Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Tech Buzzwords Added to Dictionaries

Zonk posted about 8 years ago | from the don't-forget-web20 dept.

144

Mark Owen writes "With technology buzzwords becoming so commonly used in daily life, Webster and Oxford have both begun to include some new terms in their latest editions. Some of their newest additions include: adware, biodiesel, codec, digicam, google (as a verb), geocaching, hacktivism, mash-up, rewriteable, ringtone, spyware, and texting."

cancel ×

144 comments

'Texting' is a Noun? (3, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 8 years ago | (#15674557)

texting, n.
I thought 'texting' would be a verb. As in, "I just got an $1800 ticket for texting while driving" or "my teacher sent me to the principles office for texting during class."

Maybe I'm wrong, I'm a better ones-and-zeros-smith than a wrodsmith.

from the don't-forget-web20 dept.
What the hell is web-twenty? Is that the time of day when all the pot heads get off their asses and sit at their iMacs and work on their crappy Phish tribute GeoCities site with flying toasters and images of Jerry Garcia?

Re:'Texting' is a Noun? (2, Informative)

aymanh (892834) | about 8 years ago | (#15674593)

I was going to post the same thing as well, Oxford dictionary added "text message" as a verb (as in "I just got an $1800 ticket for text messaging while driving"), but "text" itself wasn't added as verb from what I found in the article.

Re:'Texting' is a Noun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15675100)

In the UK the new usage of text, by idiots at any rate, goes soemthing like this

I just text chantelle and she has text me back.

It's entirely possible that this is totally acceptable and correct, the problem is that it sounds ridiculous.

I Just texted chantelle and she has texted me back.

sounds, to me at least, somewhat better.

Re:'Texting' is a Noun? (4, Informative)

dereference (875531) | about 8 years ago | (#15674612)

I thought 'texting' would be a verb

Actually it's called a gerund, which is typically any noun made from appending "ing" to a verb. It's correctly a noun, as in, "Texting is fun."

Re:'Texting' is a Noun? (1)

bitt3n (941736) | about 8 years ago | (#15675325)

it can also be an adjective (participle), as in "My texting citation caused me to lose my license."

Re:'Texting' is a Noun? (1)

QuantumG (50515) | about 8 years ago | (#15674615)

Maybe you should go back to grammar school. Neither of your two examples were using 'texting' as a verb.

'texting' is no more a verb than 'running'. They're both adverbs of 'do'.

I go running.
I was running.
I will go running.

That is not to say that 'text' is not a verb. It is, just like 'run' is a verb.

I run.
I text.

Thanks you, and good night.

Re:'Texting' is a Noun? (1)

kafka93 (243640) | about 8 years ago | (#15674806)

Say what? "Adverbs of do"?

Do they not teach you what an adverb is in "grammar school"?

Who thanks you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15674898)

Number 1 rule of grammar nazism - don't screw up your closing sentence.

Re:'Texting' is a Noun? (2, Insightful)

plumby (179557) | about 8 years ago | (#15675168)

Erm, no.

Texting, as in "I am texting" is simply a continuous tense (in this case, present continuous) of the verb "to text".

"I was running" and "I was texting" are both past continuous tense.

Re:'Texting' is a Noun? (1)

WedgeTalon (823522) | about 8 years ago | (#15674652)

What the hell is web-twenty?

I believe it's a side effect of slashcode's limitations. At least, I know with the beta tagging [slashdot.org] feature we can't enter "Web 2.0", it has to be "web20".

Re:'Texting' is a Noun? (1)

mlk (18543) | about 8 years ago | (#15674666)

Web 2.0, like the Web but cool (in the same way that being a member of the Linux Club at school is cool).

Gerund. (1)

hey! (33014) | about 8 years ago | (#15674711)

Gesundheit.

Suspecting words that like to cross dress as other parts of speech is within understanding. But seeing is believing.

Re:'Texting' is a Noun? (3, Funny)

The Fun Guy (21791) | about 8 years ago | (#15674735)

Maybe I'm wrong, I'm a better ones-and-zeros-smith than a wrodsmith.

