Slashdot Mirror


"Woot" Becomes an Official Word

tekgoblin writes with a quick bit about new words in the COED. From the article: "Concise Oxford English Dictionary is the smaller but most widely recognized derivative of the official Oxford English Dictionary, which is celebrating this August its 100th anniversary. To celebrate, the lexicon published its 12th edition today that adds more than 400 new entries – many of which reflect the technological vocabulary found in today's society, like 'woot,' 'mankini,' and 'jeggings.'"

146 comments

  1. First w00t! by Jimbookis · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is it w00t or woot?

    1. Re:First w00t! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since it stands for "We Owned the Other Team" I imagine woot is right.
      Do people still talk in 1337? How sad...

    2. Re:First w00t! by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Funny

      Is it w00t or woot?

      Both are perfectly cromulent words.

    3. Re:First w00t! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ZOMG, they misspelled it!

    4. Re:First w00t! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since it stands for "We Owned the Other Team" I imagine woot is right. Do people still talk in 1337? How sad...

      That acronyme was made up. woot is only a variation on wow+loot, wow+shoot. Also, woot is only '1337' if you spell it w00t. PLease go die in a fire ignorant anonymous coward.

    5. Re:First w00t! by stderr_dk · · Score: 1

      Since it stands for "We Owned the Other Team"...

      No, it doesn't...

      The Jargon Lexicon says:

      An interjection similar to “Yay!”, as in: “w00t!!! I just got a raise!” Often used for small victories the speaker dies not expect to be of special interest to anyone else. Some claim this is a bastardization of “root”, the highest level of access to a system (particularly UNIX), originated by script kiddies as a 133tspeak equivalent of “root”, and said as an exclamation upon gaining root access. Others claim it originated in the Everquest multiplayer game as an abbreviation of “wonderful loot”. Still other claim it on originated on IRC as the “Ewok victory cheer”] Adj. w00table has the sense of “cool” or “nifty”. This is one of the few leet-speak coinages to have crossed over into non-ironic use among hackers.

      --
      alias sudo="echo make it yourself #" ; # https://pipedot.org/~stderr & http://soylentnews.org/~stderr
    6. Re:First w00t! by pjbgravely · · Score: 1

      I think coward is confusing w00t with pwned. I vote for the proper spelling with zeros to remain.

      --
      Star Trek, there maybe hope.
    7. Re:First w00t! by jhoegl · · Score: 0

      You know, there was an English language and slang before WoW... woot being one of them.

    8. Re:First w00t! by DragonTHC · · Score: 3

      actually, it is wow+loot from tabletop D&D days.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    9. Re:First w00t! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was going to be w00t, but the Scrabble players' lobby came down hard on them.

    10. Re:First w00t! by clarkcox3 · · Score: 1

      "wow", as in the English word, nothing to do with "World of Warcraft"

      --
      There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
    11. Re:First w00t! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh. I always thought it was just the exclamation "woo!" with a "t" added to it for fun.

    12. Re:First w00t! by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1

      It's a green tentacle monster.

      http://www.elfonlyinn.net/d/20021029.html

    13. Re:First w00t! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it w00t or woot?

      w00t is correct damnet

    14. Re:First w00t! by jhoegl · · Score: 1

      Mah bad!
      But with the ignorance of WoW gamers, can you blame me?
      hehehe

    15. Re:First w00t! by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

      woot. v. Middle English. Third-person singular simple present indicative form of witen.
      witen. v. To know.

      And there was an English language and "woot" before... well, before a lot of things. I guess your high school English teacher doesn't woot Shakespeare?

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    16. Re:First w00t! by YttriumOxide · · Score: 2

      And there was an English language and "woot" before... well, before a lot of things. I guess your high school English teacher doesn't woot Shakespeare?

      I hate to correct someone with my favourite name (actually "Samantha" is my daughter's name too), but being a linguistics freak with a passion for the indo-european group, I just can't help myself here.

      • 1- Shakespeare did not speak or write middle English.
      • 2- Even accepting that you're mixing modern and middle English in that sentence, you've already got a primary verb with "doesn't" (to do), so that should be "doesn't witen" rather than "doesn't woot". "woot not" or "not woot" depending on your sentence structure also could've worked.
      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    17. Re:First w00t! by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      It appears I recollected an occasion on which Shakespeare did in fact use a word with the letters "woot", committed it to memory, and assumed that digging up the first dictionary that came to mind would settle the question properly without remembering any other detais. For what it's worth, this is what I should have been pointing to. At any rate, both accomplish my point: that "woot" has had a meaning in the English language for hundreds of years before the neologism was coined.

      And bravo for rendering a grammatically valid structure; I spent five minutes pondering over how to cram it into the third person and the present tense and never considered dumping the stupid auxiliary verb. My linguistics background is mostly in the extremely synthetic breed of conlang, and as such I tend to stumble with subtle realities of legitimate linguistics.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    18. Re:First w00t! by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid you're wrong about that..

      Here is the official description from the Oxford English Dictionary, "woot: used to express elation, enthusiasm, or triumph (especially in electronic communication)".

