Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bitcoin, BYOD, Phablet, Selfie, and Twerking Find Place In Oxford Dictionary

samzenpus posted 1 year,19 days | from the you-keep-using-that-word-I-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means dept.

Idle 131

hypnosec writes "The Oxford Dictionaries Online (ODO) has been updated today to include some of the widely used tech words like Bitcoin, BYOD, Phablet, Selfie, and Twerking among others. Some of the other common tech words which have found a place in the dictionary are 'click and connect', 'digital detox', 'FOMO', 'geek chic', 'hackerspace', 'Internet of Things', 'MOOC', 'selfie', and 'TL;DR'."

cancel ×

131 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Twerking? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44702937)

No idea.

Re:Twerking? (5, Funny)

jaymzter (452402) | 1 year,19 days | (#44702997)

Tell me about it, I feel like Abe Simpson:

"I used to be `with it.' But then they changed what `it' was. Now what I'm `with' isn't `it' and what's `it' seems weird and scary to me. It'll happen to you."

Re:Twerking? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44703279)

Tell me about it, I feel like Abe Simpson:

"I used to be `with it.' But then they changed what `it' was. Now what I'm `with' isn't `it' and what's `it' seems weird and scary to me. It'll happen to you."

The mistake is in caring about keeping up with trends or slang or "what's cool" in the first place.

Write your own life story, and quit worrying about what other people say or think. You'll be surprised
how much happiness is linked with this approach.

Re:Twerking? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44703527)

Tell me about it, I feel like Abe Simpson:

"I used to be `with it.' But then they changed what `it' was. Now what I'm `with' isn't `it' and what's `it' seems weird and scary to me. It'll happen to you."

The mistake is in caring about keeping up with trends or slang or "what's cool" in the first place.

Write your own life story, and quit worrying about what other people say or think. You'll be surprised how much happiness is linked with this approach.

Thats just the way it feels to hate niggers!

Re:Twerking? (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703531)

The mistake is in caring about keeping up with trends or slang or "what's cool" in the first place.

Write your own life story, and quit worrying about what other people say or think. You'll be surprised
how much happiness is linked with this approach.

Thanks, I think I needed that this morning.

Re:Twerking? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703003)

CNN taught me that it's when a woman bounces her ass up and down.

Wiki also notes, with a citation "Twerking carries both gendered and racialized connotations." Which seems about as idiotic to me as saying round corners are something associated exclusively with iphones.

Re:Twerking? (1)

lgw (121541) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703073)

Connotations are implications that are often true, not always true. And that's definitely the case for "twerking", as you can verify on any sex-positive youtube clone. Heck, even on daily motion it's obvious, with only Miley Cyrus and some k-pop dance group as exceptions on the first page of results.

WTF is a Phablet? anyone?

Re:Twerking? (5, Insightful)

demonlapin (527802) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703093)

Please stop talking about Miley Cyrus. That performance was one of the worst things I've ever seen. Not because she decided to try to shock people - Madonna and Gaga have both done that excellently over the years - but because she failed so badly at being actually sexy. Creepy tongue, vag itch impression, ugh. The only decent thing that's come out of it is this [youtube.com] .

Re:Twerking? (2)

DigiShaman (671371) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703149)

It's what the American society wants. Miley Cyrus is putting on a show to deliver. She's reacting to the market, not creating one. She also stands to make huge ultra mega bucks from all this activity!

America = morally bankrupt.

Re:Twerking? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44703351)

It's what the American society wants. Miley Cyrus is putting on a show to deliver. She's reacting to the market, not creating one. She also stands to make huge ultra mega bucks from all this activity!

No. She *thinks* she is reacting to the market. In fact she failed oh so badly. She delivered the entertainment industry's version of Steve Balmer's Developers Developers Developers dance.

Re:Twerking? (1, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703413)

And yet the American public laps up this dog vomit like fine wine. Again, it's what the market wants. Right? Right??!!

Fuck! Whatever happened to decent educational programming and real news. I mean real quality content! But whatever; conservatives such as myself are old and obsolete. I should just go away. The people have spoken and they want more dog vomit!

Re:Twerking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44703495)

And yet the American public laps up this dog vomit like fine wine.

