LOL? Give Me A Break!

[NippleMuncher]

On the news tonight, it seems that the "words" LOL, OMG, BFF, and IMHO, among others, have been added to the Oxford English Dictionary! Seriously? Why? These are not words, they are acronyms, and while they were around before the invention of texting, texting has spawned countless others. WHY, WHY, WHY, must dictionaries promote the death and mutilation of the language?

Anyone else think this is a ginormous mistake? Yeah, like that one? It was added to the dictionary a few years back because stupid people can't say giant, gigantic, or enormous. I'm all for making new words when new words are warranted.

/rant ...

 

[SamScribble]

While my first instinct is to support your concern to the hilt, on further reflection, I am reminded of what a lexicographer pointed out to me some years ago.

Dictionaries are not the arbiters of what is or is not a ‘proper’ word. They are not even the arbiters of definitions. They are simply a record of the words that the users of a particular language are using at a particular time and the meanings that are, at that particular time, being attached to those words.

Happily, I am pretty sure that I have not – thus far – had cause to resort to LOL (an acronym) or IMHO (an initialisation) in my written communication. And, if we do use them, we only have ourselves to blame if they end up in dictionaries.

 

[janeyl]

I think that we have to accept that language is a fluid and constantly developing entity all of it's own...read what was once seen as the English language, we certainly don't speak or write like Chaucer any more, none of us use Shakespearian vernacular, or Dickensian slang any more. While I accept that there have to be basic rules to follow in order for things to make sense especially when written-we'll get left behind if we don't accept the influence of social and cultural changes on our spoken and written language

Just my 2 ha'porth...see what I did there...?

 

[silverwhisper]

NM: as samscribble observed, dictionaries record how language is used. for the OED not to include regularly-used terms would make it less than the authoritative reference it's intended to be.

ed

 

[Cattypuss]

On the news tonight, it seems that the "words" LOL, OMG, BFF, and IMHO, among others, have been added to the Oxford English Dictionary! Seriously? Why? These are not words, they are acronyms, and while they were around before the invention of texting, texting has spawned countless others. WHY, WHY, WHY, must dictionaries promote the death and mutilation of the language?

Anyone else think this is a ginormous mistake? Yeah, like that one? It was added to the dictionary a few years back because stupid people can't say giant, gigantic, or enormous. I'm all for making new words when new words are warranted.

/rant ...

Dictionaries are supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive.

And hell, if language weren't allowed to evolve over time we'd all still be grunting at each other in caves.

 

[Eilan]

Maybe "refudiate" will make the cut next year.

 

[NippleMuncher]

I hear what you all are saying, honest. My point though, is that these "words" are not words. In the case of LOL, et. al., it's an acronym. The definition of "acronym" belongs in the dictionary, the acronym itself does not. In the case of ginormous, this is just flat ass laziness on the part of the user to actually learn what the proper words are and use them properly in a sentence.

I get that languages evolve, words get blurred, clipped, and cobbled, and as a general rule I don't have a problem with it. What I have a problem with is illiteracy and stupidity being catered to. A good portion of the population can't even cogitate a coherent sentence with the most basic of words, so they profusely use words such as "like" as in " like you know, I mean like 'cause, you know like ...", in an attempt to express themselves. Give these same people the ability to text and truly, they've completely lost the ability to communicate with the world around them. And no, just because they can understand their friend doesn't mean they're communicating.

 

[Cattypuss]

Hmmm... I'm a 43-year-old language graduate. I write and edit for a living. I write and edit legal books. Language is, and always has been, a passion for me and of course I was pretty old when textspeak came in.

But I have to disagree with you. For me, the most fascinating, wonderful thing about language is that it never stops changing. For me, the worst idea in the world was the Academie Francaise.

If an abbreviation such as "lol" starts to be used as a word, then I think that it has a place in a dictionary. I for one always read and pronounce "lol" as a one-syllable "word", not as three letters.

I find what you say about "ginormous" interesting. It's a word I often use myself in casual conversation and emails, as I like the slight comedic quality I feel in it. And, by the way, I have never thought of it as the product of ignorance - I have always thought of it as a portmanteau word, in the great tradition of James Joyce. Every word that gets added to the language only increases the richness of the language, in my opinion.

 

[mynameisben]

And hell, if language weren't allowed to evolve over time we'd all still be grunting at each other in caves.

What do you have against grunting at each other in caves? Have you tried it? It's a freakin' blast!

 

[Cattypuss]

I've only ever really grunted in bed. That tends to be quite good fun, so you may have a point there...

 

[elliej]

.............................

 

[SamScribble]

I, too, think ginormous has become a word. But, at this stage anyway, it's very much a jocular word. Will it remain as such? Who knows?

 

[Quoll]

Irregardless, this is an interesting thread.

 

[Pleasure_Fan]

On the news tonight, it seems that the "words" LOL, OMG, BFF, and IMHO, among others, have been added to the Oxford English Dictionary!

