Getting L33t Into the Oxford English Dictionary

arcticstoat writes "A few net-speak acronyms such as LOL and OMG were entered to the Oxford English Dictionary last month, but could we ever see l33t-speak (complete with numbers) or ROFLcopters in the OED? In this interview with OED principal editor Graeme Diamond, he reveals the selection criteria for new words and discusses the potential for words such as 'l33t' to get into the dictionary. 'L33t is obviously a respelling and a contraction [of elite],' says Diamond, 'so it would be a separate entry, and yes it is familiar to me, so I think it's something we would consider for inclusion.'"

Comments

Allow me

[Anonymous Coward]

l33t

Pronunciation: /e'lE:t/

1.Superior.
eg "Gibb0r m3 j00r l33t ju4r3z!"

Re:Allow me

[AVryhof]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=l33t

Dear $DEITY I hope not

[Nimey]

It'd be time to give the cockroaches a go when that happens.

Re:Dear $DEITY I hope not

[Anonymous Coward]

how'd you figure that.

dictionary
  [dik-shuh-ner-ee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -aries.
1.
a book containing a selection of the words of a language, usually arranged alphabetically, giving information about their meanings, pronunciations, etymologies, inflected forms, etc., expressed in either the same or another language; lexicon; glossary: a dictionary of English; a Japanese-English dictionary.

OED aim to include all words in popular usage, why not l33t?

Re:Dear $DEITY I hope not

[Anonymous Coward]

I think including l33t in the OED is quite l33t!

Re:Dear $DEITY I hope not

[ajs]

It'd be time to give the cockroaches a go when that happens.

As a friend of mine once pointed out: language is not just about communicating information, it's (possibly just as importantly) about hiding it.

More specifically, we modify language in order to identify members of our social groups in ways that those outside of those groups do not understand. As a social group gains dominance, so too do their modifications to the language. Of course, the process of gaining a dominant position in a human society is an inherently contentious one.

This is why the parent post is comparing, favorably, the addition of a modified word that he does not approve of with the extinction of the human race. It's simple primate social dominance behavior (though it does demonstrate a lack of control over one's baser impulses).

Re:Dear $DEITY I hope not

[Nimey]

We don't stick thieves' cant into the OED.

It's about time for a Final Solution for the Descriptivist Question.

Re:Dear $DEITY I hope not

[Xtifr]

There's plenty of thieves' cant in the OED. Why shouldn't the dictionary document the language that people actually speak and write, rather than some made-up pseudo-platonic "ideal" language that bears only a faint resemblance to an actual human language. And what's the difference between a "prescriptivist" in linguistics and a creationist in biology? At least descriptivists do something that actually resembles science. The prescriptivists (like the creationists) don't seem to contribute anything more useful than converting food (and ideas) into excrement.

Note that "l33t" is not actually in the OED yet, and if it does get added, it will certainly be marked as slang, so I don't see the problem. It's not like people find things marked as slang in the dictionary and then use them in formal writing (at least, not if they're not idiots), and it's not like the presence or absence of a dictionary entry for "l33t" (especially if marked as slang) is going to have any effect, positive or negative, on whether and how people use the term. The type of people who use the term are unlikely to give a rat's ass whether it's in the dictionary. "Ain't" has been in the dictionary for decades, but I rarely see it in print outside of dialog, so I don't think the world is coming to an end quite yet.

Re:Dear $DEITY I hope not

[wisty]

Prescriptivists claim that dictionaries and grammars should be style guides, or pedagogical tools. Descriptivists pretend to be more scientific.

The reality is, descriptivists are closet (or raging) liberals, who are happy to leave minorities in the ghetto, without a guide out. And prescriptivists are conservatives, who see themselves guiding the uneducated into the light.

The difference is, prescriptivists know both sides of the argument, as they were young and naive once too.

Re:Dear $DEITY I hope not

[Anonymous Coward]

--- Begin sarcasm ---

Yes. Clearly, we have only two choices. Either all dictionaries should be prescriptive, or all dictionaries should be descriptive. It is inconceivable that a style guide and a record of language could each be useful in their own way.

We cannot afford to record real usage. Recording reality would sanction and legitimize the bad parts of it, in the eyes of our brain-dead students who are incapable of understanding the distinction between description and prescription.

For a similar reason, we should stop making records of any historical events which we happen to disagree with.

--- End sarcasm ---

Oh dear God, no. NO.

[Tolkien]

A series of letters containing numbers doesn't make it a word. "Leet".. retarded but okay. L33t? Wtf is wrong with these people?

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[grub]

I was going to agree with you but then realized your username could be written as 70lk13n and calmed down.

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[N0Man74]

I definitely agree here. Just because 'Leet' is commonly written with numeric substitutions more often than many other words doesn't mean it should be put in a dictionary as such. A huge number of words are either commonly or slightly less written such substitutions, abbreviations, and letter order swaps (and not even in the same way for each word).

Listing these would be nearly the equivalent of a dictionary beginning to start listing common misspellings of words too.

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[Anonymous Coward]

Listing these would be nearly the equivalent of a dictionary beginning to start listing common misspellings of words too.

That's exactly what a dictionary does fo. When a "misspelling" becomes sufficiently common they record it as a variant spelling. If it becomes common enough to outweight the "correct" spelling then they list it as the new primary spelling of the word.

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[chemicaldave]

It's my understanding that the OED should reflect the evolving lexicon of English. If L33T is used widely enough I don't see why it shouldn't be added.

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[AlecC]

If something often appears in written texts, the OED should list it. The idea is that someone encountering an unfamiliar word should be able to use the OED to find what it it means. The OED differs from some other dictionaries in this matter: it is descriptive, not prescriptive. If a word is or was used often enough with a definable meaning in the written corpus, the OED intends to list it.

