WTF? New Words?

The Oxford English Dictionary added some new words, phrases and symbols the other day. Does it seem to you like they just did this the other day? It felt that way to me. That's when I learned that they update the thing every three months. Really? Every three months? That seems a bit extreme to me, but they take this sort of thing fairly seriously over there.

Even though I knew that one particular addition was inevitable, I was not looking forward to it. Yes, that's right. LOL made it in. I guess in some ways, that's good. I mean, maybe now people won't think that it stands for 'lots of love' and text inappropriate condolences. (Example: "I heard your mom died. I'm so sorry. LOL!") I've just never been a big LOL fan. I think that's because I never believe that people are actually L-ing OL when they write that. Something has to be pretty danged funny for me to be vocal with my amusement and I feel that it's that way for the majority of other folks as well. But I'm pretty sure that CQTM (Chuckling Quietly To Myself) isn't going to catch on anytime soon.)

They also have added OMG (Oh, my God), BFF (Best Friends Forever) and IMHO (In My Humble Opinion). But for some reason, they have yet to add WTF. That HAS to be in there eventually, right? I checked the Oxford Dictionary Online to see if there was a definition for the F-word. Not only was it defined, it was quite thorough. I was pleased. Thus, I'm guessing that WTF can't be far behind. If you're going to have IMHO in the dictionary, you have to have WTF. Not that I'm the measuring stick for any of this stuff, but I don't think that I have ever used IMHO. WTF, on the other hand, is a daily staple.

But what really surprised me wasn't all of the acronyms that they shoved in there. (They also included the heart symbol. As in "I Heart New York". It means you love something. I'm not thrilled with the thought of the dictionary turning into some sort of hipster rebus.) It was all of the words that made it in that, astonishingly, weren't in there already. I'm perfectly OK with them adding things like "fnarr fnarr" (used to represent sniggering, typically at a sexual innuendo), "kleftiko" (appears to be some sort of lamb dish), "rozzle" (some sort of slang that either means hugging, joking around, or thinking someone is hot) and "yidaki", which I think is a type of didgeridoo. (No word on whether didgeridoo was already in there or not.) Those are words I've never heard of and if they're going to make them official words, that's fine. But what about "rude"? Wait. What?

"Rude". They added "rude". According to the page where the updates are, "rude, n.1" was added to the Oxford English Dictionary. They didn't have that in there before? It appears that they're defining it this time as a noun, so maybe that's the difference? Words that I would have thought would have already been in the dictionary include "router, n.6", "la-la land, n.", "dotted line, n. and adj.", "biker, n.", "car crash, n.", "headline, v.", "rototill, v.", "taquito, n.", and "stonewash, n., v.".

Car crash? Cars have been crashing since the invention of the car and they're just now getting around to putting it in the dictionary? And biker? Really? That wasn't in there before now? Amazing. How did stonewash elude the pages of the OED for so long? Where were these people in early 1990s? I don't get it. I thought they would have been a little more on top of things.

Welcome, New Words!

A little while ago I wrote about some guy who was trying to get a bunch of rejected words into the Oxford English Dictionary. My main gripe about them was that they were a) ridiculous, and b) a little too cutesy. I was kind of proud of the OED for standing their ground. Oh, if only I could feel that same sense of pride for the Oxford Dictionary of English, as they have caved into the cutesy-ness of etymology and have just added several new words to their dictionary. And I'm sure you will be shocked, simply shocked to learn that many of them displease me for a variety of reasons. Let's delve, shall we?

It's over there on the NewsFeed section of Time where we get a partial list of the 2,000 words that were added. Granted, I was only partially annoyed at the whole thing, but that doesn't mean I wasn't mostly annoyed. I was. I'm just not into making up words for things that don't need a word.

For instance, freaking staycation made it in. That's where, instead of going somewhere on vacation, you stay home instead. That's not a thing. It's staying home. It's not doing much. See, one can go on vacation. One can't go on a staycation. Just because it rhymes, doesn't make it right.