      As you can see, you are obviously wrong and should now bow to my superiority, and for the assburgers of slashdot (because there are a lot), this was all a joke, you can stop replying right now.

    19. Re:First w00t! by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      It appears I recollected an occasion on which Shakespeare did in fact use a word with the letters "woot", committed it to memory, and assumed that digging up the first dictionary that came to mind would settle the question properly without remembering any other detais. For what it's worth, this is what I should have been pointing to. At any rate, both accomplish my point: that "woot" has had a meaning in the English language for hundreds of years before the neologism was coined.

      I wasn't actually aware he used "woot" at all, but what's more interesting is that it appears he isn't even using it in the middle English sense. His usage appears to be a neologism (or at least "neo" in his time) as an alternative of the second person present for "willen"/"willan" - "wilt" (to want).

      It's not terribly surprising though, as Shakespeare was a bit free and easy with language at the best of times (allowing for some excellent puns sometimes, but also more often than not, just making a mess of things)

      And bravo for rendering a grammatically valid structure; I spent five minutes pondering over how to cram it into the third person and the present tense and never considered dumping the stupid auxiliary verb. My linguistics background is mostly in the extremely synthetic breed of conlang, and as such I tend to stumble with subtle realities of legitimate linguistics.

      I'd probably be more interested in constructed languages if someone came up with a really nice Germanic one. It seems all the really popular ones are heavily Romance oriented though. Not that I have anything against the romance languages (I speak French pretty well, and can at least read most of the more common languages in the family like Spanish, Italian, Latin, Portuguese, etc), just that I tend to prefer the Germanics for clarity.

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    20. Re:First w00t! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm still waiting for ain't to be accepted

    21. Re:First w00t! by Wootie+Woo · · Score: 1

      Wootie Woo!

    22. Re:First w00t! by jamiesan · · Score: 1

      I grok w00t.

    23. Re:First w00t! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'tis true! They embiggen even the smallest man.

    24. Re:First w00t! by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      I did indeed catch the distinction between Shakespeare's usage of wilt and the original form witen. All so, it doesn't mean he coined the term; even if it's unattested elsewhere, it may have been slang in that area at the time. I assume that the same argument has been had to the bitter end for just about everything he's accused of inventing.

      Incidentally, I did encounter someone recently who was attempting to build a properly Germanic tongue from the ground up, but was having an awful time scraping together a clean, bare wordlist to use. I think the reason they're so rare is, frankly, because the phonotactic patterns of Germanic languages make them inherently less beautiful to the ear, particularly for those who grew up living with them. In most language synthesis projects, I've found that there's a desire to produce something that sounds foreign; thus, presumably, the people most qualified to build a Germanic conlang (natural speakers) are those least motivated to do so.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    25. Re:First w00t! by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, I did encounter someone recently who was attempting to build a properly Germanic tongue from the ground up, but was having an awful time scraping together a clean, bare wordlist to use.

      If you like, feel free to pass on my contact details: email is my username without the "ide" at Google's well known mail service. I'd actually find it quite fun to assist in something like that.

      I think the reason they're so rare is, frankly, because the phonotactic patterns of Germanic languages make them inherently less beautiful to the ear, particularly for those who grew up living with them. In most language synthesis projects, I've found that there's a desire to produce something that sounds foreign; thus, presumably, the people most qualified to build a Germanic conlang (natural speakers) are those least motivated to do so.

      Sadly that's probably true. I'm a native English speaker but within the Germanic group, I speak both Dutch and German as well, in addition to having a fair bit of experience with Old English (Saxon) and a fair knowledge of the North Germanic (Scandanavian) structures/concepts.

      Personally, I quite like the sound of Germanic languages, when they're spoken with a clear accent (despite my Dutch being fairly reasonable and having lived in Amsterdam in the past, I still really don't like the Amsterdam accent where it sounds like everyone has a mouth full of cotton wool as they talk. The "crisper" accents in Dutch are far more pleasant.)

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    26. Re:First w00t! by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Alas, we didn't stay in touch, and I lost his contact details. But if I run into him again, I'll pass you on.

      I propose that the Amsterdam accent should (jokingly) be called a Phlegmish accent. Not the most inventive pun, but far from unfitting...

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    27. Re:First w00t! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      that "woot" has had a meaning in the English language for hundreds of years before the neologism was coined.

      Having read Mallory and T.H.White and Graves and Tolkein (the non-LoTR stuff) voluntarily in my early-teen years, I have to ask if it's really a neologism. The word has certainly been little used for the past half-millennium or so, but it has remained in use, and the meaning has changed little.

      "Neologism, a?" (to use the "a" neologism of CJ Cherryh for a general-purpose interrogative, vintage late 1970s. A book wot I was reading last week.)

      What sort of a language is it that can let a word slip out of common usage for less than 20 generations, and consider it new when it comes back? ("One that's not yet comfortable with mass literacy," might be a reasonable answer.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    28. Re:First w00t! by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

      Woo! + loot maybe?

      --
      I am not devoid of humor.
    29. Re:First w00t! by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      I think the meaning has changed significantly. First it was a form of a word meaning 'to know', then a replacement for 'will you', and finally the new form is an exclamation of joy. It would only be a resurrection of the previous form if there were some manner of evidence for a deliberate reference. But since the meaning is so totally different and we can't exactly chase down whoever came up with it, it's kind of hard to claim that there is one.