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[kubernet3s]

Especially since it's so SUPPOSED to 1337. Jeez

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right, a string of characters is not necessarily a word. A word is a word by virtue of semantic content, l33t certainly has semantic content. You appear to be arguing with the spelling. Unfortunately for you people spell it l33t, and in the particular context it is used and with connotations it carries no reasonably sized group of people has ever spelled it otherwise. As a practical matter, if someone sees l33t written somewhere and they look it up in the dictionary, why should it not be there other than because you don't like how it is spelled? Moreover whether l33t is a word or not in the common language sense is a moot point since dictionaries have never limited themselves to just things that most people consider words; abbreviations, acronyms, and multi word phrases are also defined.

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[AmiMoJo]

Precisely, the OED is a record of language, not a guardian of it. You wouldn't normally find slang and contractions in your average dictionary because they are concise, but the full OED includes those things.

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[kubernet3s]

Yes, but they only list a few that people use deliberately, "definately" and "fucken" not counting. And I am assuming we are standardizing spellings, so that any mere phonetic variation does not count.

Of course, this beside the point when attempting to introduce non-letter symbols into the dictionary. Are we supposed to pronounce 1337 phonetically? or as "one thousand three hundred thirty seven" when we see it in context? And do numbers like a million become "loo?" The number "3" is pronounced "three," and blurring the phonetic lines so thoroughly will only lead to confusion.

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let none of us assume the arrogant stance that our idea of what should be in the OED is the correct one. Objective criteria are weighed, not personal opinions.

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[djmurdoch]

How can they include "l33t" when they don't even include "gullible"?

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[delinear]

I suspect you're being facetious. Words in the OED always come with a pronunciation guide, so it will tell you exactly how "1337" should be pronounced, and this doesn't create some new linguistic rule which overwrites all other numeric pronunciation.

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[Anonymous Coward]

And I am assuming we are standardizing spellings, so that any mere phonetic variation does not count.

Who is the "we" that you assume is standardising spellings? The OED records words in use. Its goal isn't to standardise or to diverisfy.

Are we supposed to pronounce 1337 phonetically?

You have really weird ideas about the purpose of a dictionary. The lexicographers at the OED don't "suppose" you to do anything. If they were to include this word (doubtful without much more widespread usage) then they'd include a note on how it's commonly pronounced but they're not in the business of telling you what to do. How you pronounce words is up to you.

The OED isn't attempting to create an ideal language. It's attempting to document one that's in actual use.

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[Ephemeriis]

A dictionary is used to look up words when you don't know what they mean.

Imagine somebody encountering the characters "l33t" for the first time. Would they have any idea that the 3's were substitutes for e's?

If you don't know what the word "turnip" means, you go look in the dictionary. If you don't know what the word "l33t" means, you go look in the dictionary. What's the difference?

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[Tolkien]

Are the numbers so subtle that you didn't notice them?

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what I thought. You'd think Slashdot would know better.

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[N0Man74]

Should also list 'aks' and 'teh' as well?

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[ajs]

"Leet".. retarded but okay.

There's no developmental deficiency (cognitive or otherwise) involved in the creation of contractions. In English, we've often denoted these with apostrophes, but they're not required. Adding new contractions to the language is usually a gradual process, and I'm sure the same will be true for leet... it's been in use for the better part of a generation, now, so it's definitely getting to the point that we should consider it seriously.

L33t? Wtf is wrong with these people?

The OED, contrary to what some may feel about it, isn't an arbiter of language. They record and reflect the language as it has existed in the past, and as it is used in the modern day. They also try to determine the difference between a passing neologism and an actual shift in the language. This isn't always easy, and l33t is a definite edge case that will require some thought, but Google says that the "33" spelling is in extremely common use, and was first used at least 16 years ago. Adding glyphs to the standard set of letters used in American and British English words is a big step, I admit, and doing so opens a floodgate, but it doesn't help anyone for the OED to ignore that it has happened.

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[AlecC]

If they are used intentionally and frequently, and there is a defined meaning, yes. As typos, these to fail my "definable meaning" test.

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[DanseDeMorte]

Tolkien himself constructed a number of languages. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quenya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sindarin The english language is not a static item. English was the compounding of the existing languages of 3-4 different cultures. Cultures being the important word here. L33t sp34k is from the computre/hacker(as the jargon file defines it)/internet subculture. And as this subculture has risen to prominence so will the artifacts of their typed form of english.

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[plcurechax]

Precisely, the OED is a record of language, not a guardian of it.

Obviously you are not British*. Of course Oxbridge's presses (OUP, CUP) are the guardian of English as much as L'Académie française is the guardian of the French (sorry, française) language. Don't let the Telegraph tell you any different.

* Wait, you may be. Sod it.

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[tyrione]

Well I sure as hell don't see a short for 'elite' leaping to mind. I agree about gullible not being in there is long overdue and this chicken scratch with numerals being short-hand for another formal word doesn't even have a place in slang.

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[Anonymous Coward]

How can they include "l33t" when they don't even include "gullible"?

Its in there, it just looks weird with four 1s and a 3.

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[camperdave]

According to IBM, isn't a word just a sequence of non-blank characters separated by blanks?

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[wisty]

They would also flag it "written, informal". Meaning, don't use it in spoken conversation, and don't use it in a school paper.

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[camperdave]

Problem: Where would it sort out to? Before the "la"s? After the "lz"s? Exactly where "leet" would fit? Maybe you spell out the numbers, so it would fit somewhere in the "lt" section?

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[Anonymous Coward]

NO! You still don't get it. They would flag it "written, informal" meaning "people typically use it informally". They are NOT telling you how you should or shouldn't use it. The OED is not your mother. This really isn't complicated.