Another one of those would be bromance. That's a close, but allegedly non-sexual relationship between two men. For example, some people might say that two guys who go to Hawaii together are having a bromance. I would call two guys who go to Hawaii together gay.

Then there's the highly annoying automagically. I have never heard that one used before, but now that it's on this list, I'm sure that I'm going to be hearing/reading it all over the place. It's defined as "automatically and in a way that seems ingenious, inexplicable, or magic." We can't just use suddenly or somehow for that? What's wrong with "as if my magic"? It's funnier that way.

Another one that I have never heard used before (and am really hoping that I don't) is chillax. It sounds like a Dr. Seuss character, but it's not. (You might be thinking of The Lorax. I know I was.) It's defined as "calm down and to relax". Aren't those kind of the same? Can you be calm and not relaxed? Can you be relaxed and not calm? I don't think that you can. Therefore, there is no reason to combine the two. They're the same! What is wrong with you people? I can't do either one when I'm reading this sort of nonsense!

Another addition was LBD. This allegedly stands for "little black dress". I have never heard, nor read, this term ever being used. Ever. You can't just go around monogramming something! Along the same genre (that of fashion), they also included matchy-matchy, defined as "excessively colour-coordinated". I hope they know that it's also used when two people are dressed in a similar fashion. They're usually a couple. When couples are coordinating their outfits to compliment one another in an extremely gag-ifying manner, it's matchy-matchy. It's also barfy-barfy.

Apparently, the Oxford Dictionary in English is not in it for the laughs. Or maybe they are. Maybe that's why they added the extremely laughable hikikomori. Never heard of it? Why would you have? It means "the abnormal avoidance of social contact, typically by adolescent males". In JAPANESE! Do they not read the title of their own book? It's the Oxford Dictionary in ENGLISH. It's right there in the name. ENGLISH. Why are they throwing Japanese words in there? Besides, there's already a word for that. It's called "a gamer".

They included a few words that I can't believe weren't already in there. Seriously, they just now got around to adding buzzkill? On Family Guy, they've had that Buzz Killington character on there for quite some time. Are you telling me that the Oxford Dictionary in English folks don't fancy themselves purveyors of The Family Guy?

They're also just now adding wardrobe malfunction. Are you kiding me? That term has been around since 2004 when one of Janet Jackson's hoots accidentally popped out of whatever skin tight outfit she had donned that evening. We have had to hear about that 9/64ths of a second that America was flashed for the past six years. Just NOW they add it? What are they doing over there, exactly, that keeps them so busy? Or, at the very least, so completely unaware of pop-culture and the emergence of a Jackson breast?

And they've finally put in overthink, social media, chill pill and turducken. If you're not familiar with the last one, it is a chicken that is stuffed into a duck that is then stuffed into a turkey. It's also known as yummy. The deliciousness factor should always be taken into consideration when adding words to the dictionary.

You can see a very small chunk of the 2,000 words at the News Feed link that I provided above. It doesn't seem as if they add words very often, so for now, we're spared any more of this nonsense. But somewhere out there, someone is already tweeting some made up crap that we'll have to deal with next time. I guarantee it.

They Were Rejected For A Reason

When I saw the title of a certain article over there at AOL News, I knew how the whole thing was going to turn out for me. The title was "Unused but Useful: Oxford English Dictionary's Reject List". I enjoy words. I enjoy reading about words. I do not enjoy people making up words and expecting everyone to start using them all the time as if they had just invented the word "dog" or something to that effect. Articles about made up words usually end up annoying me. And this one did just that. Annoyed the crap out of me.

The basis for the article is something that I think we could all surmise. (And when I say "all" I mean everyone who isn't a mouth breathing, paste eating, moron.) The Oxford English Dictionary rejects quite a few words every year that are submitted to them. And God bless 'em for it. Lord only knows what we'd be subjected to if there wasn't some sort of discretion. (Not to mention common sense and the ability to just say, "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. No way is it going in this dictionary.")

