Good luck next year, hypochristian.
Does making it into the dictionary mean that people will finally stop writing âemojis?â
What irks me is that I coined âWTF?â around 1980 and I should have copyrighted it because Iâd be living in Hollywood and whenever Iâd walk into a party everyone would say âWTF, man!â
meanwhile, Oxford is removing words from its dictionary
English is the borg of languages.
The weirdest thing to include to me is honestly âcolony collapse disorderâ. Itâs a dictionary, not an encyclopedia, and I assume that theyâve had definitions for âcolonyâ, âcollapseâ and âdisorderâ for a long time. Why in the world would you include an entry for something like that in a dictionary?
WTF and NSFW arguably functions as words in modern English (especially on the Internet), so those make perfect sense, though.
Isnât the âJuniorâ dictionary always the compromise version? I canât find a statement from Oxford on exactly how many definitions it contains; but they list it as 288 pages, compared to the Childrenâs dictionary which is 400 pages and âover 30,000â definitions. No idea if the print density is similar; but a best guess suggests that there wonât be enough to save most of the OED from the cutting room floor.
Those sorts of entries certainly arenât the most critical, unlike the just-plain-weird-and-not-even-derived-from-one-of-the-usual-sources words that you pretty much canât figure out without a dictionary or rather a lot of context; but it isnât that weird to include them. Lots of diseases and phenomena are given blandly âself-explanatoryâ names; but unless they are still really new, there is usually more to them than the name alone will provide: âColony collapse disorderâ. Colony of what? Population collapse, physically falling apart? Is this big news or esoteric trivia?
Iâd assume that any reasonably competent dictionary would define âHIVâ and âHuman immunodeficiency virusâ is arguably even clearer than âcolony collapse disorderâ. The main limiting factor on the number of such definitions would likely be that only a medical dictionary could really justify occupying so much space, not that the âjust give it a banal and vaguely descriptive nameâ trend is actually self-documenting.
The Oxford Junior Dictionary has 10,000 words, and is aimed at seven year olds. Certainly a level of sophistication above Basic or Simple English, but they do have a word budget, Itâs explained rather well in this New Yorker article
##emoji
#emojim
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.