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[ekgringo]

The International Red Cross probably threatened to sue them if they used the English flag.

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether or not the OED list the word does not change whether or not it is an English word. We do not have review comittees for the English language like other Countries/languages do, such as in Germany and France.

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[Anonymous Coward]

I just checked and he's right, no gullible in OED...

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[skine]

How much Pig Latin does the dictionary contain?

Does it include alternative definitions for words used in Cockney rhyming slang?

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[SleazyRidr]

Besides, it should be |337 anyway.

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[X0563511]

You seem to have replied to a spam robot.

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[X0563511]

Why is this a problem? There are already clearly defined rules for sorting alphanumeric strings.

Re:Oh dear God, no. NO.

[camperdave]

There are already clearly defined rules for sorting alphanumeric strings.

I know. I illustrated several of them.

Jesus.

[stonecypher]

> yes it is familiar to me, so I think it's something we would consider for inclusion.

And people wonder why I laugh at them when they hold up the OED as a source to be taken seriously.

Re:Jesus.

[Anonymous Coward]

> yes it is familiar to me, so I think it's something we would consider for inclusion.

And people wonder why I laugh at them when they hold up the OED as a source to be taken seriously.

So if you know people wonder then will you explain? The OED sets out to record words that people actually use. He's heard of this word and therefore thinks that it is a word in actual use, not just soemthing made up as an example. So he confirms that it would be considered.

He doesn't say what conclusions would be reached (frnakly it's probably not in widespread enough use at present) but that they'd review it like any other word in use. The OED sets out to be descriptive of the language not prescriptive. They don't have a "do we like spelling words with numbers" test. Why does that make them non-serious?

Re:Jesus.

[hengdi]

The OED wants to be the recorder of living language, not to set rules in stone for future generations. There's nothing wrong with that.

Re:Jesus.

[AlecC]

Why do you not take the OED seriously? Do you believe it lists words not in use, or that it gives incorrect definitions.

One thing it does not do, which you may be expecting, is make any judgement about /proper/ usage. It is descriptive, not prescriptive. If you are expecting guidance as to good usage, look elsewhere. But take the OED as a source of actual, as opposed to good, usage.

Re:Jesus.

[AmiMoJo]

My primary objection is score inflation in scrabble.

Re:Jesus.

[drinkypoo]

They wonder because the OED gives the etymology of each term and thus tells you how it is considered appropriate to use by the majority when the term is coined. Have you ever browsed the unabbreviated OED? It's a fantastic journey.

Re:Jesus.

[Anonymous Coward]

Erm, the OED describes the way in which words are used by the people that use them. I fail to see how adding language that is used by a large segment of the population fails to work toward that objective. I remember in school the teacher saying that we couldn't use words that aren't defined in the dictionary. The logically disabled students took this to mean that any words in the dictionary would be okay to use. Many of them never did understand why merely being in the dictionary did not indicate appropriateness to be used in any given context. I guess the people you laugh at are using the OED in this way? That is not the fault of the OED but of the people who misinterpret its purpose.

Re:Jesus.

[Colonel Korn]

Erm, the OED describes the way in which words are used by the people that use them.

Even better, the OED is a scholarly work that discusses etymology as well. Want to know when 31337 was first used? It would be in the OED entry, along with the origins of the word elite. That's useful information and much more extensively discussed in the OED than in any other dictionary. The OED is an incredible resource.

To paraphrase Ovid, rident stolidi OED.

Re:Jesus.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't play "l33t" in Scrabble precisely because of the numbers...

Re:Jesus.

[Dhalka226]

I assume it has something to do with you being an arrogant ass?

If you don't agree with their criteria for considering words for inclusion, that's fine. And if that causes you to not take them seriously, that's fine too. But to suggest, even hyperbolically, that you actually laugh at people who disagree with your assessment says far more about you than it does about them or about the OED.

Re:Jesus.

[plcurechax]

One thing it does not do, which you may be expecting, is make any judgement about /proper/ usage. It is descriptive, not prescriptive. If you are expecting guidance as to good usage, look elsewhere.

Don't fret poor logophiles (or linguists) Oxford University Press has that covered too, Fowler's Modern English Usage, 2004 edited by R. W. Burchfield, is about as suitable as anything to be the authority in a single volume.

Re:Jesus.

[Anonymous Coward]

> And people wonder why I laugh at them when they hold up the OED as a source to be taken seriously.

You don't take the OED seriously because it lists silly words? I suppose you would not take an encyclopedia seriously if it contained an article about silly people (say, clowns)?

Would you have the OED pretend nobody ever used a word, just because the word is not taken seriously?

Slow news day

[jhoegl]

Slow news day yields to terrible troll articles.

Etymology

[brian0918]

Here is the first known use of the term:

Rychard Byschape in his stede Chosyn he wes concorditer And l33t twa yhere bad eftyr.

-- Andrew of Wyntoun, Ðe orygynale cronykil of Scotland c1425

Re:Etymology

[Anonymous Coward]

I applaud your use of the letter eth.

9r3@ |\|3\/\/ Ph0r Ph3LL0\/\/ L337 $P34|3r$!

[Anonymous Coward]

7|-|15 15 4/\/\4Z1|\|9 |\|3\/\/5, Ph1|\|4LL'/ p30PL3 \/\/|-|0 pR1D3 7|-|3/\/\53L\/35 0|\| 7|-|31R 4B1L17'/ 70 5P34| L337 (4|\| d0 50 \/\/17|-| pR1D3. 0|-| \/\/417 \/\/3 |-|45 |\|0 pR1D3. =(

Re:9r3@ |\|3\/\/ Ph0r Ph3LL0\/\/ L337 $P34|3r$!

