Dictionaries adopt more Internet terminology into the English language
By Sean P. Aune
Love it or hate it, the Internet is changing not only the way people talk online, but it is also starting to change the English language as a whole.
In a recent poll by Merriam-Webster, makers of the well known dictionary, users of their website voted “w00t” as the word of the year. While this does not assure the inclusion of the word into the dictionary, it does put it up for consideration. The second place word was “Facebook”.
Seeing as the name of the popular social network came in second over at the better known dictionary site, it’s not surprising a smaller company decided to just go ahead and include it. The Collins English Dictionary is adding “Facebook” as both a noun and a verb in their next edition. They are also updating the meanings of “pimp” (to make your profile page prettier) and “poke” (to get someone’s attention on Facebook) to reflect the new vernacular.
While the English language is an ever-evolving creature, “w00t” worries me as it’s always written with double-00’s in place of the letter “o”. If we start adopting l33t speak (”elite speak” for those not familiar with it) into the language, it seems like a horrible muddying of the written word.
As for “pimp” being updated for Facebook specifically, that seems a bit of a marketing move more than anything. With television shows such as “Pimp My Ride” and the term being used in connection with just about every social network, it seems a bit disingenuous to make it Facebook-specific.
At least “pwned” hasn’t made it yet, but I’m sure it’s just a matter of time.
Related:
Entry was posted
on Saturday, December 22nd, 2007 at 2:42 pm
under
Read more entries by Sean P. Aune.
Stumble It!
December 22nd, 2007
Of course English keeps evolving, but the change we are seeing here seems to be the legitimatization of slang. I agree with Sean that the additon of figures to the alphabet will be problematic, particularly with the modern prevelance of sanserif typography. I forsee much confusion. Depending on the font, it can be difficult to distinguish between l and 1, and also O, 0, and o. It seems that we have already lost the use of small caps, and the use of lining and non-lining figures is pretty much a thing of the past except in fine book work.
Personally I find words like l33t to be rather charming, but I also have a dreadful feeling that we are loosing more than we a gaining. We just might end up with just one word for everything.
December 24th, 2007
I have difficulty taking seriously any criticism or comment about the correct use of language by someone who cannot manage the simple taks of distinguishing between the words “losing” and the non-word “loosing”.
How about doing a spell-check BEFORE you reveal your ignorance…
December 24th, 2007
@a non e mous: I take it you are refering to me. :) I am not afraid of showing my ignorance and I thank you for the heads up. I often make mistakes. English is not my first language and it is often through comments like yours that I learn. However, distinguishing between “losing” and “loosing” is not such a simple task. I agree that “losing” might be a more common, and probably better word in the above context, but I think “loosing” is a great word too. Archers like it. It means letting go.
December 25th, 2007
OK, I wasn’t to know that English is a second language for you, so I will admit that I was heavy-handed in my criticism – for which I hope you will accept my apologies.
Yet “loose” or “loosing” versus “lose” or “losing” is such an annoyingly common habit that one sees far too often, even from persons who consider themselves erudite and well-spoken. Because it has become a pet hate of mine, I tend to react when I see it occur in a comment on the changing nature of the English language.
For the record, the word “loosing” is so archaic that many modern english dictionaries (let alone english speakers) do not recognise it. The “letting go” you refer to implies the releasing of hunting animals, as in letting loose from a leash, hence the connection to archery and arrows. So, while it is a word albeit in limited usage, it wasn’t appropriate for the context in which you placed it.
December 25th, 2007
@a non e mous: Thanks. Point well taken. I understand your feeling very well as I often have the same problem with people using “to”, “too”, and “two” as if they are interchangable. Another one is the confusion of “there” and “their”. It makes it difficult to read and looks a little rude to me. however, it appears to be perfectly acceptable in some places such as Slashdot.
On a slightly different note, as I get older I notice the year by year change in languages more. Nowadays, some people are even considering Shakespeareian language to be obsolete, even though, by defenition it is modern English and few people don’t read the plays, if not the sonnets. Pretty soon some young fellow will probably be offended by the difference between “woot” and “w00t”. Still, although the use of English is currently on the rise, it is apparently only spoken by 1/4 of the world’s population. The net is starting to become very interesting indeed, culturally and linguistically.
December 28th, 2007
The ‘loosing’ referred to earlier does not refer to letting hunting animals loose from the leash, but to the actual action of ‘loosing’ (ie, firing) an arrow – as in Robin Hood. English is a wonderful language, if not a bit complicated, and there are thousands of words which have very explicit and pertinent meanings which are gradually falling into disuse. It’s a pity that it couldn’t be studied in greater depth so that these wonderful words remained a part of our everyday language. On the other side of the coin, many new words and phrases are being introduced (eg, 24/7) which are a form of shorthand, lazy language and only detract from the use of correct, available words. (BTW – Ole Juul’s defenition should be definition.)