      (Moreover, I'm not sure "a?" is much of a neologism so much as an alternative spelling of the extremely venerated "eh?", which is easily hundreds of years old.)

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    30. Re:First w00t! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      First it was a form of a word meaning 'to know', then a replacement for 'will you', and finally the new form is an exclamation of joy.

      It's got a new meaning? Why? Wasn't it's existing meaning good enough for people?

      Oh, sorry, it's that mass literacy thing again. Expecting that people would actually have used their gifts of literacy, libraries and that sort of thing , then being disappointed to find that they don't.

      Or ... have our societies actually entered a period of mass literacy yet?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    31. Re:First w00t! by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure you have a very good grasp of linguistics. The people who coined the modern exclamation most likely had no knowledge of its history. From a philological standpoint, it's a homonym with the pre-existing definitions of "woot", and not actually the same word. Similarly, to Shakespeare, "anon" meant "at once!" or "shortly!", not "anonymous individual".

      This is a pretty common phenomenon and drives most linguistic evolution to some extent. Languages are always evolving, and may even continue to evolve after they're formally pronounced dead, like Latin has. Particularly convenient words made out of popular letters are at a premium, so when one is forgotten, it's inevitable that a new one will appear with the same spelling.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    32. Re:First w00t! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      The people who coined the modern exclamation most likely had no knowledge of its history.

      ... which is what makes me wonder if we have actually entered the "age of mass literacy". Sure, the tools are available, but are people using them?

      To mis-use, if not actually mis-quote Dot Parker, "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think."

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    33. Re:First w00t! by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      I think your expectations are a little high. It's unreasonable to assume people are perfectly well-read, when becoming even moderately well-read takes many years of work. If you want to complain about literary literacy, I would pick a more widespread problem, like the death of the common cultural mythology.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    34. Re:First w00t! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I think your expectations are a little high.

      I don't. People tend to live down to what is expected of them.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    35. Re:First w00t! by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Let me know how that works out for you, as a social animal. I really hope you don't pass that viewpoint on to your biological/academic/corporate successors.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    36. Re:First w00t! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I really hope you don't pass that viewpoint on to your biological/

      Of course that's not going to happen. Do I look like a psychopathic sadist to you?

      academic/

      One of the jobs of academe is to push and pull people to higher levels. Having high expectations is a pretty basic part of that. The sub-standard students, you haul up to standard (your standard, not theirs); the above-standard students you push to exceed both of your expectations ; expectations rise.

      Comfortable in your cave? Want to try booting this "fire" thing I've discovered?

      corporate successors.

      It's self defence : get 90% of the company afraid to compete with you, and be the "goto" guy for problems that are challenging the other 10% ... you're in a position that is relatively safe from redundancy.

      As for the future ; I don't care much (the academic argument is the one I care most about, and my standards are not high enough for academia) because, DOH!, it's the future : I'll be dead in the future and won't be caring then. Meantime, I can keep up.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    37. Re:First w00t! by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Students' accomplishments aren't expected to exceed the greatness of their predecessors' accomplishments. Institutions and educators who demand such almost universally create academics with morals loosened by the pressure to succeed.

      The drive to be so selfishly hypercompetitive is primarily responsible for the decline of the United States. If you were a CEO or a high-ranking politician, your preoccupation with your own job security, "keeping up", and success—combined with your disdain for the future—would probably have already outsourced either your job or the jobs of your colleagues. Thank you for clearly establishing that you belong to the "problem" column and not the "solution" column. I always find it refreshing to hear Americans say things to the effect of "after I die, the world doesn't matter." It's such a fantastic reminder that apparently successful, intelligent people can still bring about the end of civilization if they try hard enough. You don't have to pass that viewpoint on to children in order to be a sociopath, you just have to believe it.

      Also—would it be considered a cheap shot if I point out that people haven't put spaces before colons and semicolons for well over a hundred years, and that when they did, they generally followed them with a wider space? I believe not living up to such a basic criterion of the definition of literacy (proper use of punctuation) makes you somewhat hypocritical. This is especially the case if you make the "it's easier to read" argument, since one's reading skill is defined by comfort with the complicated and difficult.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    38. Re:First w00t! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      What makes you think that I am part of any American solution, or problem.

      My spacing of punctuation is my choice. I happen to think that it looks better. Your opinion may differ, feel free, but I don't do it by accident, I do it by design. (FWIW - I developed the habit with some particularly recalcitrant hyper-stylised technical documentation where such techniques were often necessary to achieve even vaguely legible text.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    39. Re:First w00t! by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      My reasoning is that by being a reservoir of selfishness, you have the potential to pass this perspective on to others (or, alternatively, induce it in them through your treatment of them.) This in turn reinforces the same selfishly competitive behaviour amongst the general population, and ultimately reinforces that attitude in people with the power to influence others. Think of it as an extended version of the golden rule. While you might make the case that your contribution is extremely small, the argument cannot be made that such an attitude is constructive, or even neutral, unless you truly believe that how you behave affects no one in your country.