Raelly? I never wuold have geussed.

Hey, grammar nazi (1)

Jaxoreth (208176) | about 8 years ago | (#15674781)

"my teacher sent me to the principles office for texting during class."
It's "principal's office". :-)

Maybe I'm wrong, I'm a better ones-and-zeros-smith than a wrodsmith.
*smirk*

Re:'Texting' is a Noun? (1)

robizzle (975423) | about 8 years ago | (#15674789)

I would have thought it should be text'ing since it the combination text and messaging just like do and not create don't. The characters omitted are replaced with an apostrophe. Then again, writting and grammer is the last thing I should be writting about.

Web 20 (1)

lys1123 (461567) | about 8 years ago | (#15674858)


       
from the don't-forget-web20 dept.

What the hell is web-twenty? Is that the time of day when all the pot heads get off their asses and sit at their iMacs and work on their crappy Phish tribute GeoCities site with flying toasters and images of Jerry Garcia


Don't you remember? O'Reilly owns the trademark for Web 2.0 [slashdot.org] . So from now on we refer to it as Web 20, GOT IT? Web 20.

Willie: "Shinning, Lad. You want to be sued!"
Bart: "Right, the Shinning"

Re:Web 20 (2, Funny)

geoffspear (692508) | about 8 years ago | (#15675159)

I still prefer the good old days of Web 19.

Oooops! (1)

conlaw (983784) | about 8 years ago | (#15674899)

From the article: "Defining google as a verb and as using the Google search engine is appropriate," a representative for Google told CNET News.com in an e-mail." That representative should check with Google's legal department - encouraging the use of a trademarked name is a really good way to lose the trademark. That's why Xerox spent megabucks on a campaign to make sure that people used "photocopying" as the verb for making a copy on a Xerox photocopier.

Re:Oooops! (1)

geoffspear (692508) | about 8 years ago | (#15675215)

I don't think Xerox would be in any trouble, trademarkwise, if they accepted the usage of "xerox" as a verb to mean "to copy on a Xerox photocopier." The issue arises if they don't defend against the use of "xerox" as a noun to describe any photocopier and the use of "xerox" as a verb meaning to photocopy on a photocopier, including one not produced by Xerox.

Google's representative specifically says that the use of "to google" meaning "to use the Google search engine" is appropriate. You can bet that they'd have a problem if people started saying they were going to "google that on MSN."

Re:'Texting' is a Noun? (1)

Mirlas (760973) | about 8 years ago | (#15674904)

"I just got an $1800 ticket for texting while driving."

'for texting' is a prepositional phrase with the preposition 'for' and the object 'texting'. It takes a noun to be an object. 'Texting' is the name of an activity. Names are nouns. Note that I am talking about usage. As another poster stated, the word 'texting' has the form of a gerund which is a form derived from a verb that can be used as a noun. It can also be a verb. I am texting him a message right now. Some day that form may be recognized by the dictionary. Dictionaries don't establish language; they describe it according to accepted usage.

English is such a fun language. We can verbify nouns and subject verbs to nounification. Pretty soon, I predict there will one day be only one part of speech, the Interjection.

Wow!

Re:'Texting' is a Noun? (1)

Flimzy (657419) | about 8 years ago | (#15674958)

"I just got an $1800 ticket for texting while driving"

"Texting" isn't even a verb in your example. The only verb in that sentence is "got." "Text" would be a verb, as in "I text people." But "texting", as another poster mentioned, is a gerund.

A simple (not fool proof) test to see whether a word is a verb, would be to try replacing it with another word. "I just got an $1800 ticket for paint" makes sense (gramatically, not necissarily logically). "Paint" is obviously not a verb.

Umm... (1)

kripkenstein (913150) | about 8 years ago | (#15675097)

This is all good and well, but what about the poor words that had to be cut to make room for the newbies?

The humanity.

Re:'Texting' is a Noun? (1)

steve426f (746013) | about 8 years ago | (#15675118)

Web-twenty is referring to Web 2.0 [oreillynet.com] which should also be included as a new term.

