added among the 1900 revisions.

Some other additions:

la-la land
couch potato
happy camper
rugalach
stonewash
headline

and my favorite ...

wassup

Added link:
http://www.oed.com/public/latest/latest-update/#new

RainingLemur · 03-25-2011, 11:10 AM

This bothers me, for some reason. It probably shouldn't. But, it does.

Kali Yuga · 03-25-2011, 11:14 AM

Despite the fact that I use most of those words on a regular basis, it still somehow feels disquieting to know they are "official"

I wonder why "rugalach" is included, since it is actually a Yiddish word.

Love.Forever. · 03-25-2011, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainingLemur

This bothers me, for some reason. It probably shouldn't. But, it does.

Not going to lie... it bothers me too. It just doesn't seem like words that should be in a dictionary even though they are words that are used often.

wyndslash · 03-25-2011, 11:25 AM

well, they should just distinguish it in the dictionary. i mean, with the word wassup, they could just include (and i think good dictionaries do do this) that it is a very casual phrase and shouldn't be used in formal papers. something like that

Rizla · 03-25-2011, 08:35 PM

The Oxford takes a highly inclusive approach to new vocabulary. One of things that makes it the best English dictionary.

spellbanisher · 03-25-2011, 08:42 PM

There really is no such thing as an "official language," although there is what would be considered standard language or usage. The dictionary just tries to define words in all the different ways that they are generally used; thus, language is democratic and not determined by dictionary makers. Nevertheless, I am still not sure that these words belong. Dictionary makers try to only add words that will have some staying power to the exclusion of slang or fad terms. But determining which words will have staying power and which will not can be really difficult, and it could be argued that text messaging and text speech will not go away any time soon.

GA Russell · 03-25-2011, 09:50 PM

These seem to me to be not words but initials (or in the case of "wassup", misspellings) of words long extant.

queentess · 03-25-2011, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GA Russell

These seem to me to be not words but initials (or in the case of "wassup", misspellings) of words long extant.

So, if I needed to know what an LED or CPU or RAM was, where would I go to look? To me, a dictionary seems like a fine place for these things. Why should only "words" be included? I think it should include anything that may need to be looked up and defined to understand the language.

spellbanisher · 03-25-2011, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by queentess

So, if I needed to know what an LED or CPU or RAM was, where would I go to look? To me, a dictionary seems like a fine place for these things. Why should only "words" be included? I think it should include anything that may need to be looked up and defined to understand the language.

Ther is always wikipedia and yahoo answers.

bZkindle · 03-25-2011, 10:19 PM

WAT!

GA Russell · 03-25-2011, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by queentess

So, if I needed to know what an LED or CPU or RAM was, where would I go to look? To me, a dictionary seems like a fine place for these things. Why should only "words" be included? I think it should include anything that may need to be looked up and defined to understand the language.

Yes, I suppose you're right. After all, I would expect scuba to be in a dictionary.

Richey79 · 03-26-2011, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GA Russell

These seem to me to be not words but initials (or in the case of "wassup", misspellings) of words long extant.

I disagree.

These 'words' are used in a particular context; the fact they are used says something about the cultural background of the author. A friend's parents still use 'LOL' meaning 'love you lots'. The texting generation has taken word-groupings from the past and stamped them with their own significance.

I think most (younger) people who use text-speak abbreviations no longer think of the full words the acronyms stand for. If someone writes that something made them 'LOL', I expect it to be something they read on 4Chan or an internet meme, not the 'Four Candles' sketch from The Two Ronnies.

I'd love to check if a phrase like 'for the lulz' is now in the OED, and whether the new definition of 'anonymous' has made it in. If not, the OED is somewhat behind the curve. Part of the glory of being in an age in which language is once again being developed and enriched by those who use it is that the custodians of linguistic records will be of such an age that many of these developments will pass them by.

Sure, it's only a small proportion of the population who currently know what these words and phrases mean, but it's usually technology or sub-cultures that drive linguistic change anyway.

kennyc · 03-26-2011, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainingLemur

This bothers me, for some reason. It probably shouldn't. But, it does.

This REALLY bothers me!

Since when are acronyms words?

Hamlet53 · 03-26-2011, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richey79

I'd love to check if a phrase like 'for the lulz' is now in the OED, and whether the new definition of 'anonymous' has made it in. If not, the OED is somewhat behind the curve. Part of the glory of being in an age in which language is once again being developed and enriched by those who use it is that the custodians of linguistic records will be of such an age that many of these developments will pass them by.