      With regards to punctuation, the colon and semicolon are grouped with the preceding word for the sake of making reading less ambiguous; they are a form of terminator. It is not my opinion that there is an inherent aesthetic reason for grouping them thus, but a matter of very well-established historical convention. Choosing to deny this convention is, in itself, a form of illiteracy, as it demonstrates an imperfect grasp of the reasons for the convention, which is, again, not arbitrary. Tying things back to our original point of discussion, this is a much graver shortcoming in one's literacy than ignorance of comparatively obscure Middle English verb forms. (Also, you just ended a question with a period.)

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    40. Re:First w00t! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      With regards to punctuation, the colon and semicolon are grouped with the preceding word for the sake of making reading less ambiguous; they are a form of terminator.

      Read programming manuals for most programming languages : while few dictate precisely how whitespace is deployed, this sort of deployment is very common.

      As for the sociology : I've got data to upload while the network works. I'm sure your local phonebook has people in it who are interested in sociology.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    41. Re:First w00t! by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Every programming language has its preferred whitespace usage, most of which have significance. K&R, for example, insists that there is a space between control structures and their parenthesized arguments (as in: if (a > 1) [...]) but not between regular functions and their arguments (hence: printf("Hello world.\n");). These cues are still conceptually significant, as they reflect the difference in underlying meaning.

      The same applies to punctuation in natural languages; using the modern Greek interpunct in Latin, for example, would generate confusion, because the Latin punctus was used to indicate breathing pauses, not genuinely grammatical breaks; the reverse of this is even worse, as it can create grammatically incorrect sentences. A convention that is familiar in one language can very easily be unpleasant when used in another, even if the intention is clear.

      If you're really going to ignore the underlying causes of the decline of the US, though, you should probably give up on being cynical about its fate. That's called whining.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    42. Re:First w00t! by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      If you're really going to ignore the underlying causes of the decline of the US

      Again you seem to think that I do, or should, give a firm shit about what is happening in the US. I'll spell it out for you : with the exception of the small number of pleasant Americans that I've met, most of whom have already fled the country's territory, if not it's tax man, I greatly enjoying watching the decline of America into a second-world country. It's long overdue and well earned. And the internally-focussed habit the Americans have (which you're repeatedly demonstrating) of referring to everything solely in terms of how it affects America, is one of the reason that people the world over are cheering as your country falls to pieces around your ears.

      It's better than any entertainment that Hollywood provides. Not that that is difficult, itself often being concerned solely with parochial matters.

      I'm not going to wholly ignore the causes of the decline of America - I often celebrate and encourage them with a fine glass of beer (not, it should be said, the anaemic maiden's piss-watter that passes for "beer" according to your advertising media).

      The next post over (in my choice from the headlines is one part of the hilarity. How on earth can a country (allegedy) in the 21st century still have so many religious idiots in power? And you've had a generation grow up complaining about Iranian Ayatollahs and not seeing the irony.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    43. Re:First w00t! by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Don't be quite so quick there—I'm Canadian. Sort of changes things.

      Perhaps I was wrong in making any particular assumption about your own nation of origin, now that we're talking about anaemia and inferior alcoholic beverages—but honestly I still think your attitude is a corrosive one. The more apathetic people there are, the less gets done.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  2. What a say day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Woot".

    1. Re:What a say day by symbolset · · Score: 1

      "Where will I be able to buy an HP TouchPad?" Word of the day for three hundred, Alex.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    2. Re:What a say day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was w00t until woot commercialized it.

  3. American Heritage by PCM2 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm in the market for a good dictionary, but I think I'm going to wait until the 5th edition American Heritage comes out in November. That dictionary is pretty much the standard for most professional writers and editors in the U.S. I've also heard that the New Oxford American is a good dictionary -- some say better -- but I'm leaning toward the traditional.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
    1. Re:American Heritage by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 1

      If you've any connection to a university, you might consider taking advantage to OED online. Most university libraries have access to it and I imagine a good many public library systems will as well. Especially since that is the only way the full OED is to be published henceforth.

    2. Re:American Heritage by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about their electronic version?

      If so, I'm guessing you don't have a good smart phone/plan and must be away from your desktop most of the day.

    3. Re:American Heritage by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I can't blame them for that. The unabridged OED was always a crush risk to children.

    4. Re:American Heritage by utkonos · · Score: 1

      The American Heritage Dictionary is a good dictionary. But understand that there are two basic types of dictionaries and it should be important to have one of each kind and understand the difference in the two styles of dictionaries. One type is descriptive; the other is prescriptive. This difference extends from the two types of linguistics that bear the same name. A descriptive dictionary looks at how language is practiced and pulls the definition from that. This type of dictionary is exemplified by the Miriam-Webster Dictionary. A prescriptive dictionary builds its definition from accepted usage rules. These usage rules can come from different sources, but mainly it is a group of people who together come to a definition. An example of this type of dictionary is the American Heritage Dictionary. The definitions are agreed upon by a group of experts in this dictionary's case.