All we know so far is that the MTV producers liked the act. And did they like it because they thought it was good or because she would make a total fool of herself and people would talk about it? Either works for MTV.

We have to wait for sales figures for Miley's next album to see if she still has any credibility left.

Re:Twerking? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | 1 year,19 days | (#44704105)

All we know so far is that the MTV producers liked the act.

They say they liked it.

Re:Twerking? (2)

d0s (550629) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703549)

The "educational programming and real news" is on PBS and NPR. Old and obsolete conservatives have been trying to destroy these dangerous harbingers of socialism nearly since their inception. The "dog vomit" is what you get when you let the market decide what programming to broadcast. Keep voting for those guys and one day there won't be any educational programming at all!

Re:Twerking? (1)

lgw (121541) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703943)

PBS is mostly reality TV now where I am. NPR news is mostly propaganda, which is sad because there's some other good programming there still. Or at least it seems like propaganda to me - maybe I'm just unduly suspicions of news paid for by the government?

Both of the public radio stations I listen to get no government subsidy beyond the space for their studios in the school/college each is associated with. One's kids' dance music, the other is old people's jazz. Both get their funding from listeners. It's a good model, and one that makes it OK that you play what the money wants you to play, since it will always tend that way.

Sadly, our experiment with cable educational(ish) channels seems to have failed, now we have the Nazi Channel and the Ghost channel, will little room left for history or science. Lest you think a hands-off public funding model works better, educational programming has largely vanished from the BBC as well, at least compared to 40-50 years ago.

Re:Twerking? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | 1 year,19 days | (#44704485)

Lest you think a hands-off public funding model works better, educational programming has largely vanished from the BBC as well, at least compared to 40-50 years ago.

Garbage. There are two whole channels of it. 50 years ago there weren't two channels in total, and they only transmitted for half the day..

Re:Twerking? (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | 1 year,18 days | (#44706601)

As a matter of interest: my mother completed an Open University degree course, involving lectures on BBC2(?) in (late '70s?) early '80s. Are those still happening?

Re:Twerking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44704505)

I think you underrate PBS/NPR/PRI/etc. They still produce good programming, though the programming is often independent from those orgs... eg. Frontline. The funding mix they get is hardly dependent on the gov, rather "viewers like you" pay as you mention. Many PBS affiliates also pump out something like 4-5 channels now that they're all digital broadcasting.

WGBH [wgbh.org]

You can watch online:

Frontline [wgbh.org]
PBS Newshour [wgbh.org]
NOVA [wgbh.org]
History Detectives [wgbh.org]
Nature [wgbh.org]

etc.

Re:Twerking? (1)

TheCarp (96830) | 1 year,18 days | (#44705989)

They get like 7% of their funding from the government.

Don't get me wrong, they are a mouthpiece of the regieme. They still interview people from the ONDCP even after the GAO report stating that it wasn't worth evaluating their statements since the ONDCP charter requires them to lie.

They still lap up the official story like the government has never lied to them....every single time....

but all that aside, they get my monthly contribution because for all their faults and regieme loving, they are the closest thing to reasonable mainstream news out there.

RT is pretty good if you are willing to go international and get it from a Russian mouthpiece.

Re:Twerking? (1)

pspahn (1175617) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703751)

I've only heard about the incident through some friends' posts on fecebook[sic]. Every one of them said it was disgusting and that she is out of favor, so I'm not sure who you're listening to that said it was a wonderful performance, but I don't think being American would have anything to do with it.

Re:Twerking? (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | 1 year,18 days | (#44706501)

The people have spoken and they want more dog vomit!

My dog resembles that remark!

And he doesn't think much of Miley Cyrus' bum, either.

Re:Twerking? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44703599)

The problem isn't that she WAS too sexy. The problem was she WASN'T.

Sex for shock value is one thing. Gets the conservatives up in arms. But Miley has everyone up in arms because she failed so badly at it that even the sexual degenerates are upset with her too.

Re:Twerking? (2)

cheater512 (783349) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703903)

Morals don't come in to it at all. It was just flat out a ridiculous performance.

Re:Twerking? (1)

demonlapin (527802) | 1 year,18 days | (#44704953)

She failed to deliver.