WHY, WHY, WHY, must dictionaries promote the death and mutilation of the language?

Anyone else think this is a ginormous mistake?

/rant ...

I, too, struggle with this. My problem, though, is that I am appalled at the general lack of language skills cultivated in society today. I am not sure the blame should lie with the OED. As others have pointed out, theirs is not to reason why...
And it doesn't really stop with simple language skills (thought I appreciate your point that the OED is NOT helping). I was chatting with a few people at work and somehow Russia came up. One of them said, "who cares about Russia? It's just some tiny country on the other side of the world" (I was told later that I physically recoiled at that). I drug her to the nearest computer and googled Russia for her, showed her perhaps the fist map of the world she had ever seen, lectured her on it's "ginormous" size and explained the proximity to Alaska factor. Pathetic!! Both that she wouldn't know, and that I would be so offended!!
Then there's math skills and science knowledge... And, that same woman asked me to explain what VIKINGS were. She's 27!!!!!
AARRGGHH!!!! Now you've gone and got me started...

 

[Pleasure_Fan]

Irregardless, this is an interesting thread.

Nice poke C'mon somebody - bitch about the regardless/irregardless redundancy...

 

[NippleMuncher]

I find what you say about "ginormous" interesting. It's a word I often use myself in casual conversation and emails, as I like the slight comedic quality I feel in it. And, by the way, I have never thought of it as the product of ignorance - I have always thought of it as a portmanteau word, in the great tradition of James Joyce. Every word that gets added to the language only increases the richness of the language, in my opinion.

When you have a solid grasp of the English language, syntax, and all that other good grammar stuff, play with words all you want. If I heard an educated person toss out a mangled word, even the likes of "ginormous", I'd pass it off as them making a funny. Hell, I intentionally mangle words all the time in fun. One of my favorites is the use of malapropisms - words that sound right but aren't. But that is not where "ginormous" came from. Why does there have to be another description of "large", particularly when it's a conjugation of two other word that also mean the same thing as "large"?

As for the ignorance of the word, it has been my experience that people lacking in education and/or language skills are the ones most commonly using or misusing mangled words, which is where ginormous comes from. Anyone else remember back to the late 70's early 80's when "valley speak" was popular? It's still popular with those who speak in questions rather than statements, like, you know?

I, too, think ginormous has become a word. But, at this stage anyway, it's very much a jocular word. Will it remain as such? Who knows?

Ginormous was added to the dictionary a couple of years ago.

I, too, struggle with this. My problem, though, is that I am appalled at the general lack of language skills cultivated in society today. I am not sure the blame should lie with the OED. As others have pointed out, theirs is not to reason why...

I suppose that this is more to the point of my rant than the actual validity of "LOL" and "ginormous" being words. I have been hearing more and more people saying in conversation that they "L - O - L - 'd" at something someone said or did. Next thing you know people are going to be carrying around little cards with smilies on them to punctuate their conversations

Nice poke C'mon somebody - bitch about the regardless/irregardless redundancy...

I had a buddy in college with this pet peeve and I can't use either term without thinking about his point. And, this was the first thing I thought of when Quoll tried to stir the pot!

 

[Pleasure_Fan]

I suppose that this is more to the point of my rant than the actual validity of "LOL" and "ginormous" being words. I have been hearing more and more people saying in conversation that they "L - O - L - 'd" at something someone said or did. Next thing you know people are going to be carrying around little cards with smilies on them to punctuate their conversations

I had a buddy in college with this pet peeve and I can't use either term without thinking about his point. And, this was the first thing I thought of when Quoll tried to stir the pot!

Hey! Thanks for responding to my post! *[holds up smiley card]* I can so, totally relate to your point *[holds up WTF is wrong with people card]*. Irregardless, I find this conversation relevant regardless of your POV *[holds up raspberry card]* Thank you, goodnight.

 

[Pleasure_Fan]

PS - Very pissed I forgot to say (at my first opportunity)...
Your avitar fucking cracks me up every time I see it. Thanks

 

[yuna1981]

Doesn't LOL stand for lots of love?

 

[Cattypuss]

I drug her to the nearest computer

Is that correct in American English? In the UK, "drug" is a noun meaning medication or certain illicit substances; it is never a participle of the verb "drag" - we say "I dragged her to the nearest computer".

Why does there have to be another description of "large", particularly when it's a conjugation of two other word that also mean the same thing as "large"?

Why should there not be another description of "large"? And to be fair, "enormous" and "gigantic" do not mean the same thing as "large". They have subtly different meanings. "I went to bed with him and found he had a large penis" does not have the same effect on the listener as "I went to bed with him and found he had an enormous penis".

Generation after generation of English speakers have bemoaned the way the young and uneducated are destroying our language. This has been happening for hundreds of years. And yet the language survives. New words get added; old words fall out of use. Maybe, just maybe, in a hundred years nobody will use the word "enormous" any more - maybe everyone will be using "ginormous" instead.