      This is an important distinction. And you should understand the difference. If you follow the American linguistic tradition as a break from the European, linguistic description is more in line with that. Prescriptivism is much more aligned with the ideas of French or Czech language protectionism rather than the ideas of early Americans who dropped the 's' organization or the 'u' in colour or reversed the 're' in theatre.

    5. Re:American Heritage by westlake · · Score: 1

      I think I'm going to wait until the 5th edition American Heritage comes out in November. That dictionary is pretty much the standard for most professional writers and editors in the U.S

      The American Heritage Dictionary has its origins in scenes like this:

      Mr. Wolfe is in the middle of a fit. It's complicated. There's a fireplace in the front room, but it's never lit because he hates open fires. He says they stultify mental processes. But it's lit now because he's using it. He's seated in front of it, on a chair too small for him, tearing sheets out of a book and burning them. The book is the new edition, the third edition, of Webster's New International Dictionary, Unabridged, published by the G. & C. Merriam Company of Springfield, Massachusetts. He considers it subversive because it threatens the integrity of the English language. In the past week he has given me a thousand examples of its crimes. He says it is a deliberate attempt to murder the --- I beg your pardon. I describe the situation at length because he told me to bring you in there, and it will be bad.

      Nero Wolfe

      The Usage Panel makes it explicitly a writer's dictionary:

      For expert consultation on words or constructions whose usage is controversial or problematic, the American Heritage Dictionary relies on the advice of a usage panel. In its current form, the panel consists of 200 prominent members of professions whose work demands sensitivity to language. Present and former members of the usage panel include novelists (Isaac Asimov, Barbara Kingsolver, David Foster Wallace, and Eudora Welty), poets (Rita Dove, Galway Kinnell, Mary Oliver, and Robert Pinsky) playwrights (Terrence McNally and Marsha Norman), journalists (Liane Hansen and Susan Stamberg), literary critics (Harold Bloom), columnists and commentators (William F. Buckley, Jr., and Robert J. Samuelson), linguists and cognitive scientists (Steven Pinker and Calvert Watkins), and humorists (Garrison Keillor and David Sedaris).

      The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

    6. Re:American Heritage by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      I have no connection to any university, but the same is true of the San Francisco Public Library. I want a print dictionary.

      Also, the OED may be the "definitive" record of the English language, but that doesn't actually (believe it or not) make it the best dictionary. Proof? Oxford University publishes other dictionaries, not all of which draw from the text of the unabridged OED.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    7. Re:American Heritage by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      I am not talking about the electronic version, but your post makes no sense. If I was away from my desktop most of the day then a print dictionary wouldn't do me any good. On the other hand, if I didn't have a good smart phone/plan, then an electronic dictionary wouldn't do me any good. You seem to be arguing that I am beyond the aid of any dictionary. Which is kind of silly, because believe it or not, I was using dictionaries many years before the smartphone was invented.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
  4. Oh hey by cmv1087 · · Score: 1

    "Noob" is now also an official word in the dictionary. I suppose that means I have to actually add it to my browser's dictionary so it'll stop telling me it's not a real word. Take that, spellchecker!

  5. What about shipping? by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

    Will we still get 5.00 shipping????

    --
    _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    1. Re:What about shipping? by Deathlizard · · Score: 1

      All I know is there better be a Bag of Crap sale to celebrate.

    2. Re:What about shipping? by jrmcferren · · Score: 1

      I don't think the servers will hold.

      --
      sudo mod me up
    3. Re:What about shipping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like Kirk/Spock shipping?

  6. Woot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Woot o.O ? Woot is and official word now! That pwns!

  7. Woot-off! by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

    This totally deserves a Woot Off.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:Woot-off! by jrmcferren · · Score: 1

      I wish they would do one on Friday when I'm not at work.

      --
      sudo mod me up
  8. There are no "official" words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Any schmuck can publish a dictionary, and there is no central authority that decides what is or isn't a word. If "woot" is appearing in dictionaries then that's all well and good as a sign that it's becoming more recognized by our culture, but that doesn't make it any more "official" of a word than it was last year.

    1. Re:There are no "official" words by BluBrick · · Score: 1

      The Oxford University Press is hardly "any schmuck"*. Appearing in The Concise Oxford English Dictionary is a sufficiently well-respected validation of a word that it is really not unreasonable to colloquially describe such a word as "official".

      *Anonymous Coward , on the other hand, pretty much is any schmuck!

      --
      Ahh - My eye!
      The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
    2. Re:There are no "official" words by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Yeah most of the popular dictionaries have been doing this for a few hundred years at least. There are a couple(I think oxford u based), that have been doing it closer to 600 years.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:There are no "official" words by carndearg · · Score: 2

      It's nice to know that we're not "Any schmuck" :)

      However my lexicographer colleagues would take issue with their decision to include a word granting it any sort of "official" status. They are scientists though they often don't see themselves as such, all their inclusion means is that they have found sufficient evidence of the word's use for them to consider it to be part of their record of contemporary English.

      Whether a word is part of a user's "official" vocabulary is purely up to that user, not to anyone else and certainly not to us.

  9. The Royal Christmas Message by Lord_of_the_nerf · · Score: 2

    Now that COED have given it's approval, hopefully the Queen will have the good taste to call out the noobishness displayed by the looters and offer them a royal teabagging.

