The Editors' Weekly
Official blog of Canada's national editorial association
The Editors' Weekly
Navigation
  • About the Blog
  • Contact Us
  • Articles en français
  • editors.ca
  • reviseurs.ca
You are here: Home › James Harbeck › Who Let That Word Into the Dictionary? | Linguistics, Frankly
← Editing Goes Global: A British Perspective
Interview With Grace Yaginuma, Winner of the Tom Fairley Award →

Who Let That Word Into the Dictionary? | Linguistics, Frankly

August 18, 2015 | Filed under: James Harbeck and tagged with: language change, Linguistics Frankly, new words, slang

Change

Every so often, Oxford or Merriam-Webster will release a list of words recently added to one of their dictionaries, and many people become grouchy at what they see as awful — or even fake — intrusions that have somehow been bootlegged into the hallowed halls of the official lexicon. You may even agree that they are right to be leery of such items as bae, selfie stick, lolcat, subtweet and acquihire, all recently added to Oxford. The role of the dictionary is to be a signpost, after all, not a weathercock that flips with each language fad that blows through.

Fair enough: We look to the dictionary to know what the accepted words and meanings are. If we want to know what some asinine adolescent thinks should be a word, or thinks an existing word should mean, we go to Urban Dictionary, which is the great graffitied bathroom wall of the language. But when you put up a signpost, it has to point to the actual correct way to the destination, not to where you think they should have put the destination or the road to it. It also has to be updated with new signs when new towns or subdivisions are built. You might want to go to one of them, after all — just as you might want to know exactly what all those young people mean when they say, “My bae subtweeted me with a lolcat.” Where else than a dictionary will you find out? (You don’t want to ask one of those youths. They will just roll their eyes at you.)

A dictionary needn’t include every passing bit of slang that sprouts in the morning and withers in the afternoon, of course. A word has to have some staying power; it has to be well attested in published texts. Which means that you, dear readers, are the real bouncers at the language pub. As editor Sarah Grey told editors at the recent EAC conference, paraphrasing lexicographers Kory Stamper, Ben Zimmer and Steve Kleinedler, “If you’re waiting for dictionaries to say a word is OK, you should know that they’re waiting for you to start using it.”

It is always a judgment call, of course, as the good people at Oxford tell us. Some words don’t last as long as we think they will. Weblog is already archaic, shortened down to blog, and it has been a long time since anyone other than my father said zowie or anyone other than Prince Philip said gadzooks. But others have more staying power. As Ammon Shea tells us, a century ago Merriam-Webster’s Third Collegiate Dictionary added a large number of slang words, which some saw as disgraceful weeds in the language. Among them were several words that likely passed without remark in my opening paragraph — grouchy, awful (meaning bad), fake, bootleg and leery — along with bouncer, pub and many more.

Previous “Linguistics, Frankly” post: Plough Through Enough Dough to Make You Cough or Hiccough.

The Editors’ Weekly is the official blog of Editors Canada. Contact us.

Did you like this article? Share it with your friends!

Tweet

Written by James Harbeck

James Harbeck is a web editor and trained linguist and is author of the blog Sesquiotica, articles for TheWeek.com and the book Songs of Love and Grammar. Follow him on Twitter if you have the nerve.

Visit my Website Follow me on Twitter
← Editing Goes Global: A British Perspective
Interview With Grace Yaginuma, Winner of the Tom Fairley Award →

One Response to "Who Let That Word Into the Dictionary? | Linguistics, Frankly"

  1. Paul Buckingham says:
    August 19, 2015 at 8:28 am

    Nice piece, James. One of my favourite additions to the OED in recent years is the dictionary’s 2012 word of the year, omnishambles (count noun, treated as singular). You can probably guess the meaning! The OED asserts that the first known use of the word was in the British TV show The Thick of It. The episode in question aired in 2009, so the word (finally added in 2013) may be one of the quickest to get into the dictionary: even vape — last year’s WotY — has been around since 1983!

Comments are closed.

What we’re talking about

Aaron Dalton author-editor relationship authors book editors book publishing communication copy editing editing editing tools editor editor's role editor advice editorial skills editors editors at work Editors Canada conference français freelance editing freelance editors freelancing French grammar interview James Harbeck language letter from the editor linguistics Linguistics Frankly Marianne Grier marketing networking plain language professional development proofreading publishing Rosemary Shipton révision style translation usage Wasted Words Wilf Popoff word choice writers writing

Email subscriptions

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,049 other subscribers

Most recent posts

  • Social Media Content Management for Self-Employed Editors and Writers
  • Combining Careers, Part Two: Rewards — Financial and Other
  • Editing Indigenous Writing: A Nuanced Partnership
  • Encouraging Coworkers to See the Benefits of Editing
  • Meeting “In Real Life”: Conference 2023

Archives by month

By author

Follow Us Online

Facebook  Twitter  Flickr  RSS Feed

www.editors.ca

The Editors' Weekly is the blog of Editors Canada.

Report an error or a typo

Email us at blog [at] editors.ca

© 2023 The Editors' Weekly

Powered by One Designs