Jump to content

Phablet, selfie, emoji (and twerking) now in Oxford Dictionaries


DKT27
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Administrator

The Oxford Dictionaries are leaping into modernity faster than your eyes can see, your fingers can type your phone can grow and your bottom can wiggle.

IdDwdbA.png

Emoji celebrates with a, um, phablette.

May I wiggle my bottom while being honest with you?

I have never heard the following phrase: "I am phabulously, phenomenally phlabbergasted with my phablet."

Indeed, though I have seen the word written down and projected upon my eyes, I have never, ever heard anyone actually say "phablet".

Perhaps it's like "parenthesis" and "prestidigitation." Words that strike eyes, but never leave mouths. It could be that no one actually knows what their phone-tablet hybrid is really called.

I mention this, bottom awiggle, because news reaches me that "phablet" had now entered the hallowed p(h)ortals of the Oxford Dictionaries.

It is one of a number of relatively new words that have sprinted into recognition. In a blog post, the Oxfordites say they have expedited some words that are "buzzworthy." (Yes, that is indeed, one of them.)

Would you believe that "srsly" is now in there? Srsly.

"Selfie," "emoji" and "digital detox" also waltz in there as if they owned the place. Yes, emoji, the means by which the barely literate express their base emotions, now has official recognition.

"Bitcoin" makes it. As does "fomo." You don't know what "fomo" means? Oh, you're really missing out there.

Just as the tech world is taking over the world and turning human beings into low-level engineers -- next step: totally manipulable robots -- so humanity is inventing hardly any new vocabulary of its own.

Which is why my bottom just cannot help waving itself in front of you and wiggling.

I am an enormous supporter of humanity and especially of the very human Miley Cyrus -- surely you are still in the thrall of her wonderful performance at the VMAs.

I am therefore delighted to announce that alongside all this tech jargon, "twerking" has also bounced into the Oxford Dictionaries.

:view: View: Original Article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 7
  • Views 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • DKT27

    1

  • Alanon

    3

  • calguyhunk

    3

  • Veboy

    1

I barely go to CNet anymore 'cuz of the utter trash they seem to churn out with alarming regularity!

But this seems to be one of the best written articles there for a long time. Informative and funny as hell at the same time LOL! Good on Chris Matyszczyk. A two thumbs up to that :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as douchebag is in the dictionary, I'm fine with anything being added to it.

Behold the douchenozzle - when a douchebag simply doesn't cut it :lmao:

Edited by calguyhunk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always nice to read someone actually talking about dictionaries. xD

Would be nicer if the guys at Oxford waited a bit longer before listing new words in. In the glorious days of paper and print, you had to be more careful. You couldn't really afford to add words in one edition, just to remove it in the next, because it went out of use. Phablet could just be a passable novelty.

It seems that that caution has now been swept aside by the desire to be current - even if the Standard English is infused with colloquialisms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, speaking of new words, is the desktop OED still 4.0.0.3 or something like that? :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always nice to read someone actually talking about dictionaries. xD

True dat! :yes:

Would be nicer if the guys at Oxford waited a bit longer before listing new words in. In the glorious days of paper and print, you had to be more careful. You couldn't really afford to add words in one edition, just to remove it in the next, because it went out of use. Phablet could just be a passable novelty.

It seems that that caution has now been swept aside by the desire to be current - even if the Standard English is infused with colloquialisms.

+1. I know people like you and me sound old fashioned and are a dying breed maybe, but the fact is, this is the age of Instant Karma :( We need everything and we need 'em now :o

What else do you expect - even from the most revered of publishers? People just have lost all patience whatsoever in this digital era of instant connectivity wherever, whenever. We see this 'Age of Impatience' if you will everywhere now. From the attitudes of the bratty little kids, to instant fame derived from YouTube uploads or 'leaked' $ex videos to the most 'respected' media outlets publishing unverified - and often unsubstantiated - [email protected] just to compete with 'instant News' outlets like Twitter etc.

Having to wait for years or God forbid - decades - isn't likely to please our generation. We need instant salvation without even working for it, man! Sad but true. :(

Edited by calguyhunk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A late response, but a good one - the dictionary of my native language was started around the same time as Oxford, and it still isn't finished. :(

It sould encompass over 700.000 words in the end, and have between 30-50 volumes. People still haven't gone digital with the word processing! in total, only 18 encyclopedic volumes have been published, up to the letter "O". Vol. 1 was published over 50 years ago, and there have been no update volumes, since the whole thing is still in progress! Should they finish it in my lifetime, most of it will be quite outdated.

They chose a model of both the standard language, and the spoken variety, with full respect for the dialects, and providing examples from the various written monuments (sound familliar?) It was, I feel, too much of a strain for them to do it properly, and fast... But, in their defense, the recorded wealth in those volumes is tough to match, simply because some dialects had words for things the standard simply didn't.

I'd hate to see the OED make that same leap or change the current method of citing examples. If they want to make a dictionary of the folk language, they should, every langugage need one to record the evolution of folkspeek through time, just not under the OED.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...