Re:Twerking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44703423)

This is going to be trolling but I happen to agree with you..

I thought she never had any talent, and by that pathetic attempt to "shock" the shit for brains press/media, it only reenforces that thought. Like the talentless others you mention Madonna and Gaga. Not that I need to say this to you, but the only reason they are even popular is because of there sad sense of "fashion" Madonna in the 80's, and Gaga outrageous stage costumes, none of them are "good" (notice the terrible "good" grade, and not "great") looking. But this is how the downfall of music has continued through out the years, just throw someone who looks remotely good looking and promote then to adolescent teenage crowds and bingo, easy money..

Re:Twerking? (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | 1 year,18 days | (#44706641)

But this is how the downfall of music has continued through out the years...

There is still plenty of good music happening. You just won't hear it from these moronic bimbos.

Or perhaps brilliant satire and sarcasm? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44703897)

Or perhaps brilliant satire and sarcasm?

Alternatively - consider that what Cyrus shows to the world (talk shows, interviews, etc.) is basically a nerd that accidentally wound up in the music business (Because of connections and an odd kind of cuteness as a child.)

Now she's grown up, and nobody, including herself, knows what to do with her. But she has enough star-power and inertia to keep doing something.

You would think the nerds and geeks here would recognize and empathize with her situation. Besides, as awkward and "unsexy" as she is, 95% of the crowd here would give up a body part to sleep with her.

Re:Or perhaps brilliant satire and sarcasm? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#44704725)

95% of the crowd here would give up a body part to sleep with her.

That's not saying much; we're easy.

Besides, if she's as vacuous as she appears I'd probably rather sleep with her mom.

Re:Or perhaps brilliant satire and sarcasm? (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | 1 year,18 days | (#44706667)

95% of the crowd here would give up a body part to sleep with her.

Sleeping is easy enough without having to become an amputee.

Re:Twerking? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | 1 year,18 days | (#44704853)

Creepy tongue, Marilyn Manson
Vag itch impression, Madonna
Bizarre and stupid background stuff like pedobears: Gaga
Sexual content: everyone

I saw this performance as a parody of everything going on today in popular music. The question is, who actually envisioned it and designed the performance? That could tell us if it was a brilliant work of parody or a hilarious work of insanity.

Re:Twerking? (1)

demonlapin (527802) | 1 year,18 days | (#44704961)

The delivery sucked, that's the problem.

Re:Twerking? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | 1 year,18 days | (#44704989)

The delivery sucked, that's the problem.

Sorry, I forgot "lame performance, shitty music: everyone"

Re:Twerking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#44705633)

I don't know about the failing to be sexy. While I found the low-depths to which she was willing to sink disgusting and degrading to herself and the public, it actually turned me on :)

Re:Twerking? (1)

TheCarp (96830) | 1 year,18 days | (#44705927)

> That performance .... I've ever seen

I think I have identified your problem. Until people started talking about this Miley person and her twerking, I had no idea MTV even still existed.

All in all, I feel pretty bi-winning with tiger blood about that.

Re:Twerking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#44706353)

You know what I think? I think the Oxford people are doing EXACTLY what Miley is doing. Trying to act cool and do all sorts of questionable stuff just to get attention.

Candidates for next year's edition: fap, A2M, derp, facial (I know it's there, but the definition is incomplete *cough*).

Oh, and why not replace the cover with "TL;DR - Press F7"?

Re:Twerking? (1)

EETech1 (1179269) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703161)

Too big to be a phone, too small to be a tablet.

Re:Twerking? (1)

lgw (121541) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703277)

Ahh, the uncanny valley of portable devices! No wonder I hadn't heard of it.

Re:Twerking? (1)

EETech1 (1179269) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703411)

Twerking...

Sounds like hammering in your own nail, and telling the world how great it feels in 140 characters or less.

Re:Twerking? (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703961)

That could sort of apply to Miley as well.

Re:Twerking? (2)

gman003 (1693318) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703191)

Phablet = Phone + Tablet. It's the term being used by marketers who realize that 5+ inch displays can't really be pure phones, but still want to sell them.