[Machtyn]

Eye c4n h4z pR1d3z, nao?!

Re:9r3@ |\|3\/\/ Ph0r Ph3LL0\/\/ L337 $P34|3r$!

[the_hellspawn]

Translation to my best ability:
This is amazing news, finally people pride themselves on their ability to speak leet (and do so with pride. oh wait we has no pride. =(

Only took me about 10 minutes or so. LOL!

Re:9r3@ |\|3\/\/ Ph0r Ph3LL0\/\/ L337 $P34|3r$!

[wed128]

i was able to read it in about a minute. i hate myself.

Re:9r3@ |\|3\/\/ Ph0r Ph3LL0\/\/ L337 $P34|3r$!

[Tolkien]

I'm ashamed to say I read it correctly on the first try within seconds. :(

This is awesome news, finally people who pride themselves on their ability to speak l33t (an[sic] do so with pride. Oh wait we has[sic] no pride. :(

AC forgot to close the parenthesis.

Re:9r3@ |\|3\/\/ Ph0r Ph3LL0\/\/ L337 $P34|3r$!

[Tolkien]

omg you're right that says amazing not awesome. Ha, I feel better about myself now!

Re:9r3@ |\|3\/\/ Ph0r Ph3LL0\/\/ L337 $P34|3r$!

[Tolkien]

Oh wait, it should be

This is awesome news, finally people who pride themselves on their ability to speak l33t can do so with pride. Oh wait we has[sic] no pride. :(

Re:9r3@ |\|3\/\/ Ph0r Ph3LL0\/\/ L337 $P34|3r$!

[Tolkien]

I forgot to correct my first typo (awesome->amazing). Bah.

Re:9r3@ |\|3\/\/ Ph0r Ph3LL0\/\/ L337 $P34|3r$!

[delinear]

It's "can do so with pride" - I made the same mistake of thinking it was an opening bracket until I realised there was no closing bracket and it was actually a C (note there's no "d" for it to be "and"). Also, I can't believe I just typed this. I plead extreme boredom.

Re:9r3@ |\|3\/\/ Ph0r Ph3LL0\/\/ L337 $P34|3r$!

[allanmackenzie]

That was impressive. I can't believe that I can actually read it.

Re:9r3@ |\|3\/\/ Ph0r Ph3LL0\/\/ L337 $P34|3r$!

[GameboyRMH]

It barely slowed me down from normal reading speed, should I be worried?

Re:9r3@ |\|3\/\/ Ph0r Ph3LL0\/\/ L337 $P34|3r$!

[Tolkien]

See. SEE! This is why leet-speak is bad. Symbols like parentheses shouldn't be used as part of words, leet speak only encourages that.

You see..

[HighlySpammable]

This is why we can't have nice things.

HAX!!!!!

[guyminuslife]

Oxford English Dictionary:

l33t adj. 1. elite, highly adept esp. referring to a video game player, 2. worthy of praise
"Dude, the OED put in an entry for l33t! That's some l33t dictionary pwnage!"
-- some Anonymouse Coward on Slashdot

"His crown, a noble emblem of defeat
For those who would make light of being l33t."
--- William Shakespeare

"STFU NOOB, UR JUST JEALOUS CUZ WERE L33T AND U SUCK ASS"
--- sipherot299lol, an anemic 13-year-old about to get a cap in his virtual avatar's ass

This is nonsense

[eln]

Anyone who could legitimately be called "l33t" would have hacked the Gibson and added the word to the OED themselves rather than asking for permission.

Re:This is nonsense

[StikyPad]

Ironically, once l33t is in the OED, it's no longer l33t.

Absurd.

[MaWeiTao]

Can't we just have a separate dictionary for slang? Does every stupid fad term have to be added to the dictionary? Who even uses leet anymore?

Apparently Oxford's standards for inclusion of new words is rather low. But then I'm guessing they're desperate to keep themselves relevant.

Re:Absurd.

[Happler]

Considering the amount of words in there already that, at one point in their life or another, where considered slang...

no.

Re:Absurd.

[penguinchris]

Two things - first, look at urbandictionary.com. Yes, you can find essentially any slang term there if you already heard it - but you'll get hundreds of alternate definitions, and then there are thousands of terms people have added that are not actually widely used slang. If you were unfamiliar with English slang and tried to use that source, you'd have major problems. That's not to say that a better implementation isn't possible (and there are printed slang dictionaries already that are carefully edited), it just illustrates many of the problems in undertaking such a task.

Second, the OED apparently wishes to be a source of information about how the language is actually used - it updates things as meanings change over time. So you can read something written in not-necessarily-the-Queen's-English, probably online, and look up new words and slang and understand them. Other dictionaries don't do this as aggressively. The OED contains *many* slang terms, but only adds them once they've gained demonstrable widespread cultural impact. Whether or not "leet" or "l33t" qualifies is a separate debate, but you have to understand what the OED is trying to do in order to say whether or not such slang should be included at all, and they've already decided that it should be.

I don't generally use much slang, nor do I often consult a dictionary, but I agree that widespread slang belongs in a dictionary of actual English usage and in other respects the OED is certainly a fine dictionary as far as I can tell.

Re:Absurd.

[hedwards]

You do realize that a considerable portion of the dictionary is dedicated to slang and typos, right? I realize that there's a lot of l33t English majors out there that stroke off whenever somebody misspells something, but such people really ought to just go fornicate with some sort of sharp pointy object, and leave the language to those that actually use it.

Re:Absurd.

[Punto]

watch this:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/video/0006-slang.htm

your problem is not the inclusion of slang in the dictionary, it's the inclusion of slang in everyday culture. the dictionary is just there to document it

Re:Absurd.

[Anonymous Coward]

The English language also has pretty low standards for including new words. Seems fitting that a dictionary would mimic this capability, no?