There is a new definition for "anonymous?" Pray tell, what?

So now “wassup” is in there? Can “sup bro” be far behind? Seriously I do see a big difference between providing a source for the meaning of acronyms, be it LED or LOL, and treating something like “wassup” as a valid word. Slightly off topic, but when did appending a z to the end of words become so prevalent and why is it done since it seems to add no meaning? Examples:

“LOLZ”

“finally got some internetz at home”

“Hellz yeah brother”

03-25-2011, 10:45 AM	#1
Fbone Is that a sandwich? Posts: 8,284 Karma: 101696762 Join Date: Jun 2010 Device: Nook Glowlight Plus	OMG, LOL, FYI added to Oxford English Dictionary Online Yes, a bunch of initialisms have been added among the 1900 revisions. Some other additions: la-la land couch potato happy camper rugalach stonewash headline and my favorite ... wassup Added link: http://www.oed.com/public/latest/latest-update/#new Last edited by Fbone; 03-25-2011 at 10:50 AM.

03-25-2011, 08:42 PM	#7
spellbanisher Guru Posts: 826 Karma: 6566849 Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Bay Area Device: kindle keyboard, kindle fire hd, S4, Nook hd+	There really is no such thing as an "official language," although there is what would be considered standard language or usage. The dictionary just tries to define words in all the different ways that they are generally used; thus, language is democratic and not determined by dictionary makers. Nevertheless, I am still not sure that these words belong. Dictionary makers try to only add words that will have some staying power to the exclusion of slang or fad terms. But determining which words will have staying power and which will not can be really difficult, and it could be argued that text messaging and text speech will not go away any time soon. Last edited by spellbanisher; 03-25-2011 at 08:47 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Corrupted my version of The Oxford Dictionary of English	orlok	Amazon Kindle	16	01-09-2011 09:05 PM
Converting Oxford Dictionary of English for iPhone to Mobipocket	owl123	Workshop	3	07-24-2009 08:13 AM
Concise Oxford English Dictionary - doesn't always return to text	andavane	Bookeen	12	03-26-2009 08:43 AM
the Concise Oxford English Dictionary available in Mobipocket format	Mobipocket	Deals and Resources (No Self-Promotion or Affiliate Links)	7	07-17-2007 07:25 PM
RefToGo.com Concise Oxford English Dictionary announced	Alexander Turcic	Reading and Management	0	01-17-2005 01:14 PM

03-25-2011, 11:10 AM	#2
RainingLemur Spork Connoisseur Posts: 2,355 Karma: 16780603 Join Date: Mar 2011 Device: Nook Color	This bothers me, for some reason. It probably shouldn't. But, it does.

03-25-2011, 11:14 AM	#3
Kali Yuga Professional Contrarian Posts: 2,045 Karma: 3289631 Join Date: Mar 2009 Device: Kindle 4 No Touchie	Despite the fact that I use most of those words on a regular basis, it still somehow feels disquieting to know they are "official" I wonder why "rugalach" is included, since it is actually a Yiddish word.

03-25-2011, 11:25 AM	#5
wyndslash Wizard Posts: 2,951 Karma: 3000001 Join Date: Feb 2011 Device: Kindle 3 wifi, Kindle Fire	well, they should just distinguish it in the dictionary. i mean, with the word wassup, they could just include (and i think good dictionaries do do this) that it is a very casual phrase and shouldn't be used in formal papers. something like that

03-25-2011, 08:35 PM	#6
Rizla Member Retired Posts: 3,183 Karma: 11721895 Join Date: Nov 2010 Device: Nook STR (rooted) & Sony T2	The Oxford takes a highly inclusive approach to new vocabulary. One of things that makes it the best English dictionary.

03-25-2011, 09:50 PM	#8
GA Russell Argos win Grey Cup! Posts: 7,678 Karma: 31487351 Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Raleigh, NC Device: Paperwhite, Kindles 10 & 4 and jetBook Lite	These seem to me to be not words but initials (or in the case of "wassup", misspellings) of words long extant.

03-25-2011, 10:19 PM	#11
bZkindle Fanatic Posts: 510 Karma: 1025024 Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Canada City, Soviet Canuckistan Device: k2, k3G, kindle DXG, Sony T-1, iPad, iPhone, stone tablet	WAT!

Advert

Advert