The author of the article, a one very competent and capable Theunis Bates, starts off by writing "Ever engaged a freegan in nonversation, or does the very idea make you want to precuperate? If you haven't a clue what we're talking about, don't worry, you're probably not xenolexic." See, I've heard of those "words" and just reading that almost made me cringe. But he goes on to say that if you haven't heard of some of those words that is because they are "...non words": Words that have allegedly been submitted to the Oxford English Dictionary...but rejected on the grounds that too few people currently use them." That's what I like. Rejection based on infrequency. Seems like a reasonable principle to have in place at all times. (For example, I reject talking to many people due to the infrequency of the number of times that they have anything of substance to say to me. Thus, I talk to very few people and I am much happier because of it. Therefore, I can conclude that such a system works very well.)

Theunis (that's kind of a cool name) goes on to tell us that all of the "...failed words are hidden away in a secret vault at Oxford". Oh, awesome! He also goes on to tell us that access to said vault by outsiders is not going to happen. Hmmm. Not so awesome. But a one 22-year old Luke Ngakane, through "...his own research and logophile contacts...quickly built up a pamphlet's worth of non words." Said pamphlet consists of 39 words. It seems to be Luke's goal to "...get as many of these unique words back into circulation." Based on the selection of words that Luke chose, I can only hope that the re-circulation of those words does not happen. Ever. They are horrible words. There is a reason that they were rejected in the first place! A lot of them use that cutesy little trick of changing one letter so that the new word simply sounds like the old word, only has a whole new meaning based upon the change of the letter. You know, like "staycation" (which is just ridiculous) and "manscaping" (which I really don't want to think about).

Let's look at some of the choices, shall we? If you're interested in Luke's entire list, it can be found in Theunis's article via the link that I provided earlier in this post.

Accordionated: Being able to drive and refold a road map at the same time. Clearly, this is a play on the word "coordinated", only with the word "accordion" incorporated into it to illustrate the folding of a map. With GPS and Google Maps and all of that these days, this word seems outdated at best.

Espacular: Something especially spectacular. So, something that is especially spectacular gets half of the word "spectacular" removed from it so that is sounds like some sort of Spanish spackle?

Freegan: Someone who rejects consumerism, usually by eating discarded food. Um, I already have a word for this sort of person. In fact, I have several. I tend to alternate between "bum", "hobo" and "Bob, the homeless guy who lives behind the bank".

Fumb: Your large toe. Is it a "fumb" instead of a "thumb" because it's on our foot and "foot" starts with an "F"? That's F-ing ridiculous. If that were logical, then wouldn't the thumb simply be called the "humb" because it's on our hand and "hand" starts with an "H"? Or would we just call the whole thing stupid because that's how I'm starting to feel by trying to comprehend all of this?

Nudenda: An unhidden agenda. We already have a word for this, too. It's called a "plan". A PLAN. Say it with me. A PLAN. Good Lord...

Precuperate: To prepare for the possibility of being ill. That's called a hypochondriac. Stop making up words.

Sprog: To go faster then a jog but slower then a sprint. Sooooo....run?

Wikism: A piece of information that claims to be true but is wildly inaccurate. Also known as a "lie" or "bulls**t". Your choice.

If I thought that this little movement had any legs, I'd be ready to stab my eyes out (and probably my ears, too, just for good measure). But I doubt it's going anywhere. I wonder if Luke has found a word for that yet?

Define "Dictionary"

We have really come off the rails this time. I mean really. Really really. Really.

Let's go down to southern California to the Menifee Union School District in southwest Riverside County. And while we're there, let's stop by the fourth grade and fifth grade classrooms at Oak Meadows Elementary School. And while we're there, let's look up some words in Merriam Webster's 10th Collegiate Edition Dictionary. Oh, wait. We can't. They've been removed from the classrooms because A parent complained. Wait. What?