  10. Baba Wawa is woot!!! by Genda · · Score: 1

    Woot; is the Baba Wawa superuser!

  11. Once jeggings becomes a word ... by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

    Are the others soon to follow?

  12. +1 by Noodlenoggin · · Score: 1

    "Woot!" It's sort of a decade too late, but I do still get some use out of the word.
    I also love how some people consider if may have been created due to the words wow and loot. Given that WoW was barely in development when I first noticed the word while playing quake. 0.o

  13. I was on the fence.... by SIR_Taco · · Score: 1

    but now I no longer have any respect for the OED

    --
    I say don't drink and drive, you might spill your drink. Before you get behind the wheel just stop and think.
    1. Re:I was on the fence.... by hedwards · · Score: 0

      It's a dictionary, it's supposed to add words as they come into the language and record the generally agreed upon spellings, not to define new words and dictate a spelling. Something which a lot of folks around here ought to realize before they make asses of themselves trying to stifle the language.

      loosers.

    2. Re:I was on the fence.... by snowgirl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      but now I no longer have any respect for the OED

      The OED is a descriptivist dictionary, as opposed to a prescriptivist dictionary. That means that the OED includes words that are actually being used, rather than prescribing which words should and should not be used. This means including words that many people object to, but too bad, there are a large number of people who use the word regardless of any official position about the word.

      If you want to speak a language which has a prescriptivist authority, then I recommend French or Spanish, they have institutes that declare what is and is not proper language, and if you disagree, then you're wrong. If you want a language that is generally descriptivist, then stick with the Germanic languages, where we recognize that the authority on language is a native speaker, and not some people locked up in a room declaring that "ain't isn't a word" even though 70% of the population uses it on a regular basis.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    3. Re:I was on the fence.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alas, I don't have access to the OED, or I would check and see if "loosers" is a documented variant spelling of "losers" now... Maybe someone else can look it up.

    4. Re:I was on the fence.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a dictionary, it's supposed to add words that come into the language and record the generally agreed upon spellings, not every little subculture's passing jargon fad.

    5. Re:I was on the fence.... by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      loosers

      Ha! You almost got me with this one!=digest&topic_id=4776&forum=34

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    6. Re:I was on the fence.... by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      70% of the Anglosphere is using woot on a regular basis?

      Anyway, descriptivists like to portray themselves as men of the people. "We just note the words, we don't prescribe them."

      The problem with 100% descriptivism is that language is a social phenomenon. And when some comes to a place of work saying "ain't", he won't be lynched, but some people may view him as less educated.

      Again, this is because language is a social phenomenon.

      Any dictionary would be wise to note that certain words are view pejoratively by certain speakers.

      But when you do that you lose the claim to purist descriptivism.

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    7. Re:I was on the fence.... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      70% of the Anglosphere is using woot on a regular basis?

      Anyway, descriptivists like to portray themselves as men of the people. "We just note the words, we don't prescribe them."

      The problem with 100% descriptivism is that language is a social phenomenon. And when some comes to a place of work saying "ain't", he won't be lynched, but some people may view him as less educated.

      Again, this is because language is a social phenomenon.

      Any dictionary would be wise to note that certain words are view pejoratively by certain speakers.

      But when you do that you lose the claim to purist descriptivism.

      I was going to agree but while writing this post I've come to the conclusion that the proper answer is "that depends".

      Most dictionaries do note where a word is appropriate, using tags like "colloquial", "pejorative" or "technical". That looks like prescription at first but can actually be purely descriptive. Noting that the definition "temporary data store" for "buffer" only applies in the context of computing does not make any statement about where it should be used; it describes where it will be understood that way.

      Likewise, differentiating between "nut" as "a perforated block of metal with an internal screw thread" and as "a testis" is made easier by annotating them with contextual information. Now, this is where it gets interesting. The first meaning could be annotated with words like "technical" or "engineering" while staying purely descriptive but the annotation for the second meaning can have a varying degree of prescription. I'd put "colloquial" as a rather descriptive... description (as use of that meaning does happen mainly in colloqial contexts) while, for instance, Merriam-Webster use "usually vulgar", which gives us more social information but can also be seen a prescribing a reaction. Of course "vulgar" or even "offensive" would be even more prescriptive.

      Now, the question is: How much do I prescribe? Do I just give a list of possible meanings without any further metadata about them so as to best avoid influencing common use? Do I add basic contextual information that is intended as a pure description of where a meaning is commonly used? That approach does have the advantage of making homonyms easier to distinguish. Do I explicitly note when a word might be considered inappropriate? That might help someone avoid a faux-pas but it does involve defining "bad" words or meanings, even though my work is inclusive of commonly-used words.

      I'm not a lexicographer* but I'd say that basic contextual information like "this meaning is usually used in a botanics context" is part of a meaning and does not make your dictionary prescriptive. Of course even if it does the usual white-black analogy applies: Taking a hardline stance is unlikely to yield the best result and a descriptivist dictionary can afford to have a little bit of prescription in it. And the hardliners can take their opinion and shove it (as described by the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary).


