the morons at merriam-webster are once again doing their utmost to make us into a nation of unedimicated idiots. if you haven't read the article i've linked, they've carried out their annual up-date to the collegiate (collegiate!!!) dictionary, and they've decided to include words such as "ginormous," "crunk," and "smackdown." some of their past additions--"mouse potato," "soul patch," "drama queen," "unibrow," "bling bling," and "himbo."
are you kidding me?! i'm sure that murray and the members of the 19th century philological society of london (originators of the Oxford English Dictionary--the only *true* dictionary in my mind) are turning in their graves. the editors of m-w are appropriating slang and pop culture vocabulary, asserting that they're part of the standard american english lexicon. ironically, **by definition**, slang must stand outside the formal language! and, as is the nature of slang, the words fall out of use anyway. when was the last time we all said "bling bling"? anybody who doesn't live under a rock knows that it's been shortened, and even then, as fashions trends have evolved, it's a bit passe to be covered in the glitter. to flaunt one's wealth so overtly is now seen as a bit gauche. why can't we perpetuate the use of such vocabulary as passe (sorry, i can't figure out how to create an accented e) and gauche?! no wonder the verbal SAT scores suck these days...
the editors of m-w are debasing the effort to encourage a more learned vocabulary, one that then fosters more sophisticated and respected discourse in all fields. when i taught at UMD, i required that a student remove "vanilla" from his paper. while the word may be appropriate for creative fiction/poetry or perhaps even a study on popular culture, it is *not* fitting for a cost/benefit analysis of genetically modified crops. "that tomato crop is so vanilla" doesn't wash in scholarly and professional discourse.
i would say that the words soon to be admitted in the so-called "collegiate" dictionary should be relegated to a slang dictionary, as their use is so ephemeral, and students should be taught and required to use a more formal vocabulary in their daily work. side note--that's also a useful tactic in generally alleviating constant swearing; requiring a student choose another word to express his or her feelings often results in he or she finding more appropriate (and often more specific and interesting) phrases.
if m-w is going to adhere to and defend this practice, they ought not purport to be a scholarly representation of our lexicon. that is simply misleading and unprofessional. i'll just have to protest in my own little ways, to include general disdain and scathing mockery.
OED represent!
*this post also seen as bulletin on my myspace page.
are you kidding me?! i'm sure that murray and the members of the 19th century philological society of london (originators of the Oxford English Dictionary--the only *true* dictionary in my mind) are turning in their graves. the editors of m-w are appropriating slang and pop culture vocabulary, asserting that they're part of the standard american english lexicon. ironically, **by definition**, slang must stand outside the formal language! and, as is the nature of slang, the words fall out of use anyway. when was the last time we all said "bling bling"? anybody who doesn't live under a rock knows that it's been shortened, and even then, as fashions trends have evolved, it's a bit passe to be covered in the glitter. to flaunt one's wealth so overtly is now seen as a bit gauche. why can't we perpetuate the use of such vocabulary as passe (sorry, i can't figure out how to create an accented e) and gauche?! no wonder the verbal SAT scores suck these days...
the editors of m-w are debasing the effort to encourage a more learned vocabulary, one that then fosters more sophisticated and respected discourse in all fields. when i taught at UMD, i required that a student remove "vanilla" from his paper. while the word may be appropriate for creative fiction/poetry or perhaps even a study on popular culture, it is *not* fitting for a cost/benefit analysis of genetically modified crops. "that tomato crop is so vanilla" doesn't wash in scholarly and professional discourse.
i would say that the words soon to be admitted in the so-called "collegiate" dictionary should be relegated to a slang dictionary, as their use is so ephemeral, and students should be taught and required to use a more formal vocabulary in their daily work. side note--that's also a useful tactic in generally alleviating constant swearing; requiring a student choose another word to express his or her feelings often results in he or she finding more appropriate (and often more specific and interesting) phrases.
if m-w is going to adhere to and defend this practice, they ought not purport to be a scholarly representation of our lexicon. that is simply misleading and unprofessional. i'll just have to protest in my own little ways, to include general disdain and scathing mockery.
OED represent!
*this post also seen as bulletin on my myspace page.
No comments:
Post a Comment