# OMG!!! Oxford English Dictionary adding LOL!!!



## Sapplicant (28 Mar 2011)

FYI.


----------



## Sigger (28 Mar 2011)

Sad


----------



## Neill McKay (28 Mar 2011)

Sigger said:
			
		

> Sad



Sort of.  The OED is a descriptive dictionary, so it documents the language as it's used and does not pass judgment on how good, or not, a word is.  It doesn't purport to say what's right -- only what is being written and spoken by a broad segment of society.

You can't write to them and say "here's a new word I invented" and have it added to the OED.  The only way to get in is for a word to be adopted "in the wild".


----------



## ballz (28 Mar 2011)

I don't see what's sad about it. All languages constantly change to adapt to the demands of communication.


----------



## Journeyman (28 Mar 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> I don't see what's sad about it. All languages constantly change to adapt to the demands of communication.


As N.McKay noted, the OED is descriptive rather than judgemental; they leave that to opinionated people like me.   

What's sad about it is that it is further evidence of the dumbing down of society (take any doubts to a perusal of the Recruiting threads), and how ostensibly literate society will soon be left with little beyond, "_meh_, whatever dude."

I'm reminded of Mike Judge's low-grade comedy Idiocracy.  Sad to think it may someday be viewed as a prescient documentary......if there were anyone left to know those terms.


----------



## Michael OLeary (28 Mar 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> What's sad about it is that it is further evidence of the dumbing down of society (take any doubts to a perusal of the Recruiting threads), and how ostensibly literate society will soon be left with little beyond, "_meh_, whatever dude."



I don't know if our society is less literate than it has previously been, in the sense that personal apathy is the driving factor in some people's avoidance of understanding language and using it effectively.  What we do have, through modern means such as the Internet, is an accessible capability for those people to reveal themselves. Whenever I was on house hunting trips for postings, I would occasionally go through a house for sale and, beyond looking at the structure, would be struck by the internal question _"where are the books."_ They've always been among us.


----------



## Dissident (28 Mar 2011)

Meh.

I'll get worked up when they start taking words out of the dictionary.


----------



## Sapplicant (28 Mar 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ...I'm reminded of Mike Judge's low-grade comedy Idiocracy.  Sad to think it may someday be viewed as a prescient documentary...



There's that fag talk we talked about...


----------



## ballz (28 Mar 2011)

Dissident said:
			
		

> Meh.
> 
> I'll get worked up when they start taking words out of the dictionary.



I really don't agree that this is "further evidence of the dumbing down of society." I was told by an English prof about how we went from Victorian-style to the modern Commerce-style (clear and concise) language we have now. It's just cause and effect. A new medium was created, and the effect is a new style to suit that medium. Languages always evolve/adapt to suit the communication needs of the users.

Would it make sense for somebody in Britain to say that our "bastardized version of english" in comparison to theirs (what we originally spoke) is evidence that we are a dumber society?

There is plenty of good evidence out there of the dumbing down of society, I don't see the need to seek what isn't there in this case.


----------



## Scott (28 Mar 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> Would it make sense for somebody in Britain to say that our "bastardized version of english" in comparison to theirs (what we originally spoke) is evidence that we are a dumber society?



You've never been sent a text message by someone from the UK. They have their own ways of bastardizing the same things we do.


----------



## Sigger (28 Mar 2011)

maybe they should put : ) in the dictionary.. maybe even ;-] 
'LOL' is not a word.. or rather, it never used to be. If I had a conversation with someone, y'know, the old fashioned way, and they said "lol", I would neck punch them.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (28 Mar 2011)

Sigger said:
			
		

> . If I had a conversation with someone, y'know, the old fashioned way, and they said "lol", I would neck punch them.



Lol



  


Hehehehe


----------



## kratz (28 Mar 2011)

With these additions to the dictionary, these slang terms OMG and LOL would now be acceptable for use on the site.  :stirpot:


----------



## mariomike (28 Mar 2011)

kratz said:
			
		

> With these additions to the dictionary, these slang terms OMG and LOL would now be acceptable for use on the site.  :stirpot:



I just use the "Internet Slang Dictionary & Translator" for those posts:
http://www.noslang.com/


----------



## ballz (28 Mar 2011)

Sigger said:
			
		

> maybe they should put : ) in the dictionary.. maybe even ;-]
> 'LOL' is not a word.. or rather, it never used to be. If I had a conversation with someone, y'know, the old fashioned way, and they said "lol", I would neck punch them.



Haha I literally say "oh em gee" and "W-T-F" and whatnot in real conversation haha. You can neck punch if you want, but I punch back >


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Mar 2011)

kratz said:
			
		

> With these additions to the dictionary, these slang terms OMG and LOL would now be acceptable for use on the site.  :stirpot:



LOL, 

That makes me  :rofl:

dileas

tess


----------



## Journeyman (28 Mar 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> Haha I literally say "oh em gee" and "W-T-F" and whatnot in real conversation haha.


And do you wear your I Discs on the outside of your shirt all the time....'cause chicks dig it?


----------



## Sigger (28 Mar 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> And do you wear your I Discs on the outside of your shirt all the time....'cause chicks dig it?


