Day 53
For the more elitist folk among us, there is a strong greivance against the new kind of language that has spreaded from internet communication. "MSN-ish" we'll call it for now. Acronyms and shortened words reign supreme, since people (mostly kids and teens) can't be bothered to type out entire words or phrases. What I want to say so often is that when people are speaking online, they ought to mimic their own personalities however possible in type format! This, at least, is what I try to do, but admittedly some of the countless signposts such as brb, cya, laters, sup?, sry, and of course lol have become a part of my language online.
And the fun part: The truth of words, much to the dismay of said elitists, is that they are transient in their nature. The reason dictionaries re-publish every year is that unused (or 'replaced') words must be removed, and new words must be added. The lexicographer is more akin to an anthropologist than a historian. He maps the use of words and the ways in which they are spelled, and as such a dictionary of spellings and meanings is merely a reflection of the way people speak in this particular day and age.
I guarantee all of you that "lol" will be in the Oxford English Dictionary within 5 years, and suddenly we'll no longer to be able to say it isn't a legitimite word. And, I'm sure not long from now, "literally" will have the added meaning of "a term to excentuate or exaggerate a proposition," because of the widespread 'misuse' of the term in this way. If the misuse becomes widespread enough, for long enough, it literally won't be misuse anymore; it will be justified by the dictionary itself.
On the one hand this makes me want to pull my hair out with frustration, but on the other I realize that this is nothing to be frustrated about. Truth be told, the wrongness or rightness of a word is more a subject to its understandability than its old-fashioned meaning, or even its correlation with the latest dictionary.
And the fun part: The truth of words, much to the dismay of said elitists, is that they are transient in their nature. The reason dictionaries re-publish every year is that unused (or 'replaced') words must be removed, and new words must be added. The lexicographer is more akin to an anthropologist than a historian. He maps the use of words and the ways in which they are spelled, and as such a dictionary of spellings and meanings is merely a reflection of the way people speak in this particular day and age.
I guarantee all of you that "lol" will be in the Oxford English Dictionary within 5 years, and suddenly we'll no longer to be able to say it isn't a legitimite word. And, I'm sure not long from now, "literally" will have the added meaning of "a term to excentuate or exaggerate a proposition," because of the widespread 'misuse' of the term in this way. If the misuse becomes widespread enough, for long enough, it literally won't be misuse anymore; it will be justified by the dictionary itself.
On the one hand this makes me want to pull my hair out with frustration, but on the other I realize that this is nothing to be frustrated about. Truth be told, the wrongness or rightness of a word is more a subject to its understandability than its old-fashioned meaning, or even its correlation with the latest dictionary.
Comments