      * But as a nerd I can pointlessly argue about semantics for hours.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    8. Re:I was on the fence.... by zotz · · Score: 1

      "The OED is a descriptivist dictionary, as opposed to a prescriptivist dictionary. That means that the OED includes words that are actually being used, rather than prescribing which words should and should not be used. This means including words that many people object to, but too bad, there are a large number of people who use the word regardless of any official position about the word."

      The problem is, we *want* to use slang when we use some of those words. If you go and make it an official word, we just have to start the laborious process of finding and spreading a new slang word all over again... ~;-)

      all the best,

      drew

      --
      FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
    9. Re:I was on the fence.... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      No, but it's supposed to include the commonly accepted spellings. Or haven't you noticed that most dictionaries will contain multiple spellings and words that mean the same thing but are different for historical reasons.

    10. Re:I was on the fence.... by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      70% of the Anglosphere is using woot on a regular basis?

      Hyperbole... look it up in a dictionary.

      Anyway, descriptivists like to portray themselves as men of the people. "We just note the words, we don't prescribe them."

      The problem with 100% descriptivism is that language is a social phenomenon. And when some comes to a place of work saying "ain't", he won't be lynched, but some people may view him as less educated.

      Again, this is because language is a social phenomenon.

      Any dictionary would be wise to note that certain words are view pejoratively by certain speakers.

      But when you do that you lose the claim to purist descriptivism.

      Noting the connotations that people will have to a word does not make it less of a descriptivist dictionary. You're not telling people to treat the word as slang, or vulgar, or colloquial, you're telling people looking up the word that most people have such connotations related to its use.

      The whole point I was trying to make is, "it's in the dictionary so it's a word" is not a valid argument when the dictionary is the OED, because the OED makes no such authoritative comment. It says, "this is what people are using, and what they're using it to mean, and these are the circumstances under which some words occur."

      If you want to take a real prescriptivist dictionary, the RAE (Real Academia Española) issues a dictionary regarding Spanish as spoken in Spain. If it is not in the RAE's dictionary, then it is not a valid word. You are automatically using non-standard bad Spanish if you are using a word inconsistent with the way the RAE's dictionary declares it to be. This is opposed to the OED, where they say, "we just haven't gotten around to documenting that usage yet."

      Do you understand the difference now? Prescriptivist says, "this is how it is, and if you disagree then you're wrong" the descriptivist says, "this is what we've seen, and if you disagree, that's fine, we're not an authority."

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    11. Re:I was on the fence.... by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      Right, so the word "nut" meaning a testis is only viewed as vulgar, because the OED declares that it is vulgar? Or perhaps, the OED labeled it "vulgar" because that's how people use it.

      As a test for if a dictionary is prescriptivist vs descriptivist, consider the situation where a word is not widely considered vulgar in the population, let's go with "apple". Would the dictionary fell justified in declaring this word to be vulgar apart from popular usage, and thus attempt to make the popular usage match the usage that they are declaring? If they would, they're prescriptivist, if they're not, they're descriptivist.

      A good example is French, where the Académie française has recommended, with mixed success, that some loanwords from English (such as walkman, software and email) be avoided, in favour of words derived from French (baladeur, logiciel, and courriel respectively).

      The OED would never coin new words to replace words in common use and attempt to get people to use them.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    12. Re:I was on the fence.... by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      Just because it's in the dictionary does not mean it is slang. In fact, I'm sure "jeggings" is marked with "slang". I'm for sure that "woot" is.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    13. Re:I was on the fence.... by Eivind · · Score: 1

      German is like that too, in principle. Thing is, it's a continuum, and not a binary choice. No language is 100% prescriptive - if enough people use a certain word a certain way for a long enough period, then that word *does* have that meaning, and the people publishing dictionaries are left with choosing if they want to contain the words people actually use, or not.

  14. Let me know when slashdot makes it in by JustinFreid · · Score: 1

    Slashdot, verb: to send a much higher amount of internet traffic to a website due to a link to it being included in a post on Slashdot, sometimes resulting in said site becoming inaccessible due to the increased load.
    also slashdotted

    --
    Hey, how's it going?
  15. Good news! by wootcat · · Score: 1

    This makes me very happy.

    --
    I'm really a low 5-digit Slashdotter, but this ID is where I am now.
    1. Re:Good news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt that "wootcat" is gaining much traction as the next word to be added, but I'm in favor of it.

  16. No it isn't... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fucking dictionary companies just need to sell more fucking dictionaries, why else do you think they need to make a new fucking edition every fucking year?

    1. Re:No it isn't... by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      looks you could use a whole fucking lot of new fuckin' words your-fuckin'-self: maybe you should take fuckin' advantage of this fucking release.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    2. Re:No it isn't... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least I can fucking spell it.

    3. Re:No it isn't... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you sure fuckin' can, it's just a pity that your fucking understanding of fuckin' grammar is rather fucking poor.

    4. Re:No it isn't... by Delusion_ · · Score: 1

      I'm going to assume that the OED isn't going to lose any of your business, because you're not in the market for one.