It's web two point oh (1)

hellfire (86129) | about 8 years ago | (#15675138)

As in, don't forget to add Web 2.0 as a new dictionary term.

Lame joke, but that's what it is.

or in the new vernacular (4, Funny)

yagu (721525) | about 8 years ago | (#15674561)

If you're looking these up in the new spelling dicshunaire referenced in this previous slashdot article [slashdot.org] (over 1000 posts!):

  • adwear
  • biodesel
  • coedec
  • dijicam
  • googel
  • jeocashing
  • hactivisem
  • mash-up (unchanged)
  • reerietabel
  • ringtoen
  • spiewear
  • tecsting

Re:or in the new vernacular (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15674625)

Or for our more streetwise friends [slashdot.org] :
adwizzle, biodizzle, codizzle, digicizzle, googizzle, gizzlecaching, hacktivizzle, mizzle-up, rewriteabizzle, ringtizzle, spywizzle, and textizzle

Re:or in the new vernacular (1)

bark76 (410275) | about 8 years ago | (#15674913)

ringtizzle

Shouldn't that be "ring ring"?

Re:or in the new vernacular (1)

MetalPlates (936133) | about 8 years ago | (#15675175)

textizzle

And shouldn't it also be "tizzext"?

Euro English (1)

krowland (987442) | about 8 years ago | (#15674951)

European variation on the Mark Twain text:
he Conversion to Euro English...

With the implementation of the Eurodollar underway in Europe these last few years, the European Union is trying to find new ways to standardize practices in Europe.

The European Commission has just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the EU rather than German which was the other possibility.

Conversion to European English
As part of the negotiations, Her Majesty's Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a five year phase-in plan that would be known as "Euro-English".

In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of the "k". This should klear up konfusion and keyboards kan have 1 less letter.

Conversion to European English
There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year, when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make words like "fotograf" 20% shorter.

In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be ekspekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkorage the removal of double letters, which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of the silent "e"s in the language is disgraseful, and they should go away.

Conversion to European English
By the fourth year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v". During ze fifz year, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou" and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters.

After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi to understand ech ozer. Ze drem vil finali kum tru! And zen world!

Potato mouse? (1)

9x320 (987156) | about 8 years ago | (#15674578)

Never have I ever heard of that. I guess some people in the M-W offices got bored playing paddleball and decided to throw in whatever the office dullard had been spattering out. I guess they're saving "wiki" for 2007.

Re:Potato mouse? (1)

9x320 (987156) | about 8 years ago | (#15674634)

Speaking of which, the term "mouse potato" was apparently important enough to warrant an entry in Wiktionary [wiktionary.org] ... ...way back in 2002. The citations they gave are from 1994 and 2001. The word seems to have fallen into disusage since the '90s, signifying to me that it was slang belonging to the same class as the '80s era "boss," "tight," and "the bomb." Ah, well, the Dictionary Overlords that we have for so long welcomed have changed the rules yet again.

Words in a dictionary? (3, Funny)

Bobsledboy (836872) | about 8 years ago | (#15674585)

Wait, so you mean to tell me that they are going to add new words into the dictionary? I for one am astounded.

Re:Words in a dictionary? (1)

IAmTheDave (746256) | about 8 years ago | (#15674602)

Wait, so you mean to tell me that they are going to add new words into the dictionary? I for one am astounded.

And yet, another year goes by where "l33t" is once again overlooked. You keep your head up, "l33t". We're all pulling for you.

Re:Words in a dictionary? (1)

mrxak (727974) | about 8 years ago | (#15674682)

What about pwn?

Re:Words in a dictionary? (0)

JPribe (946570) | about 8 years ago | (#15674767)

Hey pal, this isn't France, ok. We aren't so stuck up that we can't change a little bit....

Re:Words in a dictionary? (1)

hachete (473378) | about 8 years ago | (#15675346)

Umm, yes. In *very* *very* old days, just when Dikshunairies were invented, it was common practice for the mainstream Dikshunairies to *ignore* words used in commerce and trade. I'm not sure when the convention changed - possibly mid-late 19th century - but for a long time, this was so. Nowadays, massive computer-generated concordances and frequency tables are much in vogue.

