Books Oxford Dictionary adds Yolo and other words

[MasterXemnas 2,285]

Discuss. I think this is a good thing. Society needs to move forward. Our language should reflect our times. Words and language are always changing. If you disagree, that's okay. We'll discuss it and not whine.

 

[Caity 3,946]

I wouldn't be surprised it's been added, with the amount of morons who scream it while eating toast, taking a dump or doing something else that otherwise doesn't matter.  It seems weird though to add it when the joy for YOLO and the hatred at YOLO has died down to a point that it's like those many celebrities that have one hit wonders and disappear from the eath.  The dictionary has to move with the times and common language, hence why there's a second definition under "Literally" saying it means "Figuratively, for emphasis" 'since so many people go "Omg I'm literally dying now with laughter, literally, literally".  With things like that it's a shame they're actually changing definitions just cause so many just don't know their basic definition nor care about the words they're using when mentioning how Hannah totally banged Jemma's boyfriend Brad. 

[MasterXemnas 2,285]

I wouldn't be surprised it's been added, with the amount of morons who scream it while eating toast, taking a dump or doing something else that otherwise doesn't matter.  It seems weird though to add it when the joy for YOLO and the hatred at YOLO has died down to a point that it's like those many celebrities that have one hit wonders and disappear from the eath.  The dictionary has to move with the times and common language, hence why there's a second definition under "Literally" saying it means "Figuratively, for emphasis" 'since so many people go "Omg I'm literally dying now with laughter, literally, literally".  With things like that it's a shame they're actually changing definitions just cause so many just don't know their basic definition nor care about the words they're using when mentioning how Hannah totally banged Jemma's boyfriend Brad. 

Fool. Language itself is a way for people to communicate with each other. As long as we understand each other, I'd say it's okay. Things like dictionaries are just trying to make definitions more concise. It is very helpful, but not law. Words mean whatever people want them to mean. It might be a little weird that some words are changing definitions, but only for us. For the next generation, it will be normal.

[Isamu Kuno 2,512]

Problem is, we may not be moving in the right direction, this just seems to make linguistic laziness more acceptable, thereby further lowering the standard of education which is already laughable.

 

Fool. Language itself is a way for people to communicate with each other. As long as we understand each other, I'd say it's okay. Things like dictionaries are just trying to make definitions more concise. It is very helpful, but not law. Words mean whatever people want them to mean. It might be a little weird that some words are changing definitions, but only for us. For the next generation, it will be normal.

 

And therein lies the problem. It just means that future generations won't have to think about what they say or write.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Isamu_Kuno

[Caity 3,946]

Fool. Language itself is a way for people to communicate with each other. As long as we understand each other, I'd say it's okay. Things like dictionaries are just trying to make definitions more concise. It is very helpful, but not law. Words mean whatever people want them to mean. It might be a little weird that some words are changing definitions, but only for us. For the next generation, it will be normal.

 

I don't think it's weird, I expect change and evolution, I know it's expected that the main language of the future will be Manglish (mangled English) just a shame they had to change the definition of a word that meant literal, to it's opposite, because people keep using it in the wrong form.  

[Clouded Sun 1,232]

I really don't think words like that should be added to a real dictionary.

Brohug? Fratty? Did I hear Bitchwatch?

Language like this, I believe, is not supposed to move in the wrong direction. It's just making way for people to break the rules of basic grammar,  Adding tainted words from modern day slang is just not right in my opinion. Proper and normal words should be used in a dictionary, and it's up to society to say whatever they want. Not like all of it's what they should be saying.

 

Edited August 17, 2014 by Sun Wukong

[marukyu 132]

I don't think it's weird, I expect change and evolution, I know it's expected that the main language of the future will be Manglish (mangled English) just a shame they had to change the definition of a word that meant literal, to it's opposite, because people keep using it in the wrong form.  

but its just another way to use the word. it doesnt change the original meaning. 

 

through context you determine whether its a teenager from our generation using it, or an english major whose using the word for its power. 

 

it takes nothing from it, it only adds to it. 

[Caity 3,946]

but its just another way to use the word. it doesnt change the original meaning. 

 

through context you determine whether its a teenager from our generation using it, or an english major whose using the word for its power. 

 

it takes nothing from it, it only adds to it. 

 

But if it means both literally and figuratively, then it means nothing.  It's like saying tiny now means more large and small, if I use it to describe something in size and it's accepted that the word holds both those meanings, it'll mean nothing and I'll have to clarify using another word.  

Edited August 17, 2014 by Caity Raindrop

[marukyu 132]

But if it means more literally and figuratively, then it means nothing.  It's like saying tiny now means more large and small, if I use it to describe something in size and it's accepted that the word holds both those meanings, it'll mean nothing and I'll have to clarify using another word.  

theirs nothing wrong with changing a definition to fit the people using it. thats waht evolution is about.

 

their is not wrong way when it comes to evolution. 

 

and literally thank god because i dont find shakespeare funny at all im sure he was good for his time though

[Isamu Kuno 2,512]

theirs nothing wrong with changing a definition to fit the people using it. thats waht evolution is about.