Re:Absurd.

[delinear]

Agreed. It always makes me chuckle to hear people (especially English teachers who should know better) decry the use of slang and yet hark back to Shakespeare as a paragon of the language, despite the fact that, at the time, he riddled his works with slang, and even words he invented, to make them more accessible to the people. Language is primarily about communication, tying ourselves to an archaic set of rules doesn't advance that goal, it's just elitism. Sorry, I really didn't intend the pun!

Re:Absurd.

[Rogue Haggis Landing]

I think that we have to remember the theory behind the OED. The OED is an avowedly *descriptive* dictionary. It's goal is to define words as they are or have been used. It is also massive, and attempts to capture as many words as possible, to be definitive about the language, or at least the British version of it. Browse through the OED and you'll find words that are antiquated slang that haven't been used since the 18th century, things like that. "Leet" or "1337" or whatever would seem to fit in there somewhere. Slang is a part of the language -- it gets used, that's really all that the OED cares about.

If you are looking for a *prescriptive* dictionary that will tell you how language *should* be used... well, you're out of luck. All modern English dictionaries claim to be descriptive. American Heritage has its usage panel, that makes recommendations about certain disputed usages, but the recent slang and the common but incorrect (or "incorrect") usages are still in there.

Re:Absurd.

[xaxa]

Do you know how big the full OED is? It takes up about a whole shelf in a city library. There's thousands of words you and I will never, ever use, so there's plenty of room to document slang.

Re:Absurd.

[Anonymous Coward]

After reading this thread's initial comments, I intended to link this video. Language changes, and misspellings (whether intentional or unintentional) and slang are an important part of this. The Academie francaise [1] is overly concerned with keeping the French language "pure". The OED is not.

That said, interchangeable use of "there", "their", "they're" or "its", "it's" or "your", "you're" is still infuriating.

Also, everyone should watch this short clip because Kory Stamper, the featured Merriam-Webster editor, is super hot.

[1] Why did Slashdot get a visual makeover when it still doesn't have Unicode support?

Re:Absurd.

[cOldhandle]

They seem to use these fad terms as advertising. Every goddamn year I see these things on the news about the slang terms that will feature in the new edition of the OED. It allows them to get some lame press release together to pimp to the media, who eat that shit up and have "debates" about whether "goatse" or "haxxor" or whatever pop culture ephemera deserves to be in the OED...

Oh dear God, no. NO.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is ridiculous. let's burn the English flag

Why is TFA an image?

[complete loony]

Well I guess if no-one is going to read the article anyway...

Re:Why is TFA an image?

[pstils]

very good! thankyou! And it's a bloody interesting read, and that's the reason that l33t should be in there too - this is an historic document; a census of the most commonly used words "in our time" and their history, and anybody that says different is misunderstanding why this document even exists.

Re:Why is TFA an image?

[AP31R0N]

There's a problem with this thinking in that ignorant people will point to OED to show that their misuse of a word or use on a non-word is correct. Let UrbanDictionary document mistakes and abuses. We ought to have ONE source that's sane and not enslaved to caprice and ignorance.

Historic starts with a consonant sound, so that should be "a historic".

Re:Why is TFA an image?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in east London mate.

bad spelling

[MancunianMaskMan]

I thought it's spelt 1337.

OED, get it right

Re:bad spelling

[UninformedCoward]

Agreed. No respectable gamer spells 1337 w/ letters.

Re:bad spelling

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1337%25+Pi

Re:bad spelling

[qmaqdk]

Correct. Coincidentally it also denotes the time of day known as leet-o-clock.

Maybe they should include it

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

If l33t becomes a legitimate word, maybe the people who use it will stop.

Re:Maybe they should include it

[delinear]

Inclusion in the OED doesn't "legitimise" a word, it just points to its usage in common language.

Re:Maybe they should include it

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

I think it does "legitimise" a word in the eyes of the kind of people that use the word "l33t".

Why?

[Murdoch5]

Why do we need these acronyms in the dictionary. It's actually sad that lol and omg are in the dictionary, there not words, there expressions that have become to common in day to day speech. How about we reserve the dictionary for proper words and leave these acronyms to cyber space. Besides the point that any one who uses the word l33t sounds like a complete idiot and wont be taken seriously.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do we need these acronyms in the dictionary.

Are yous seriously wondering why words like "radar" and "laser" should be included in a dictionary or are you just unclear on the meaning of "acronym"?

Re:Why?

[bentcd]

How about we reserve the dictionary for proper words and leave these acronyms to cyber space.

"Proper words" are those words that people actually use. If lots of people use "lol" and "omg" as if they were words then they are words and need to be in the dictionary.

Besides the point that any one who uses the word l33t sounds like a complete idiot and wont be taken seriously.

Now you're just starting to sound like a complete idiot and I'm not sure if I should take you seriously. :P

Re:Why?

[penguinchris]

The point of the OED is that it includes information about how English is actually used, meaning it includes slang and such things. So if you're just learning English, you can consult it while reading someone's poorly written English on the internet and understand fairly well.

Not that you can't easily find definitions for slang and acronyms elsewhere, but the OED is a respected (if not authoritative) source, and when you're learning another language (or just improving your knowledge of your native language) you want to have an authoritative source. Many authoritative sources, second-language courses, etc. don't contain slang, and it's a major hindrance to actually learning practical use of the language, so I applaud their efforts.

Whether or not "l33t" or just "leet" qualifies as important or widespread slang is the real debate, not whether or not slang and widely used acronyms belong in the dictionary in the first place.

Re:Why?

[pstils]

Murdoch, adj 1. A statement in which the speaker derides a group of people for possessing a negative attribute, whilst simultaneously proving that he/she also possesses said attribute.