Google? (1, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 8 years ago | (#15674600)

Didn't Google explicitely ask NOT to use Google as a verb? I expect chairs to be thr... oh wait, wrong company.

Buzzwords. (2, Funny)

adamlazz (975798) | about 8 years ago | (#15674601)

Well, they're not buzzwords now.

buzzwords (2, Funny)

56ker (566853) | about 8 years ago | (#15674630)

I'm still waiting for slashdot and trolling to be added

Re:buzzwords (1)

lucabrasi999 (585141) | about 8 years ago | (#15674703)

I'm still waiting for slashdot and trolling to be added

I'm waiting for CowboyNeal to be added.

Re:buzzwords (1)

owlnation (858981) | about 8 years ago | (#15675200)

that would have to be a verb too I assume? "To cowboyneal ..."

Re:buzzwords (1)

rucs_hack (784150) | about 8 years ago | (#15674705)

it'd be 'slashdotted' I think.

Possibly, since the word is still tied to a single context, and not in general use, it wouldn't qualify.

Re:buzzwords (1)

aymanh (892834) | about 8 years ago | (#15674742)

Troll (v) already has an entry Merriam-Webster [m-w.com] , and one of the attached meanings is close enough:

to fish by trailing a lure or baited hook from a moving boat

Re:buzzwords (5, Funny)

viscount (452242) | about 8 years ago | (#15674847)

I can't wait for the day 'slashdot' is added to the dictionary.

And for the next day, when it will be added again...

slashdot (2, Funny)

Jaxoreth (208176) | about 8 years ago | (#15675006)

slashdot, v. [Error loading definition: No response from server]

BREAKING NEWS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15674631)

The english language hasn't stopped evolving.

More at 11

MORE BREAKING NEWS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15674654)

The english language hasn't stopped evolving.
Maybe it's news because the French language has (electronique currier, anyone)?

Implications of Google as a verb? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15674644)

I'm interested in seeing their definition of Google - whether it means "internet searching" in general.

IAMANAL, but I seem to have heard that if a trademark becomes a popularized verb/noun to refer to a general category of items (i.e. internet searches) it can be used by other companies as well. In this case, there could be a "Microsoft Google" coming along.

Would this be correct?

Re:Implications of Google as a verb? (4, Interesting)

jeblucas (560748) | about 8 years ago | (#15674746)

Would this be correct?
No. A trademark used as a verb is not considered an infringement and does not (nor can it be) defended by the trademark holder. Google, the company, should defend against the use of its rademark as a noun, as in, "The Google of Porn" or something like that.

Re:Implications of Google as a verb? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15674784)

They lose the trademark when the word becomes so ubiquitous that it no longer has as a referrant anything by the brand name.

Re:Implications of Google as a verb? (1)

sprudel (984742) | about 8 years ago | (#15674883)

So "Honey, did you see my car keys? I've been googling for them for ten minutes and I really have to go!" will not get me in a law suit?

Re:Implications of Google as a verb? (1)

Kunta Kinte (323399) | about 8 years ago | (#15674886)

No. A trademark used as a verb is not considered an infringement and does not (nor can it be) defended by the trademark holder.

I dunno...

You mean we can use "We won't Microsoft You to the Poorhouse!", or "Buy From Us, and You won't be Microsofted" as our slogans and get away with it?

Re:Implications of Google as a verb? (1)

aymanh (892834) | about 8 years ago | (#15674916)

Here is the definition:

to use the Google search engine to obtain information about (as a person) on the World Wide Web.

Taken from the WP coverage [washingtonpost.com] of this news item.

So no, the definition seems specific to Google.