Examples: Galaxy Note, Asus FonePad, etc.

Re:Twerking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44703375)

Wiki also notes, with a citation "Twerking carries both gendered and racialized connotations." Which seems about as idiotic to me as saying round corners are something associated exclusively with iphones.

If it's not a fat-assed black woman, it's not twerking.

Re:Twerking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44704049)

oumm you sure it isnt when in that funny variation of football Americans play they all shout set and present their backsides?

Re: Twerking? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44703067)

Have you tried looking it up in a dictionary?

Re: Twerking? (0)

bughunter (10093) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703097)

I suggest referring to PornHub instead.

Re:Tworking? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44703229)

Unfortunately, the context of the Miley thing makes most people think it's a synonym for grinding. It's not. It's a bastardization of "footworking," and it apparently means "to make the ass shake in a provocative manner".

IMHO "twerk" doesn't sound like an English word. I think it should have been "tworking", which could be pronounced like "torquing", so I'm going to make it my mission to always refer to it as "tworking". I also think that people who do it should be called "tworks" (also pronounced like "torques").

tl;dr: Miley is a twork for tworking her ass on TV; she did it because she wanted publicity; 'tworked.

Re:Tworking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44703369)

someone mod this mutherfucker up!

Re:Tworking? (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | 1 year,19 days | (#44704147)

I'm a lifelong native speaker, and it looks and sounds plenty like English to me... a bit like "twerp", perhaps.

Re:Tworking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44704199)

AC you're replying to. I'm also a lifelong native speaker. We must be from different parts of the country, or perhaps different "native" countries. I'm from Texas.
Twerp is fine because I've known it since early elementary, but twerk sounds distinctly German to me.

Try the following: $ grep [^BPTYhijlpsuv]erk /usr/share/dict/american-english.
No results! And the same is true for british-english.

Of the ones that do match (in american-english), 19 are jerk, 10 are perk, 8 are clerk, and 5 are Berkeley/Berkshire.

B: Berkeley, Berkshire = British places, or snobby places in California (5 matches)
P: Perkins = British surname
T: Terkel = no idea
Y: Yerkes = no idea
h: gherkin = British English
i: Kierkegaard = Danish surname
j: jerk (19 matches)
l: clerk (8 matches)
p: perk (10 matches)
s: berserk
u: sauerkraut = German
v: overkill

Now let's compare that to [BGWYcdfjnoptvw]ork
Of those, 183 are work, 14 are cork, 13 are fork, 11 are snorkel, 7 are York (British), 6 are dork.

Conclusion: Work is English; werk is not.

Re:Tworking? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | 1 year,18 days | (#44704863)

Twerp is fine because I've known it since early elementary, but twerk sounds distinctly German to me.

Confirmation bias. Look at how many English words come directly from German. The truth is that there's nothing about a word which sounds German which doesn't sound English as well, unless it's forty syllables long.

Re:Twerking? (1)

Seumas (6865) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703565)

I'm truly sorry to be the one to teach you this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgoyVRO0A0E [youtube.com]

Anyway, "twerking" is more or less putting your hands on your knees, squatting down, and jerking/bouncing/wobbling your hips and ass back and forth, so it looks like you're fucking someone who is on all-fours on the ground in the ass. It looks stupid, but has been around for awhile, I guess.

Anyway, this "we're adding new stupid shit to the dictionary!' thing isn't worth paying attention to. It's just a regularly scheduled self-promotion attempt. The stupider the thing they say they're "putting in the dictionary", the more publicity and attention they get for it.

Plus, the dictionary says that "literally" actually means "figuratively", so fuck dictionaries in their fucking face.

Re:Twerking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44704017)

Plus, the dictionary says that "literally" actually means "figuratively", so fuck dictionaries in their fucking face.

Literally, figuratively or both?

Re:Twerking? (1)

skids (119237) | 1 year,18 days | (#44705887)

I think its entirely appropriate that the dictionary keep track of "widely used tech terms" like... uh... twerking? Goddamn I must be in the wrong field of tech!

Re:Twerking? (3, Funny)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | 1 year,19 days | (#44704091)

Nor did I until a few weeks ago.