Re:Why?

[delinear]

Besides, every word in the dictionary was a "made up word" at some point. Who would stand judge of when a word had been around long enough or was in popular enough usage that it should be deemed a proper word?

Let's add "oed" to the OED...

[Anonymous Coward]

I propose:

to oed (verb, transitive): (vowels pronounced like "ooze") to purposely dilute the integrity of a whole by needless inclusion of crap, especially when done disingenuously for short-sighted profit (see "to dumb down" and "cruft").

Feel free to respond with examples of use. I'd really like to see this word come into common usage.

Re:Let's add "oed" to the OED...

[Tolkien]

You could also "noun the verb". As if to say the source is the crap being used to dilute the whole.

Example: "Haha, what an noobtubing OED."

As an adjective: "LOL, that word is so OED.

Re:Let's add "oed" to the OED...

[Anonymous Coward]

You could also "noun the verb". As if to say the source is the crap being used to dilute the whole.

Example: "Haha, what an noobtubing OED."

As an adjective: "LOL, that word is so OED.

I like your suggestion. As an adjective, I'd prefer "oedious."

Re:Let's add "oed" to the OED...

[Tolkien]

+!111!

Re:Let's add "oed" to the OED...

[CommandoB]

I propose:

to oed (verb, transitive): (vowels pronounced like "ooze") to purposely dilute the integrity of a whole by needless inclusion of crap, especially when done disingenuously for short-sighted profit (see "to dumb down" and "cruft").

Feel free to respond with examples of use. I'd really like to see this word come into common usage.

What an oedacious idea.

Leet vs L33t

[martin_dk]

There is a pressure from younger generations towards changing these rules, and this practise is already used by millions.

Eventually counter pressure will fail

Take street art in galleries and museums or skateboarding in public skate parks as example

Also we often honor the origin of words meaning or reason by spelling these words with old or foreign rules.

Re:Leet vs L33t

[Tolkien]

I don't want to see "words" with numbers in them in dictionaries in my life time.

Chaucer approves of this message

[jonaskoelker]

As yf takyn frome de cantebry teyls.

No leetspeak

[brainzach]

Leet is fine, but use the actual English spelling

L33t would be like using Igpay Atinlay for the entry of Pig Latin

Re:No leetspeak

[carndearg]

Oxford dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive, which is to say they describe how the language is evolving rather than telling people how to use it. They are based on a lot of solid research on a multi-billion-word corpus of contemporary English as well as a huge printed gorpus of the last thousand years plus of written English. Thus if Igpay Atinlay (or any other "odd" word) started to show up significantly in the corpus of contemporary English then yes, it would merit its own entry.

You wouldn't want your tech fossilised in Shakespeare's day, so why would you want your language to have that happen to it?

When can I play OMG and LOL in Scrabble?

[ThatMegathronDude]

Seriously, I need some ammo to beat my grandmother at Scrabble for once. She's getting pretty old and I'd like to win a few games against her before she kicks it.

Re:When can I play OMG and LOL in Scrabble?

[xaxa]

Seriously, I need some ammo to beat my grandmother at Scrabble for once. She's getting pretty old and I'd like to win a few games against her before she kicks it.

You can't, as both are marked as abbreviations. (Just like... erm, other pronounceable abbreviations. PAYE? I can't think of anything else right now.)

http://oxforddictionaries.com/ (lol and omg are included.)

Re:When can I play OMG and LOL in Scrabble?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh, there's no number tiles in scrabble...

Re:When can I play OMG and LOL in Scrabble?

[Anonymous Coward]

Along the same line of thinking; So is scrabble going to add number to the game?

Personally I hope not, calculating anagrams is computationally expensive enough with 26 letters...

lemmatisation

[carndearg]

I'm an OUP employee, I work on http://oxforddictionaries.com/ and I sit just over a partition from the OED team so I guess I'm well placed to comment on this one. For a start, it already is in our dictionaries. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/leet . Unfortunately though they have lemmatised it (rendered it into its simplest form) as the rather lame-sounding 'leet' rather than '1337'. Hey, give them a break, they're English graduates! This probably has a root in their research. Analysing the corpus to find out how much the word is used, they are probably ignoring numbers because their job is to look for words. This infographic showing our inclusion process might be illuminating: http://oxforddictionaries.com/page/newwordflowchart/how-a-new-word-enters-an-oxford-dictionary

Re:lemmatisation

[carndearg]

Damn. Linked to the wrong sense of leet in the post above. Try this: http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0984830?rskey=7RJxzw&result=2#m_en_gb0984830

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I no longer feel guilty ...

[perpenso]

" ... 'L33t is obviously a respelling and a contraction [of elite],' says Diamond, 'so it would be a separate entry, and yes it is familiar to me, so I think it's something we would consider for inclusion.'"

On the plus side, I no longer feel guilty about using dictionary.reference.com rather than the Oxford English Dictionary.

Re:I no longer feel guilty ...

[xaxa]

" ... 'L33t is obviously a respelling and a contraction [of elite],' says Diamond, 'so it would be a separate entry, and yes it is familiar to me, so I think it's something we would consider for inclusion.'"

On the plus side, I no longer feel guilty about using dictionary.reference.com rather than the Oxford English Dictionary.

I hope you're not one of the many /.ers who complains when Wikipedia deletes entries ;-)

Re:I no longer feel guilty ...

[_Shad0w_]

Why? A dictionary's job is to track the definition and usage of words, not to actually decide what those definitions and usages are. A dictionary that fails to do that, for whatever reason, is in fact failing to do what it's intended to do.

An OED subscription is one of the best investments I've ever made.

e-33 letters-t? What's that?