Re:Implications of Google as a verb? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15675283)

No. Just because people call photocopying "xeroxing", doesn't make it ok for Canon to call their photocopier a "xerox machine"

Re:Implications of Google as a verb? (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | about 8 years ago | (#15675314)

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/google [m-w.com]

Main Entry: google
Pronunciation: 'gü-g&l
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): googled; googling /-g(&-) li[ng]/
Usage: often capitalized
Etymology: Google, trademark for a search engine
: to use the Google search engine to obtain information about (as a person) on the World Wide Web

Specifically refers to the Google engine, and not searching in a generic sense. Even less a gray area.

Webster (1)

Otter (3800) | about 8 years ago | (#15674647)

...Webster and Oxford have both begun to include some new terms in their latest editions...

Nitpick: This is Merriam-Webster, not "Webster". The various American dictionaries with "Webster" in the title are mostly unrelated to each other.

(By the way -- "cybrary"? "mouse potato"? Did they get these words out of a 1995 issue of Wired?)

Re:Webster (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15674985)

They were invented by uber-author Cory Doctorow.

Paper Dictionaries (2, Insightful)

neonprimetime (528653) | about 8 years ago | (#15674651)

Who uses Paper Dictionaries anymore? I mean seriously, you have all the online resources you need in wikipedia [wikipedia.org] and google [google.com] . You have PDA's and cell phones that will hook you up to the internet, so that's not an excuse anymore.

Re:Paper Dictionaries (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15674731)

Lots of people.

I for one don't pause in the middle of a game of scrabble, open google and type in the decidedly dodgy word put down on a triple word score. I pick up my trusty OED and look it up!

Re:Paper Dictionaries (1)

vertinox (846076) | about 8 years ago | (#15674957)

I for one don't pause in the middle of a game of scrabble, open google and type in the decidedly dodgy word put down on a triple word score. I pick up my trusty OED and look it up!

That is what a web enabled cell phone or PDA is for. And if you don't have one on your body at all times (including sleeping) then you can just hand in your geek card on the way out the door.

Re:Paper Dictionaries (1)

jeremymiles (725644) | about 8 years ago | (#15675328)

Isn't that cheating?
The people playing with you might pick up the dictionary after you've placed your dodgy word, but you can't do it before (at least, not in my house!)

Re:Paper Dictionaries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15674971)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary (Wiktionary is, but I don't know anyone who uses it). And the results you get from dictionary.com are taken from Merriam-Webster.

Re:Paper Dictionaries (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | about 8 years ago | (#15674972)

Who uses Paper Dictionaries anymore?

I recently ordered a nice hefty leather-bound dictionary. And I use it all the time when writing papers on my computer. I've personally found that it's far easier for me to move my hands a few inches and flip through the dictionary to check on a word than it is to switch from my text editor of choice to a browser, punch in my word at m-w.com (or google define:word). It's certainly a lot less distracting, too. Honestly, I never would've guessed how much easier it is to deal with before I got it.

What is this world coming to (5, Funny)

sprudel (984742) | about 8 years ago | (#15674671)

I spit on these so-called "buzz" words. Ringtone? My audiotelegraph gives me a notification signal, dagnabbit!

Re:What is this world coming to (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15674877)

"Spit"? Is that what you kids are calling salivacation these days? I can't keep up with you younguns!

Re:What is this world coming to (2, Funny)

sprudel (984742) | about 8 years ago | (#15675162)

Maybe if you'd went to the talkies more often, you'd be up to date.

Snake-oil-ng: standards compliant but worthless... (1, Offtopic)

StreamCipher (986418) | about 8 years ago | (#15674692)

Snake-oil-ng: Standards compliant but worthless encryption. Used by founder of Innersafe Corporation to warn others about the new generation of snake-oil encryption products using AES-256 in a way that make their security practically worthless. Snake-oil-ng can truthfully claim to be standards-compliant with AES-256, while providing less security than "snake-oil" using junk proprietary encryption. In one of many examples, allowing millions of passwords to be guessed per second while limiting the range of potential passwords--the generated key is still 256 bits so it can provide the illusion of security. Other examples include repeatedly generating the same IV and key when given the same password. Snake-oil-ng is replacing snake-oil because of easy-to-use crypto libraries that provide AES. And possibly making it easier for governments to give out export licenses to create the illusion that export/import controls have been relaxed. For example, most people have no clue that in the U.S. certain cryptographic software sold to people outside U.S. and Canada require the names and addresses of every customer to be filed semi-annually with the U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security--making most retail products use less effective security.