So what?

Language is a tool. We use it to communicate. Some of us like to play with it too. I for one am glad to have all three words (ginormous, enormous and gigantic) at my disposal for subtly different purposes.

I'm not saying I approve of all the changes that are happening. A bugbear of mine is the way that "affect" and "effect" seem to be becoming synonymous through widespread ignorance. I do find myself wincing when I see the wrong one in a sentence. But if in 20 years the misuse/confusion has become so widely accepted that it is normal, then I will just have to stop wincing.

Language is a democracy, not a dictatorship.

 

[Cattypuss]

This is dangerously close to being off-topic, but in Orwell's novel "1984" (which contains a hellish vision of a totalitarian state), there is a government department that is responsible for paring the language down to its bare minimum.

For instance, the word "bad" is removed from the language because "good" and "un" already exist. "Ungood" makes "bad" redundant and so "bad" is banned.

The argument that "ginormous" should not be added to the dictionary because "large" and "enormous" and "gigantic" already exist somehow puts me in mind of that Newspeak philosophy.

 

[Cattypuss]

I have a subscription to the online OED. Here's what its definition of "ginormous" reads like (note - its recorded use dates back to 1948).

Pronunciation: /dʒaɪˈnɔːməs/
Forms: gi-normous
Etymology: < gi- (in gigantic adj.) + -normous (in enormous adj.).
slang. Also .
Thesaurus »
Categories »

Very large, simply enormous; excessive in size, amount, etc. (esp. in comparison with one's expectation).

1948 in Partridge Dict. Forces' Slang.
1962 W. Granville Dict. Sailors' Slang 53/2 Ginormous, acronymous adjective descriptive of something really impressive: a brush with the enemy; a raid upon the enemy's shipping or coastline, or merely a particularly ‘heavy’ party in the mess.
1970 A. Reid Confessions of Hitch-hiker vi. 45 We went to a posh café…The prices were ginormous.
1976 Scotsman 20 Nov. 10/2 How about froggies filled with pot-pourri from small to gi-normous, as Just Us describe them.
1977 Economist 8 Oct. 98/3 The state company Egam, declared bust last spring,‥is going to cost considerably more than the £500 billion‥earmarked by the government last June, probably a ginormous £1,700 billion.
1986 Sunday Express Mag. 23 Mar. 70/3 Since Brands Hatch, doors have opened and it's possible to make gi-normous money.

 

[Chiara_searches]

It is important to note, irregardless of what you have to say, that ginormous in my guestimation is a fun word to say.

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

Dictionaries are supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive.

And hell, if language weren't allowed to evolve over time we'd all still be grunting at each other in caves.

But that'd be hot.


Real question though: How do the dictionary people decide a word is to be added? does it have to be used x amount of times, or for y amount of years, or?

 

[Cattypuss]

In for a penny; in for a pound -

Pronunciation: Brit. /ˌɛləʊˈɛl/ , /lɒl/ , U.S. /ˌɛlˌoʊˈɛl/ , /lɑl/
Forms: 19– LOL, 19– lol.
Etymology: Initialism < the initial letters of laughing out loud; sometimes also pronounced as an acronym.
The first L of LOL is sometimes also explained as the initial letter of laugh.
(Show Less)
colloq.
A. int.
Categories »

Originally and chiefly in the language of electronic communications: ‘ha ha!’; used to draw attention to a joke or humorous statement, or to express amusement.

1990 Jargon File Draft, part 4 of 4 in comp.misc (Usenet newsgroup) 13 June, LOL‥laughing out loud.
1993 Re: Walking out of Movies in bit.listserv.cinema-l (Usenet newsgroup) 3 Aug., LOL‥. Damn, that's even worse‥. Ba Ha Ha Ha ha ha!
2002 What Mobile Apr. 23/3 (heading) Wan2 go on a d8 2nite? LOL. Everyone flirts, but will people really do it on their mobiles?
2003 K. Sampson Freshers 100 ‘Wow, man! Are you, like, really from a council estate?’ ‘Yep.’ ‘Lol! Awesome.’
2006 J. Dibbell Play Money xxiv. 170 There was a pause, then finally: lol. i know what ur hintin at.
(Hide quotations)

B. n.2
Categories »

An instance of the written interjection ‘LOL’.

1993 San Diego Union-Tribune 14 Feb. d2/3 Someone who cracks a joke might get an ‘LOL’ in response—for ‘Laughing Out Loud’.
1995 RE: Polygonal shaped GIFs in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.images (Usenet newsgroup) 13 Aug., I got a LOL about ‘Geometrically challenged’.
2000 Times Union (Albany, N.Y.) (Nexis) (Three Star ed.) 7 Sept. d1 Last week‥, 14-year-old Caitlin Orlofsky and her friends caught up on it all, in a conversation punctuated by LOLs.
2009 R. V. Kozinets Netnography x. 183 All of it blogged and microblogged and promoted with lots of omgs and lols.