[Peter (Professor) Fo]

Never heard of LEET before. But I do know what "internationalisation" is ... normally abbreviated to I18n.

Can we have TWO dictionaries??

[catmistake]

There's the traditional one... and then there's the one for misspelled words, made-up words, internet anachronisms, lolcat and 1337-speak.

Re:Can we have TWO dictionaries??

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you tell me more about those absolute words in the universe that was never made up?

Re:Can we have TWO dictionaries??

[MozeeToby]

A 'traditional' dictionary has always included entries for misspelled words, made-up words, anachronisms, slang, and dialects. It is a collection of common usage, nothing more and nothing less.

Re:Can we have TWO dictionaries??

[gman003]

No point. Any dictionary worth mentioning, and many that aren't, has notes on the usage of a word. "Slang", "Vulgar", "Archaic" and "Alternate Spelling" are common. Some dictionaries will even note "Regional Dialect", "Technical Jargon", "Pidgin English", and even "Americanism". I don't think it would be that hard for them to add "Internet Slang", "Fictional Language" and "Marketing Speak" to that.

Re:Can we have TWO dictionaries??

[camperdave]

Um... aren't all words made up?

Re:Can we have TWO dictionaries??

[SleazyRidr]

Where do you draw the line for 'Traditional' English. Shakespeare-like language? Chaucer-like language? Modern English is basically all corruptions of old English.

Origins

[MtlDty]

To my memory l33t speak has its roots in the 'hacker' (or more correctly 'cracker') subculture. First started appearing on warez releases which would advertise BBS numbers, sometimes listing the numbers in plain text (for anyone to access) and sometimes listing as 'elite only' (meaning private access)

As time passed 'l33t' started appearing when refering to those with access to the private numbers. It was used sincerely for a short period, but soon turned into a term solely for mockery. 'l33t speak' followed soon after, which as everyone knows is where numbers replace l3tt3r5. l33t speak was to my memory only ever used in mockery, frequently in scorn either by those with access refering to 'lamers' without access, or vice-versa.

Re:Origins

[Ungrounded Lightning]

As I recall the original thrust of 1337-speak was to attempt to avoid automated network keyword detectors (hypothetically operated by investigative and law enforcement agencies) by distorting the words so they were still readable (with some effort) but would be missed by simple word and phrase detection software. As such they were supposed to be continually warping.

Of course the distortions (both of symbol or symbol group substitution and word contraction and modification) quickly became sufficiently standardized that the original purpose was defeated. The practice continued as a shibboleth (a linguistic marker of social group membership) or as satire or self-satire. And a few of the constructions (such as 1337 / l33t) became sufficiently stable and commonly used to become persistent words in their own right.

(Or at least that's my impression, as someone who observed but didn't play along.)

In the case of leet / l33t / 1337, OED is just living up to its charter if it decides to include it.

Bling Bling.

[Xacid]

I pretty much outright stopped giving a shit about dictionaries the moment one of them added "bling bling" to it. Raise the bar a little, guys. Geez. That's what urbandictionary is for.

Re:Bling Bling.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not up to them, it's up to /you/.

Re:Bling Bling.

[Xacid]

...oh?

Why?

[brokeninside]

Decent dictionaries usually remark that particular entries are considered obsolete, casual, slang, vulgar, regional dialect, etc. Asking them to break out distinct volumes for each (a) insults the intelligence of the dictionary user and (b) asks them to fleece dictionary users by selling multiple volumes when a single volume is sufficient.

Never, unless you use house rules

[brokeninside]

Scrabble does not allow acronyms, contractions, etc. Which is a shame, because WTF would be a great play.

Also, if you really want to beat your Grandma, learn strategy. Knowing odd words does help but the chief way to improve is to learn how to make every play (other than the first) build three or four words instead of just one.

Not sure if you meant what you actually said..

[valdis]

What to do.. what to do... English majors having a cardiovascular accident at a misspelling would be "stroking out", but "stroking off" *does* go better with the invitation to go fornicating.

Meanwhile...

[Anonymous Coward]

Reports of Americas rapid decline in education continues to pour in.

Disappointed

[abigail3306]

I understand putting LOL and OMG because they are abbr. but putting in a word that is originally formed from a misspelling is a bit of an insult for the American language. I thought only correctly spelled words went into the dictionary?

Re:Disappointed

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I thought only correctly spelled words went into the dictionary?

Absolutely not. A dictionary attempts to document the language as it is actually used, not prescribe some standard for it. Different dictionaries concentrate on different parts of the language for different purposes. The OED's range is one of the broadest, as it tries to cover all variants of the English language and its entire history.

(Exceptions to this are languages (notably: French) which have a ruling body prescribing a single "correct" form.)

Standardized spelling and grammar, on the other hand, was something the education establishment in the United States attempted to impose. This has had limited success. Its main effect has been to promote the east-coast regional variant of the language as "correct" and that users of other variants do so because they are stupid or ignorant. This helps the self-proclaimed urban elites delude themselves - and others - that they are more intelligent and thus suited to rule.

Re:Disappointed

[Anonymous Coward]

Though a little consistency is always good. Why can't we have that?

Re:Disappointed

[DrVomact]

Standardized spelling and grammar, on the other hand, was something the education establishment in the United States attempted to impose. This has had limited success. Its main effect has been to promote the east-coast regional variant of the language as "correct" and that users of other variants do so because they are stupid or ignorant. This helps the self-proclaimed urban elites delude themselves - and others - that they are more intelligent and thus suited to rule.

So standardized spelling and grammar is nothing more than an oppressive political plot, huh? You don't think it might just possibly enhance the clarity of written communication to have some standards to which everyone can appeal? How is standard English orthography prejudicial against the West Coast, as you seem (perhaps somewhat carelessly) to imply? Or against the South? Or Wyoming? Ah, but you clearly don't have to advance any arguments for your all-encompassing assertions, just the mere witless assertion of ill-formed and ill-informed opinion that fits your mindless worldview will do for you.