I for one welcome... (3, Funny)

Pasquina (980638) | about 8 years ago | (#15674707)

...the new words officially added to the English language.

google is my dictionary (4, Informative)

rucs_hack (784150) | about 8 years ago | (#15674720)

in 99% of cases where I need to know how to spell a word, I type it into google.

The 'did you mean' feature has yet to let me down.

I don't know if they intended this, but it's so reliable that my dictionary stays on the shelf these days, and I barely ever have to use online dictionaries, except when I'm trying to locate a precise definition of a word.

Re:google is my dictionary (2, Informative)

shish (588640) | about 8 years ago | (#15675133)

except when I'm trying to locate a precise definition of a word.

define:word [google.com]

Re:google is my dictionary (1)

rucs_hack (784150) | about 8 years ago | (#15675158)

Awesome, thanks :-)

OED first (2, Insightful)

sane? (179855) | about 8 years ago | (#15674726)

But as the article mentions, the OED was updated to include many of these terms earlier - and inclusion in the OED is much more the definition of if a word has arrived than Merriam-Webster.

Why both reporting the also ran?

Company name in dictionnary? (1)

Spez (566714) | about 8 years ago | (#15674788)

"With technology buzzwords becoming so commonly used in daily life, Webster and Oxford have both begun to include some new terms in their latest editions. Some of their newest additions include: adware, biodiesel, codec, digicam, google (as a verb), geocaching, hacktivism, mash-up, rewriteable, ringtone, spyware, and texting."

Do you know many company name that became an official word in the dictionnary? Is Kleenex even one? I'm pretty impressed with what Google has accomplished

Re:Company name in dictionnary? (1)

Admiral Justin (628358) | about 8 years ago | (#15675085)

Company... yes... software product... yes... excessive use of ellipses... yes...

Lots of people photoshop things when they edit them, regardless of if they are using adobe products.

Also, if you read the article *gasp* you'll see the title: "Google joins Xerox as a verb."

OMG!!!!1111eleven (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15674794)

Now I can grok teh dictionary

From the please-not-web2.0 dept (1)

Frightening (976489) | about 8 years ago | (#15674802)

I will boycott, hate, and spend the rest of my life lobbying against any dictionary that incorporates that horrifically stupid phrase into its vocab. This is slashdot, dammit. We have to do something.

Mash-up (2, Informative)

ScottyH (791307) | about 8 years ago | (#15674808)

Everytime I read this word I feel pissed off. I can't explain it...except for saying that it just seems so stupid.

Re:Mash-up (2, Insightful)

dbcad7 (771464) | about 8 years ago | (#15674901)

I have similary unexplainable feelings about the phrase "my bad".

Re:Mash-up (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | about 8 years ago | (#15674928)

I'm inclined to agree.. even though I really enjoy mashups (as in music) and make my own (OMG PLUG!) [spacemutiny.com] I really wish a different name for them had caught on. In the UK they tend to call them "bootlegs," but I find that too general a term. The real, Wikipedia-approved (*snicker*) term for the genre is "Bastard Pop," [wikipedia.org] which, although quite descriptive, is even more cringeworthy.

Why? (1)

the phantom (107624) | about 8 years ago | (#15674812)

Why, oh why, is this a big deal? Dictionaries are not, by and large, prescriptive. They are not holy tomes to be referenced for authoritative knowledge on how language should be. Rather, they are collections of words, as they are used by people. When the use of a word changes, the dictionary will change to reflect that (rather than insist that people continue to use the old usage). When people start using new words, or stop using old words, the dictionary will change. Why is it that there is such a fuss over words being included in the dictionary? Why do people assume that inclusion gives these words some kind of holy stamp of approval? Some kind of validity? By the time a word makes it into the dictionary, it is already in the lexicon, and has been for a while. Why is it that dictionary inclusion gives these words some kind of super-validity? Why do we care?