 

their is not wrong way when it comes to evolution. 

 

and literally thank god because i dont find shakespeare funny at all im sure he was good for his time though

No, it's not okay to change the basic structure of a language just for the sake of convenience, that's how we deteriorate as a culture and a species and how our international standing drops ever lower. People should be held to certain standards so they can bring themselves up, not pandered to by lowering the standards themselves. Elevating your standing is how evolution works. You don't make a deer stronger by pulling out a wolf's teeth, you just make the wolf weaker and the deer lazy.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Isamu_Kuno

[Clouded Sun 1,232]

theirs nothing wrong with changing a definition to fit the people using it. thats waht evolution is about.

 

their is not wrong way when it comes to evolution. 

 

and literally thank god because i dont find shakespeare funny at all im sure he was good for his time though

I agree with Caity. Using contradictory words, and words whose "slang" meaning also is derogatory for the sake of definition just defeats the purpose of using it at all. Yeah, there are words with multiple meanings, but that would alter the very rules of grammar itself. From an educated perspective (who lives in a place where people use slang ALL the time) I just don't think that "modern" trends should be accepted into proper language.

[marukyu 132]

No, it's not okay to change the basic structure of a language just for the sake of convenience, that's how we deteriorate as a culture and a species and how our international standing drops ever lower. People should be held to certain standards so they can bring themselves up, not pandered to by lowering the standards themselves. Elevating your standing is how evolution works. You don't make a deer stronger by pulling out a wolf's teeth, you just make the wolf weaker and the deer lazy.

but you missed the point that there is no right or wrong way to change language. 

 

people who are going to surpass bars set on education are going to surpass it regardless of a word change. 

people who have no interest in evenn graduating high school arent going to be motivated or reassured by a word change.

 

theyre changing it to fit today's definition.

 

take, for example, the word "gay" changing from happy, to homosexual male.

 

if noone ever updated that, kids looking for synonyms of happy, are going to have some surprised parents. 

[MasterXemnas 2,285]

Problem is, we may not be moving in the right direction, this just seems to make linguistic laziness more acceptable, thereby further lowering the standard of education which is already laughable.

And there in lies the problem. It just means that future generations won't have to think about what they say.

Fool. I don't see how this is adding to linguistic laziness.

[Clouded Sun 1,232]

but you missed the point that there is no right or wrong way to change language.  people who are going to surpass bars set on education are going to surpass it regardless of a word change. people who have no interest in evenn graduating high school arent going to be motivated or reassured by a word change. theyre changing it to fit today's definition. take, for example, the word "gay" changing from happy, to homosexual male. if noone ever updated that, kids looking for synonyms of happy, are going to have some surprised parents.

If no one ever updated that, kids wouldn't be using the word "gay" to describe homosexuals.

[Isamu Kuno 2,512]

but you missed the point that there is no right or wrong way to change language. 

 

people who are going to surpass bars set on education are going to surpass it regardless of a word change. 

people who have no interest in evenn graduating high school arent going to be motivated or reassured by a word change.

 

theyre changing it to fit today's definition.

 

take, for example, the word "gay" changing from happy, to homosexual male.

 

if noone ever updated that, kids looking for synonyms of happy, are going to have some surprised parents. 

There is a wrong way to change a language and this is it. Just look at your posts, red lines everywhere this is the problem. Extra letters, lack of punctuation, lack of capitals lack of proper spacing, misspelled words, it's a mess and this being acceptable is what this will lead to. It's fine for the internet but it wouldn't get you anywhere on a report or a job application. But if things like this are allowed it's just going to make it that much easier for people to do a half-assed job and get away with it.

 

But it will make it easier for them to graduate and without consequences, they'll have no reason to improve. If a student fails a test, and their parents take away their driving privileges, you can bet they're going to work their ass of if for no other reason the get the car back. If you lower the standard of education, it just allows them to get by on the bare minimum. Also you're using two extremes while the middle ground is far more common. Those who want to do well even if its just with average grades, but need a little help to improve. These kids will have no reason to improve because the standard they're being held to is lowered. Uneducated kids become uneducated adults unless they are held to certain standards,

 

Perhaps, but it would have never been used as a derogatory term either. when "gay" was first made synonymous with "homosexual"it was filled with bile and hate, corrupted into a verbal weapon for the intolerant. That won't happen here, but it will still have a detrimental effect on the future of this once great county.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Isamu_Kuno

[marukyu 132]

There is a wrong way to improve a language and it's this. But it will make it easier for them to graduate and without consequences, they'll have no reason to improve. If a student fails a test, and their parents take away their driving privileges, you can bet they're going to work their ass of if for no other reason the get the car back. If you lower the standard of education, it just allows them to get by on the bare minimum. Also you're using two extremes while the middle ground is far more common. Those who want to do well even if its just with average grades, but need a little help to improve. These kids will have no reason to improve because the standard they're being held to is lowered. Uneducated kids become uneducated adults unless they are held to certain standards,

 

Perhaps, but it would have never been used as a derogatory term either. when "gay" was first made synonymous with "homosexual"it was filled with bile and hate, corrupted into a verbal weapon for the intolerant. That won't happen here, but it will still have a detrimental effect on the future of this once great county.