Friend: "So, Lucy starts Twerking and..."
Me: "Wait, twerking?"
Friend: "Yeah. You know what twerking is?"
Me: "Uh... is it like a queef?"

Re:Twerking? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44704499)

Twerking hard or hardly twerking?

Re: Twerking? (1)

vesuvana (1166821) | 1 year,18 days | (#44706029)

This morning the radio played Morgan Freeman reading aloud the new dictionary definition of twerking. I recommend googling it- worthwhile!

But... (0)

DaveAtFraud (460127) | 1 year,19 days | (#44702945)

Does the ODO include "First Post" or FP?

Cheers,
Dave

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44703005)

I don't know, but I doubt that it includes "second post." Better luck next time...

Re:But... (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703337)

This entry [wiktionary.org] proves conclusively that you will probably enjoy the Wikimedia Project's efforts in this area more.

Mutability (1)

cosm (1072588) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703059)

The English language (and many other oral languages) have a high level of mutability. The OED was originally started as a compendium of the set of all usages encountered in writing for various forms to expressly include previously 'unregistered' words (re:librarians - my layman's oversimplification) and their grammar with a focus on including historically unregistered words that hadn't made it into the cannon.

That aside, I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Lastly, if any of you have ever used the word Phablet in conversational English, we need to have a serious discussion between you and my 12 gauge.

Re:Mutability (4, Insightful)

Xtifr (1323) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703147)

That aside, I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Why? As long as it's properly marked as slang (and I can't imagine it would be called anything else), it serves it purpose of letting people who aren't familiar with the word know what it means. I can't count the number of times I have found some obscure bit of slang in an old book, and been overjoyed to find out that it's documented in my dictionary. In ten, or twenty, or fifty years, when the term "twerking" has basically died the death it deserves, someone reading a work published in 2013 may be equally overjoyed to find his or her dictionary explains the word. That's what dictionaries are for.

Re:Mutability (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703173)

Words like 'Phablet' are what turn good, decent, empiricists into linguistic prescriptivists, not that I can blame them under the circumstances (though a bit of mockery is always in order).

Re:Mutability (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44703339)

Phablet : n disappointment.

Re:Mutability (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44703245)

That aside, I don't want to live on this planet anymore. ....
Lastly, if any of you have ever used the word Phablet in conversational English, we need to have a serious discussion between you and my 12 gauge.

Sounds like _you_ need to have a conversation with your 12 gauge then. Just make sure
you don't slip when you pull the trigger, I knew an EMT who worked in Vegas who
saw the aftermath of such a mistake, and he says the nightmares still haven't quit.

Re:Mutability (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44703555)

That aside, I don't want to live on this planet anymore. .... Lastly, if any of you have ever used the word Phablet in conversational English, we need to have a serious discussion between you and my 12 gauge.

Sounds like _you_ need to have a conversation with your 12 gauge then. Just make sure you don't slip when you pull the trigger, I knew an EMT who worked in Vegas who saw the aftermath of such a mistake, and he says the nightmares still haven't quit.

Maybe he's not cut out for EMT work.

Pussy.

Re:Mutability (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44703331)

... if any of you have ever used the word Phablet in conversational English, we need to have a serious discussion between you and my 12 gauge ...

Does a conversion as an Android developer regarding screen layout and the size of art assets count? Should I be concerned?

Re:Mutability (1)

ultranova (717540) | 1 year,18 days | (#44704739)

That aside, I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Lastly, if any of you have ever used the word Phablet in conversational English, we need to have a serious discussion between you and my 12 gauge.

Badass or just a really bad shot, that is the question.

If they really want to get up to date (1)

GODISNOWHERE (2741453) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703189)

They should add

Twerk'); DROP TABLE Verbs; --

'click and connect' is three words (1)

Shavano (2541114) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703247)

A phrase doesn't deserve its own entry. Imagine if you tried to include every PHRASE in English. You go from on the order of 170,000 words to practically damn uncountable. It's a mistake to even start down that road.

Re:'click and connect' is three words (1)

GODISNOWHERE (2741453) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703377)

A phrase doesn't deserve its own entry

So you would exclude "fait accompli" and "juste milieu" from the dictionary?