OMG..LOL!


Edit.. FYI: Now, I feel dirty


----------



## HavokFour (28 Mar 2011)

The more practical "buttload" and "nom nom" were added last month. ;D


----------



## armyvern (28 Mar 2011)

kratz said:
			
		

> With these additions to the dictionary, these slang terms OMG and LOL would now be acceptable for use on the site.  :stirpot:



Ironic is it not that 'OMG' and 'LOL' are merely acronyms ... something that the *CF* is famous for using and even has publications (the ALM or DND or CF something or other ...) outlining their usage & meaning.  IAW site policy, MTF on this from the mods I am quite sure.  >


----------



## Michael OLeary (28 Mar 2011)

In accordance with normal military writing practice, the onus is always on the sender to ensure a message is clear and understood. Whether attempting to use flavour of the month web shorthand or military alphabet soup acronyms, if the target audience (i.e, any of the rest of us) have to ask you to clarify whatever you thought you said, you have failed.

So, whether you're a newbie asking serving military personnel if you should drop out of school to join the infantry, or an experienced military member trying to explain your trade to a prospective applicant - write clearly so that the other person will understand you the first time. That "clear writing" requirement usually means you need to skip the shorthand forms, just because the people you deal with every day would know what you mean does not mean that your message will transmit clearly here.

Simple enough?


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 Mar 2011)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> In accordance with normal military writing practice, the onus is always on the sender to ensure a message is clear and understood. Whether attempting to use flavour of the month web shorthand or military alphabet soup acronyms, if the target audience (i.e, any of the rest of us) have to ask you to clarify whatever you thought you said, you have failed.
> 
> So, whether you're a newbie asking serving military personnel if you should drop out of school to join the infantry, or an experienced military member trying to explain your trade to a prospective applicant - write clearly so that the other person will understand you the first time. That "clear writing" requirement usually means you need to skip the shorthand forms, just because the people you deal with every day would know what you mean does not mean that your message will transmit clearly here.
> 
> Simple enough?



Seen.

dileas

tess


----------



## ballz (29 Mar 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> And do you wear your I Discs on the outside of your shirt all the time....'cause chicks dig it?



How did you know?... Wait you mean they don't? ;D


----------



## larry Strong (29 Mar 2011)

"Muffin Top" was also added........


----------



## armyvern (29 Mar 2011)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> "Muffin Top" was also added........



Awesome; I have some of them!!


----------



## PMedMoe (29 Mar 2011)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Awesome; I have some of them!!



You do realize that "muffin top" doesn't refer to clothing, right?


----------



## larry Strong (29 Mar 2011)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> You do realize that "muffin top" doesn't refer to clothing, right?



Somehow i don't think you have any.............


----------



## armyvern (29 Mar 2011)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> You do realize that "muffin top" doesn't refer to clothing, right?



Absolutely; I am also aware that the de rigeur fad of leaving one's button undone on their pants ... results in two much smaller (& thus harder to detect) muffin tops ... rather than one singular round muffin top. I am with it and ergo I have the plural version.


 ;D

Larry, you are right, she doesn't have any. Beotch. Mine are, however, all muscle.  >


----------



## PMedMoe (29 Mar 2011)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Larry, you are right, she doesn't have any. Beotch.



I would if I wore clothing two sizes too small.......    :nod:  

That's why I always say I've lost the right to tuck in my shirts.......or to wear short ones.   :-\


----------



## Journeyman (29 Mar 2011)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I am also aware that the de rigeur fad of leaving one's button undone on their pants





			
				PMedMoe said:
			
		

> ....if I wore clothing two sizes too small.......


----------



## Sizzle709 (29 Mar 2011)

The English Language is always changing.. These words are considered the "norm" now. Sad really..  :facepalm:


----------



## armyvern (29 Mar 2011)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I would if I wore clothing two sizes too small.......    :nod:
> 
> That's why I always say I've lost the right to tuck in my shirts.......or to wear short ones.   :-\



You've seen me in my jeans; mine are three sizes too small. I'm OK with that. I figure that, if at 42 yo and a couple of kids, I can cram my ass into skinny jeans & have only slightly detectable muffin tops --- I must be doing something right. I wonder if that is why 9erD is always telling me that he does not take batteries.


 ;D


----------



## PMedMoe (29 Mar 2011)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You've seen me in my jeans; mine are three sizes too small. I'm OK with that. I figure that, if at 42 yo and a couple of kids, I can cram my ass into skinny jeans & have only slightly detectable muffin tops --- I must be doing something right.



They are not three sizes too small, they fit you _perfectly_!  I know what you mean, though.  I think I look good for my age, muffin tops be damned.    ;D


----------



## Journeyman (29 Mar 2011)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You've seen me in my jeans; mine are three sizes too small.


_Ahem_

Maybe you should both have a look here   :nod:


----------



## armyvern (29 Mar 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> _Ahem_
> 
> Maybe you should both have a look here   :nod:



You've seen me us in my our jeans on numerous occasions --- next week, bring your damn camera and quit whining.


----------