But honestly its not like this is the gateway to it. 

 

some words are formal & others informal.

 

adding it to the dictionary doesnt mean its accepted by education systems.  

 

ain't, & bling bling are defined in most dictionary but that doesnt mean its allowed for school papers/etc.  

 

all theyre doing is defining words we use today. it has nothing to do with society imo. 

 

edit: oh yeah they already have tons of other common words to use in substitute of gay either way. like qu*er (it used to mean weird) and f*g (used to be british term for cigarettes i believe). 

Edited August 17, 2014 by marukyu

[MasterXemnas 2,285]

Fool. There is a time and place to use certain words and talk a certain way. You need to know how to talk in an interview, but you also need to know how to talk with friends and family. As long as one can differentiate between how to talk, it'll be okay.

[Isamu Kuno 2,512]

But it's just another way to use the word. It doesn't change the original meaning. Through context you determine whether it's a teenager from our generation using it, or an English major who's using the word for it's power. It takes nothing from it, it only adds to it. 

There's nothing wrong with changing a definition to fit the people using it. That's what evolution is about. There is no wrong way when it comes to evolution. And literally thank God because I don't find Shakespeare funny at all. I'm sure he was good for his time though

But you missed the point that there is no right or wrong way to change language. People who are going to surpass bars set on education are going to surpass it regardless of a word change. People who have no interest in even graduating high school aren't going to be motivated or reassured by a word change. They're changing it to fit today's definition. Take, for example, the word "gay" changing from happy to homosexual male. If no one ever updated that, kids looking for synonyms of happy are going to have some surprised parents. 

But honestly it's not like this is the gateway to it. Some words are formal & others informal. Adding it to the dictionary doesn't mean its accepted by educational systems.  Ain't, & bling bling are defined in most dictionary but that doesn't mean its allowed for school papers/etc.  All they're doing is defining words we use today. it has nothing to do with society imo. 

^ This is how your posts are supposed to look. Again, outside the internet.

And it is a gateway. Kids are going to assume that it's acceptable.

This isn't the Urban Dictionary, it's Oxford, which claims to be the ultimate authority on the English language (Thankfully it's habit of pulling stunts like this has received criticism, but sadly not enough to completely illegitimize it)

Fool. There is a time and place to use certain words and talk a certain way. You need to know how to talk in an interview, but you also need to know how to talk with friends and family. As long as one can differentiate between how to talk, it'll be okay.

But adding it to a dictionary like Oxford legitimizes these terms, lowering the standard across the board.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Isamu_Kuno

[Danex Darkfire + 1,712]

I couldn't understand 90% of the words they added

[MasterXemnas 2,285]

 

But adding it to a dictionary like Oxford legitimizes these terms, lowering the standard across the board.

Fool. They are words. Whether we like it or not. Oxford is not legitimizing it, for no one has that power. They are just recognizing it. And there are no standards. If enough people use a word, or agree it should be a word, then it is a word.

[marukyu 132]

^ This is how your posts are supposed to look. Again, outside the internet.

And it is a gateway. Kids are going to assume that it's acceptable.

This isn't the Urban Dictionary, it's Oxford, which claims to be the ultimate authority on the English language (Thankfully it's habit of pulling stunts like this has received criticism, but sadly not enough to completely illegitimize it)

weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

 

 

but this is maruyku

 

 

This isn't Marukyu. 

idk to each his own gg debating is fun buh noones goinna win praise the lord hallelujah lets share a apple split sundae & call it a sunday 

[Isamu Kuno 2,512]

Fool. They are words. Whether we like it or not. Oxford is not legitimizing it, for no one has that power. They are just recognizing it. And there are no standards. If enough people use a word, or agree it should be a word, then it is a word.

Yes, they are words, and words have power The power to impress, or make a fool. The power to comfort, or harm.

Words are, in my not so humble opinion, our most inexhaustible source of magic. Capable of both inflicting great harm, and mending it.

Words, real words, should be respected and not altered for convenience. And yes there are standards, at least when it comes to education and work. Recognition leads to legitimization. If enough people agree on something, then yes, it can be changed, but that doesn't mean it should. In Ancient Rome, if enough people agreed someone should be killed, then they were killed, regardless of weather or not this punishment matches the severity of their transgression. That is what can happen here, the murder of the English Language.

 

 

 

weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

 

 

but this is maruyku

 

 

This isn't Marukyu. 

idk to each his own gg debating is fun buh noones goinna win praise the lord hallelujah lets share a apple split sundae & call it a sunday 

Your mind is an unfathomable tapestry of chaos.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Isamu_Kuno

[MasterXemnas 2,285]

Fool. There's no way to say how language should be, though. I think that words being able to change meaning is one of the best things about them. They fulfill both our personal needs and social needs. There is no one person that can decide if a word is real or not. The only way to murder a language is to not speak it. Other than that, it can only grow. I. for one, refuse to let the people before me dictate how I can talk. All people can and should put in their part in evolving a language. These words being put in the dictionary are not hurting our language. It's making it better.