Re:Disappointed

[AP31R0N]

I understand putting LOL and OMG because they are abbr. but putting in a word that is originally formed from a misspelling is a bit of an insult for the American language. I thought only correctly spelled words went into the dictionary?

1337 is not a mispelling of elite. It's a different word. It started as a respelling, but took on a different meaning. SEALs are elite, but they aren't 1337, unless they, as individuals, are video gamers and qualify as 1337.

Though i am with you on the degradation of dictionaries.

Look up the history of the word Okay

[ThatsNotPudding]

Very much a confused provenance.

Isn't it remarkable

[Drakkenmensch]

How something that started as a trick to get around online profanity filters is on the verge of receiving official academic recognition?

334AOOU

[Alsee]

3 3 4 O O U U

God damn it, I HATE when I don't draw any consonants.
I'll pass my turn and draw seven new tiles.

-

Re:334AOOU

[hellkyng]

My three letter scrabble skills are leet (1337):

4O3 as in the garden implement alternatively known as hoe.

Not remarkable at all.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Isn't it remarkable how something that started as a trick to get around online profanity filters is on the verge of receiving official academic recognition?

(Or hypothesized law enforcement spyware...)

Not at all.

Many linguistic constructions, from slang to entire dialects, started as a way to communicate without being understood and attacked by an opposing group with power over the speakers.

fucking morons

[kuzb]

People are fucking morons, and this proves it. This is exactly the kind of unintelligent trash that needs to be kept out of the dictionary. The people who maintain the oxford-english dictionary should be fired.

Re:fucking morons

[Anonymous Coward]

I love those dieties :)

Gamers

[Anonymous Coward]

Gamers of the world! As a frustrated twenty year old hobby programmer I have to say this.

GROW UP ALREADY!!!!

Seriously. Pretending to shoot people is not being a computer enthusiast, it's fantasizing.. If you want to be an elite computer user don't touch a game until you have run out of an exhaustive list of constructive things to do with your computer. Write some software, launch a web server, make some animations. Do something already! I know that I'm going to look like a troll but believe me, I haven't made a post like this before in my life. Write in real English (or whatever is appropriate for your locality) and stop putting pretending ahead of doing.

L33t in scrable

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't play "l33t" in Scrabble precisely because of the numbers...

I thought there were two blanks. Not that you would score very much and "loot" using the same blanks would do just as well.

Re:L33t in scrable

[VAY]

Actually, l33t would in certain circumstances be a better move if you are playing a defensive game - it's much harder for someone else to make another word connecting to it as there are no other words currently that include a 3.

I'm shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

That "ur" and "tnx" didn't make it. My 12 year-old daughter doesn't know how to spell "your". I believe this marks the beginning of the end for the English language.

Leet speak is not a word

[wisnoskij]

It is a way of "encoding" words. While l33t is the most common example, 1337 is also common and every other word in the english language has at least a few variations in ll33t speak and they cannot all be included.

As someone getting an MA in TESOL...

[wilgibson]

I can live with ain't and gansta, and using who instead of whom in all cases. But lol was being add to the OED was bad enough. l33t in its many for being added to the OED would be an atrocity!

Re:As someone getting an MA in TESOL...

[wilgibson]

I seriously, do not need to post before having my first cup of coffee. I probably shouldn't be tutoring of teaching either. Yikes!

but "leet-speek" ain't English...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would rather not see "l33t" or "1337" in a dictionary of English - it's another language, not English.

I'm not a fan of "text speek" - it is a manifestation of ignorance and laziness. "Leet speek" feels more like that than anything legitimate.

That's another good reason

[brokeninside]

Unless you're a prescriptivist, usage defines language. The job of a dictionary vendor is merely to catalog how language is used.

Of course l'Académie française would disagree.

Personally, I'm glad that the OED crew is closer to my position that that of l'Académie.

The origin of "Leet"

[tkrotchko]

Obviously the root of the word is Elite.

And yes it came from the underground BBS scene in the 80's.

But the true meaning came from the original Courier line of Modems.

Recall that we were stuck at 2400 baud forever on modems, and so Courier invented a new line of modems that would do 9600 baud.

They called it the "Courier Elite"

There were two downsides to this, only one of them important: you could only connect at 9600 baud with another Courier Elite. This was important because these modems were going for $600-700.

What did Courier do? They basically slashed the price of the modem if you could prove you ran a BBS. Instead of paying $600, you perhaps paid $300-400.

So when you look through a list of BBS's, you could see "Elite Only" which was a pun. It meant first that it was likely a warez BBS, but it also meant that if you have a Courier Elite, you could download at least 4x as fast as if it was 2400.

I'm surprised with all the old-timers on here, nobody remembers this facet of computer history!

Dictionaries Suck

[AP31R0N]

Dictionaries are usually written by a useless class of people called descriptivists who devoutly record every mistake as gospel in the "evolution" of language.

Case in point: OMG is an abbreviation (like CIA or FBI), not an acronym. LoL is an acronym because we can say it as if it were a word (as are SCUBA and NASA). We have TWO word because they have TWO different meanings.

I 4 1

[bstender]

welcome this new rule mangling elite

ysl sale

[Anonymous Coward]

Yesterday, my friend bought a Ysl salewhich is so beautiful, i am surprised by the design and style.
do you have a Cheap ysl pair of now? if not, go to online store and have one, it is so amazing!!!
there are many online stores having ysl shoe,i believe you gonna like it!
Yesterday, my friend bought a Ysl sandalswhich is so beautiful, i am surprised by the design and style.