Why (2, Insightful)

AlpineR (32307) | about 8 years ago | (#15674942)

1) It's not really that big of a deal. This is a summertime Friday on Slashdot. There is a small possibility that there will be an article posted here with less than Earth-shattering consequences.

2) When a word appears in the dictionary, it's usage and spelling are defensible. You should no longer be considered illiterate if you write "adware" in a school report or magazine article. And the next edition of your word processor should stop trying to correct "adware" to "aware".

3) As you say, the dictionary is a record of how people use words. It has sociological value. I didn't realize that anyone was actually using the terms "cybrarian" or "mouse potato". Apparently somebody is.

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

EggyToast (858951) | about 8 years ago | (#15675031)

Now the word is officially "archived." Without some historical archive on words and the uses of words, the idea of language changing over time could be easily overlooked by some in the future. Think about young kids whose only use for "gay" is for homosexuality and "bad." Without some archive that actually defines the word, the idea that at one point it meant "happy" could be forgotten. Looking back at historical text from the 30s and 40s, without that understanding one would end up quite confused.

Besides that, dictionaries do have some authority that people put trust in. As you mention, it's already colloquially used, but that only helps for people in those circles. Now that there's a trusted resource, people outside of those lexical circles can peer inside and figure out what those words mean, without getting a run around online. A parent hearing their kid use these words may feel stupid asking the kid what those words meant (and wouldn't likely get a straight answer), but now, rather than trying to do searches online (since their lack of understanding means they likely don't get a lot of internet exposure), they have a trusted resource they can refer to.

You may not care since you see these words all the time, but it's like any archiving; it's there for people who need it.

A missing verb (2, Interesting)

DaveInAustin (549058) | about 8 years ago | (#15674823)

Slashdotted: our site crashed after we were slashdotted. Come on, "Mouse Potato" made it, but not slashdotted? Who has ever used the words "mouse potato"?

Merriam-Webster is stuck in the 19th century (2, Informative)

3dWarlord (862844) | about 8 years ago | (#15674833)

They are the only dictionary that refuses to recognize "gullible" as a word.

Is that what the kids are calling it these days? (4, Funny)

netsavior (627338) | about 8 years ago | (#15674845)

We were Texting it up all night, first I googled her codec, then I showed her my biosteel... just be sure to uninstall before you pixelate otherwise you will have a little nanobot to worry about. This method is sooo much better than mere self-storage. Just give her the ole chip and PIN that's what I always say. I look forward to our next mash-up


I think I just accidentally cybered slashdot. crap. it all happened so fast. I just hope whatever I got is screenable

Not the first time (3, Informative)

Anonym0us Cow Herd (231084) | about 8 years ago | (#15674911)

Other technical words have become common in English.

Lightbulb
Radio
Radar
Sonar
Sonic
Radiation
Electromagnetic
Radiator
Dishwasher
Dryer
Microwave
Television
Telephone
Software
Spreadsheet
Photoshop (as verb)
Internet
Modem

Because brand names that describe a unique concept tend to become generic words, that is why we see Google used as a verb. Common trademarks used as generic words: Aspirin, Kleenex, BandAid, etc. Therefore, you can expect to see new words like...

TiVo

"Appropriate" (1)

Zephyros (966835) | about 8 years ago | (#15675025)

FTFA, emphasis mine:
"Defining google as a verb and as using the Google search engine is appropriate," a representative for Google told CNET News.com in an e-mail.

Makes perfect sense to me. I'm no trademark lawyer (or a lawyer of any kind, for that matter, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night...), but as long as the new verb refers solely to using Google, does it dilute their trademark? I guess the concern is going to be whether or not the word use starts creeping and begins to mean using any search engine. Personally, I prefer the way Oxford handled it, retaining the capitalization. Still, Google faces an uphill battle from here on out to retain their trademark...