You go from on the order of 170,000 words to practically damn uncountable

Wikipedia says that the OED has about 750,000 entries.

Re:'click and connect' is three words (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703609)

So you would exclude "fait accompli" and "juste milieu" from the dictionary?

Yes I would.

Even the OED defines dictionary [oxforddictionaries.com] as dealing with words and not phrases.

a book or electronic resource that lists the words of a language (typically in alphabetical order) and gives their meaning, or gives the equivalent words in a different language, often also providing information about pronunciation, origin, and usage:

I see no mention of phrase in that definition.

Re:'click and connect' is three words (1)

GODISNOWHERE (2741453) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703739)

That's not the OED definition. This [oed.com] is the OED definition:

1. a. A book which explains or translates, usually in alphabetical order, the words of a language or languages (or of a particular category of vocabulary) ...

"Particular category of vocabulary" is understood to include phrases.

Re:'click and connect' is three words (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703869)

Sorry I mis-referenced. I meant the Oxford Online Dictionary (OOD) which is the subject of the article.

"Particular category of vocabulary" is understood to include phrases.

Citation please. To me, ""[p]articular category of vocabulary" means a specific area such as a dictionary of engineering terms.

From your citation;

What time was spent in turning over Dictionaries and Phraseologies to assure the author of doubtful constructions.

It seems that words go in dictionaries and phrases go in phrasiologies.

Re:'click and connect' is three words (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44704527)

"Particular category of vocabulary" is understood to include phrases.

By idiots, perhaps.

Re:'click and connect' is three words (1)

91degrees (207121) | 1 year,19 days | (#44704299)

But the meaning of "Click and connect" as a phrase is different from the meaning as individual words. The indivdual words could refer to a set of actions. The phrase rarely means a very specific subset.

enough already with official buzz word (1)

recharged95 (782975) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703387)

Enough with Twerking.

Adding it to the dictionary has been reported on the mainstream news joints, like every 15 minutes all day today. It's been used enough today in the news to warrant the word to be lost for the next 5 years... only to be revived by a question in jeopardy. Thanks mainstream [advertising] media! Now I am late for my 9am home room class (right).

I guess dictionaries have gone social to be relevant. Cause I thought words get added when there's long term meaningfulness. I doubt Twerking is one of them considering technology dies out, i.e. becomes obsolete, for better tech and adding words based on stuff that will be obsolete is just plain illogical.

Otherwise, gosh, we live in a 'look at me!' world nowadays (I'm looking at you Oxford folks).

Re:enough already with official buzz word (1)

Xtifr (1323) | 1 year,18 days | (#44705443)

I thought words get added when there's long term meaningfulness.

The primary criterion is being widespread. Long-term is a secondary factor, though often an important one. The OOD happens to be a resource which gives less weight to long-term meaningfulness than, say, the OED. But documenting widespread-but-not-long-term (flash-in-the-pan) terms is a useful function, since documents written today may still exist years in the future.

Honestly, as a fan of 1940s mystery novels, I'm glad to see slang-of-an-era get documented. Even if that era is now, the documentation will continue to be useful.

I do, however, agree that this particular event has gotten way more press coverage than it needs or deserves. It's the OOD doing what they have done for many years.

And the OED finds a place... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44703395)

The OED has officially found a place in my TRASH CAN.

Re: And the OED finds a place... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44703779)

Now we finally know why David Foster Wallace committed suicide.

Re:And the OED finds a place... (1)

Xtifr (1323) | 1 year,18 days | (#44705485)

Since this appeared in the OOD, you threw away the wrong book. (The OED is unlikely to add it unless it persists for at least a couple more decades.)

End (1, Funny)

Optimal Cynic (2886377) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703471)

This is the end of Western civilisation as we know it.

Re:End (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703561)

I think that was changing the acceptable meaning of "literally" to include that which is not. I have enough of a problem with _accepting_ ignorance much less _encouraging_ it.

Re:End (2)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703793)

I think that was changing the acceptable meaning of "literally" to include that which is not.

You're kid--no, you're not. So "literally" has been redefined to mean, well, nothing, really.