Correct. It would seem that, according to the LA Times, "...a parent complained to the school principal about what she believed was explicit sexual content in the dictionary." Explicit sexual content? Let's break that down, shall we? The dictionary defines words. It doesn't beat around the bush. Therefore, it tends to be explicit. Whether it be a definition of a duck (a duck) or a rock (a rock) or a tree (a tree), it tends to be explicit. And explicit or not, if it's a word, it needs to be defined. Hence it's inclusion in the dictionary.

"The books were ordered off the shelves until a committee could determine if they were "age appropriate" for fourth- and fifth-graders." If they were age appropriate? For people who...read? What age does one have to be before their language is deemed to be appropriate? What the heck is that all about? ONE parent complains and ALL of the dictionaries get removed?! When did that start happening? When did the opinion of ONE person suddenly have the potential to affect EVERYONE around them? (And in this case, apparently only one completely asinine person to boot!)

"The move immediately set off cries of censorship among many, including the president of the local school board, who warned that banning one book would inevitably lead to the banning of more and more." Let's forget about censorship for a moment because censorship is really the last thing that I'm worried about at the moment. What I'm concerned about is stupidity and this is one of the stupidest things that I've ever heard. Let's forget about censorship for a moment and let's instead focus on how ridiculous it is to remove a freaking dictionary because there are words in there that are explicit! Focusing? Are you?! Good! Then you see my point! Now, what was the problem exactly?

The word and the definition of said word that is in question here is "oral sex". Now, I don't know about you, but I don't know how you're going to define "oral sex" without it containing a fair amount of explicit detail. See, that's because you're going to have to use the word "genitals" or an acceptable substitute. (And by "acceptable" I mean something that you could put in the dictionary and allow said dictionary to retain it's credibility. Therefore, terms like cootchie, hoo-ha, and wee-wee would be immediately disqualified from consideration.) And technically, the term "oral sex" in and of itself is rather explicit. You've got the "sex" part of it which could be considered explicit and you've got all of the oralling going on with it which makes it even more explicit. It's hard for me to see a way around that one, frankly. And you know, you're also going to have to include some sort of reference to the oral portions of the human anatomy making contact with said genitalia without a funny nickname. Tell me how that's going to happen without explicit detail. Oh, that's right. It's not.

Now, I thought I had a hard copy of the "devil's book" (aka Merriam-Webster's Dictionary), but I was wrong, so I've had to rely on the online version in order to further assess this lunacy. If you check Merriam Webster's online and look up the definition of "oral sex", this is the definition you'll see: "oral stimulation of the genitals". Yes, we know. (Theoretically.)

::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

That's IT?!?! THAT is the explicit definition that A parent wigged out about and demanded that the dictionary be pulled from the classrooms?! Is this parent aware of some of the other words that are in said dictionary?! What about penis? I'm pretty sure that vagina is included in there! You know, the words that were referenced by the "oral sex" definition? You know, words that you could look up to get a clearer view of what we're talking about, though I doubt that from the oral sex position that you're really going to have a very clear view of anything, really. (Yes, that was a joke. Carry on.) They cross reference cunnilingus (not one who is clever with words) and fellatio (not an off shoot of the word "fellow") for crying out loud!

For the love of anything that is sane in this world, if someone could explain to me how society got to the point where if one person is annoyed by the slightest little thing that the entire system is thrown out of whack whilst that moron is accommodated? How?! How did it come to this?!

Look, the purpose of a dictionary is so that all of the words can be included. It's not a give and a take quite so much. It's pretty much an all or nothing thing here. You can have all of the words and call it a dictionary or you can have some of the words and call it a pile of words. Your choice. Actually, no. Wait a minute. It isn't your choice. It's no one's choice! It's a damned dictionary and that's all there is to it! You can't go changing the dictionary! It's not POSSIBLE! What is wrong with people (person)?