Re:"Appropriate" (1)

TheCoders (955280) | about 8 years ago | (#15675265)

Fine, you go Google. I'm gonna go Ask Jeeves.
Oh, wait, can we use "Ask" as a verb?

since google is now an 'official' verb (2, Insightful)

MECC (8478) | about 8 years ago | (#15675048)

Since google is now declared a verb, will that weaken the value of the word 'google' as a trademark? If I register 'googlearound.com' as a domain (not that I would do something so stupid, since godaddy, the Internet's official domain slut, already has), would it be harder for google to sue me?

just wondering

Codec? It's about time! (1)

jomegat (706411) | about 8 years ago | (#15675049)

They're just now adding the word "codec" to the dictionary? I don't know when it was introduced into the vernacular, but I first heard it in the early 80's. I'm sure it goes back a lot farther than that.

Maybe they'll add "modem" next.

FAQ (1)

jefu (53450) | about 8 years ago | (#15675065)

How about FAQ?

Scrabble needs "faq".

Re:FAQ (1)

shish (588640) | about 8 years ago | (#15675190)

Scrabble needs "faq".

And jozxyqk. You'd be surprised how often that combination of letters comes up...

so if to google... (1)

owlnation (858981) | about 8 years ago | (#15675164)

..is a verb. Then, just for fun, and not intending to troll particularly, would anyone care to offer definitions for similar verbs for "to eBay" and "to MySpace"?

Re:so if to google... (1)

Zephyros (966835) | about 8 years ago | (#15675258)

MySpace: (1) (v) To possess, maintain, or update a personal information website on MySpace. (2) (v) To browse personal information websites on MySpace. (3) (n) A personal information website hosted on MySpace which contains embedded multimedia, clashing colors, blinking lights, broken layouts, poor grammar, and photographs of users in compromising or illegal situations. Syn. Geocities (n), defunct.

So begins the official decline... (1)

crossmr (957846) | about 8 years ago | (#15675192)

Educators were already complaining that students couldn't even write properly in class as they were often falling back on internet short hand in reports. It used to take an extremely long time for buzz words to get into dictionaries, they had to have a long history of usage. Now, it seems a couple of years of sketchy usage and you're good enough for Websters. I remember that when there was a story about them adding Bootylicious to the dictionary, which people get beaten for using now good choice on that, they were also adding a couple of slang words from like the 50s or something. Took them 50 years to earn a spot in websters, and bootylicious was getting in after a year or so.
Yeah..

Don't agree.. (1)

helfom (932199) | about 8 years ago | (#15675295)

I don't think some should be in there...

Google as a verb (or noun for that matter) is too specific. Its more of a fad than anything. What happens in ten years when another great search engine, say "klink", shows up and we all start saying "did you klink it?"

And "mouse potato"? "Computer/Internet junkie" maybe, but mouse potato is pretty lame...

It also seems to me that a "wave pool" should be something in the encyclopedia and not the dictionary. Same with "avian influenza".

"cybrary" and "cybrarian"? Did they gleen that from a sci-fi novel?

Nice trademark defending, Google (1)

E++99 (880734) | about 8 years ago | (#15675312)

google (as a verb)
This means that Google, Inc. has officially lost any claim to restrict the use of its "google" trademark. Which means that I could legally create my own search engine called SuperGoogle.com if I wanted. I guess they figured it would have undermined their corporate image to send out cease and desist letters to publications using their trademark as a verb.

They passed over 'prepend' *again* (1)

Krokus (88121) | about 8 years ago | (#15675355)

One day, this convenient little word will get the promotion from 'jargon' to the big time. You just wait!

Biodiesel (1)

hlh_nospam (178327) | about 8 years ago | (#15675362)

I'm glad to see this one. I hope that it is a sign of increasing popularity of this alternative fuel. Biodiesel has actually been around for some time now. For about $4K, you can buy a home biodiesel plant that is capable of producing 40 gallons a week of the stuff, with about 2 hours of effort, 50 cents/gallon worth of chemicals, plus whatever you have to pay for vegetable oil (waste vegetable oil can still be obtained for free, but I expect that will change as it gets more popular). And unlike ethanol, electric, or hydrogen, biodiesel can be used right now without the need for inventing entirely new technologies.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...