I've already updated what our style guide says regarding this word to LITERAL, LITERALLY: Per the OED, the adverb has become purely a 'noise' word which must therefore be avoided. For the same reason, avoid employing the adjective as well, except in strict technical usage, e.g. when referring to a 'bare' representation of a value of a given type, e.g. 'binary literal', 'string literal', and so on.

I have enough of a problem with _accepting_ ignorance much less _encouraging_ it.

You are not alone, trust me. Words ought to mean things.

Re:End (1)

dcollins117 (1267462) | 1 year,18 days | (#44704691)

You are not alone, trust me. Words ought to mean things.

I was literally doing a crossword puzzle last night where the clue was "good (slang)" and the answer was "bad". And by literally, I mean literally (as in "not figuratively").

Just felt like sharing. Good day, sir.

Re:End (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#44705733)

The difference between the bad bad and the good bad is only in the pronunciation.

Re:End (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44703671)

This is the end of Western civilisation as we know it.

Everyone who reaches middle age has had thoughts such as yours.

What is actually ending is not "civilisation" but your capacity to deal
with stupid behavior, which tends to dwindle as one grows older.
But there IS good news : just quit caring about stupid stuff that doesn't
directly affect your own life, and it won't bother you any more.
Trust me, this is a strategy which works.

.

WTF... (1)

gagol (583737) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703473)

One dictionnary that lost my restect: Oxford. Neologies shuld be carefully weighted, not a buzzword trend (*facepalm* I forgot we live in the age of buzzword and 6 months planning!)

Re:WTF... (1)

gagol (583737) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703475)

For the record, it is late and I make spelling mistakes, I know. Grammar Naz... please RESTrains yourselves.

Re:WTF... (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703571)

We'll overlook the obvious typo, but the word for the thing that ought to be carefully weighed before it's added to the dictionary is neologism [merriam-webster.com] .

Re:WTF... (1)

gagol (583737) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703735)

Not native english here, thank you for the pointer. Much appreciated.

Re:WTF... (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703811)

I like to think of myself as a Language Authoritarian rather than a Language Nazi. ;) Glad to be of service.

Re:WTF... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44704045)

One dictionnary that lost my restect: Oxford. Neologies shuld be carefully weighted, not a buzzword trend (*facepalm* I forgot we live in the age of buzzword and 6 months planning!)

6 months planning?! That's like half a year in Internet years! We don't have time for that shit.

Fuck this planet (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44703521)

I should've signed up to go to Mars.

One of the first (NOT post, dammit) (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703623)

I actually looked up "twerking" on Google yesterday, and the first hit was from OED.

I didn't realise it at the time, but I was likely amongst the first few people to see the OED entry--and had no idea that it had been added the same day--until I saw this story.

I realise that times and language change, but, yeah, I suppose that I am feeling a bit of that "Stop the Internet, I want to get off thing" right now.

TL;DR and TLDR links just 404 (1)

burble (415391) | 1 year,19 days | (#44703679)

Their website apparently can't handle words with embedded semi-colons.
However, you can get to the original definition page using Google Cache.

Words (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44703801)

So, what does half of these mean?
I know I'm over 25, but still, never seen half the words used in written/spoken context..

phablet, mooc, fomo. Are these purely used by american teens or have they just not spread to the rest of the grown up world yet?
The rest have at least been in use for a short time as far as I've seen...

Bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#44703905)

Dictionary shouldn't include worthless slang words that will be forgotten and unused in a year. Should at least wait for the word to stick around for several years.

TL; DR;... Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#44704575)

This is just embarassing....

WTF??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#44705629)

These aren't tech words, they're marketspeak and PHB buzzwords - and WTF is "twerking"? I've been a developer for over 15 years, and I've never heard that one.

And "Geek chic" isn't even a word, it's a snobbish fashionista slut TERM meant to drag *real* geeks into their little style and fashion universe where we'll be assimilated into modern pop culture - talk about burning in hell.

Damn, even Oxford is falling into their trap. Of course, this is nothing new, they've been inducting these stupid colloquialisms as real Engrish for years now. Of course the language is evolving, now faster than ever before, but seriously? Twerking?

This isn't actually true (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#44705947)

According to a story on slate, these words are not being added to the OED, but the oxford dictionary online.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>