I cannot believe that because one fringe lunatic couldn't handle the term "oral sex" in a dictionary (not in their Bible, though that would be news!) for God's sake, that now (and I'm quoting) "The school is now promising to begin a thorough scouring of the dictionary for other offensive entries." Because of course they have nothing better to do, seeing as how all of the children are learning the most that they can and are getting the best education possible already.

::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

Good Lord, we're doomed.

"It's hard to sit and read the dictionary (Why, yes! It is! That's why people don't do it! You moron.), but we'll be looking to find other things of graphic nature." Let me save them some time! You're going to find other things of graphic nature! You don't have to READ very much! You can just flip right to them! Let me help you! Penis is probably in there. Don't forget vagina. Amygdala should go just because it sounds hilarious. (The same goes for urethra.) Get rid of vulva (the body part, not the car. Oh, wait, that's Volvo, never mind). And while you're at it, axe the prostate, will you? You should find some testicles in there (not literally, for cryin' out loud!). Breasts must definitely go (and I will miss them). Anus? Gone! Uterus? I'm not using mine, get rid of it too! Clitoris? Until we can agree on a pronunciation, it's gone as well! (Man, if whomever that parent was is reading this right now, I'm guessing that they probably had a heart attack somewhere right around 'anus'. But again, not literally.)

Did this parent never look up words when they were younger just so that they could laugh? If not, then I'm guessing that they were not part of a very large group known as "freaking everyone!" And after the school gets done reading the dictionary, then what? Are they going to black out those entries? Good luck. Ever read a dictionary? They're printed on that paper that's just a step up from the thickness that they use for the Bible. It's very thin. There's no way that you can just run a Sharpie over your penis (not many reasons why you'd want to, really) without it blacking out the other side as well.

So do you want to know what they came up with? You know, what to do after all of the scouring? Here's the solution: "The dictionary will go back to the classroom but the parents will be given the option to determine if they want their kids to have access to that dictionary...Students will take permission slips home and parents who don't want them to use Webster's 10th Collegiate Edition can opt for alternative dictionaries." What now?

An alternative dictionary? What the heck is that? An incomplete list of words? Why yes! Yes! That's exactly what it is! There is no word on what this alternative dictionary will consist of or which one will be used. But are they serious? They're going to send home permission slips in case parents don't want their children to have access to the dictionary? I'm pretty sure that if that sort of permission slip was sent home with me when I was in school that my parents would have pulled me out of that school. They would have assumed that the lunatics are running the asylum and they would have yanked me out of there before having to read through any more inanity. (Man, I wish that they had done that when I was in high school and with my chemistry class. You know, sent home a note asking if I was allowed access to my chemistry book. I would have forged that sucker so fast. I hated chemistry.) By the way, if you're wondering what the California Department of Education (you know, the department that funds the blasted schools) had to say about it, they "...said it had no authority over what Menifee does with its dictionaries because they are not considered instructional materials." I want to cry.

It's not an instructional material? It's a dictionary! It's a reference material! How is a reference material not an instructional material? Ever remember asking your teacher how you spell something or what something means when you were in school? What did your teacher tell you? That's right. She/He told you to look it up in the dictionary. I don't know how that is not an instructional material, but apparently it isn't.

I cannot believe that this got any farther than the individual who took the complaint. Oh, how I wish I had been that individual. I think my response would have gone something along the lines of, "Uh-huh. I see. Well, Mr. or Mrs. Jackass, the point of the dictionary is that is has all of the words in it. See, because otherwise it would just be called Merriam-Webster's Partial List of Words. And who is going to want to read that, really. No one. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have non-lunatics to see. Thank you for stopping by."

Look, I'll work my way up to something that could actually be said, all right? In the meantime can you crazy people please get over yourselves? And if you can't, will you at least accept some help from the sane? Good Lord, things are off the rails these days.