      For all of that, I'm a descriptivist, and don't consider "fucking" to be improper grammar or any of that stuffy prescritivist nonsense, but you don't strike me as someone who sees the value in having an exhaustive historical research tool such as the OED handy.

      I do, but I can't afford it. So in the end, we're more equal than I'd like.

  17. hahahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    woots!
    I feel I am the one that restarted this up! Some friends and I started it during MegaTF Quake matches. Then that died. Now after playing battlefieldBC2 matches, everyone started copying me and it took off again to this point. Fing hilarious!

    1. Re:hahahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you totally invented the english language and its fondness for creating new words. Thanks, i don't know what i'd do without you.

  18. Woot! Too late by garyoa1 · · Score: 1

    Too late. Woot sold out to Amazon.

    --
    Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
  19. No central authority? by Kittenman · · Score: 1

    What about Samuel Boswell?

    --
    "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
  20. Who cares about woot... by elsurexiste · · Score: 1

    ...when mankini was added? I never believed language-rape was possible, until now.

    --
    I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
    1. Re:Who cares about woot... by uncanny · · Score: 1

      I came to that conclusion when they added "ginormous"

  21. Newb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Newb' would actually be the correct word. Short for 'Newbie' from the root 'New'.
    'Noob' is either a misspelling or just a rude word for 'Newb'.

    1. Re:Newb by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I'm just waiting for Grammar Nazi to hit the OED. The lulz of it would be plentiful.

    2. Re:Newb by utkonos · · Score: 1

      I've never seen anyone use newb for newbie. But I've seen noob or n00b all the time. In fact if you do a google search for both newb and noob, it only returns a section of images for noob, therefore noob is more common and accepted.

    3. Re:Newb by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      "N00b" is a misspelling of "newb", that is in its turn an abbreviation of "newbie". "Noob", on the other hand, is a misspelling of "n00b" that no one ever used before those self-proclaimed lords and masters of English language.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    4. Re:Newb by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      It's standard usage in Dungeons and Dragons Online. A newb is a new player, he is fresh and has to learn. A noob is someone with a certain state of mind, an unwillingness to learn coupled with self-professed mastery. A newb asks if he should wield a greataxe as a monk, a noob does it and proclaims it to be uber.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  22. May it enjoy as long a life as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    darb, spifflicated, and giggle water.

  23. Thereitis by Hsien-Ko · · Score: 1

    I know it's supposed to be referencing the Tag Team song Whoomp! There It Is, but I can't be the only one who read it as "thereitis", as if it's there just because it's there.

    Thereitis for Oxford English 2017.

    1. Re:Thereitis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it's not! It stands for
      We
      Own
      Other
      Team!
      and is issued when you won. Over the other team obviously.

      I wonder if OED got it wrong too.
      And if not, if they have included that definition of "own(age)".

    2. Re:Thereitis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They definition is so vague, I think they got it wrong.

      Next up: "Fuddruckers" accidentally renames itself to "Buttfuckers"

  24. Oxford also incubator for Monty Python by dltaylor · · Score: 1

    It was at Oxford that some of the Monty Python troop began to display their talents for both erudition and silliness.

    Why can't the OED display both, as well?

    1. Re:Oxford also incubator for Monty Python by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cambridge, methinks.

    2. Re:Oxford also incubator for Monty Python by dltaylor · · Score: 1

      Some from Cambridge, some from Oxford:

      Oxford men Terry Jones and Michael Palin were taking a similar root to their future Python compatriots.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1999/10/99/monty_python/455585.stm

  25. How to pick a dictionary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I look to see if the dictionary has cuss words. If it doesn't have any, it's probably not good.

    I figure if they are too reserved to list cuss words, they probably also censor or 'politically correct' definitions of other words they might deem objectionable.

  26. I always thought....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always thought "Woot" stood for "We Owned the Other Team" ........ The "offical" meaning is "used to express elation, enthusiasm, or triumph (especially in electronic communication)" .... which is true... but not by acronym definition

    1. Re:I always thought....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i always thought that acronyms abbreviated, not defined. Is that just me?

  27. w00t! by byronblue · · Score: 0

    d00d, at least spell it correctly, it's, "w00t". oh=zero. I'd also like to add they we shouldn't fight this decision. Imagine what would happend if the work F#@k was never conceived?

  28. my own portmanteu by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

    woot! + grats! = woots!

    --
    ...
  29. Chinook Jargon by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Woot.com is one of the sponsors of a conference I attend. A couple years back they began giving each attendee a box of random swag - with the company logo: WOOT! on the box.

    When I brought it home after the conference and my wife saw it she couldn't stop laughing for several minutes.

    She's one of the several hundred remaining speakers of Chinook Jargon - a west-coast American Indian trade language that has become an L1 on at least one multi-tribe reservation. It seems that WOOT-l'et (my phonetic approximation, not one of the canonical spellings) is a word in that language for penis.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Chinook Jargon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I brought it home after the conference and my wife saw it she couldn't stop laughing for several minutes.... It seems that WOOT-l'et ... is a word in that language for penis.

      I am offended her your wife's inappropriate outburst! Hey... if your wife is married, why is she still belittling and harassing our gender? Its up to you man... show the woman that the penis is no laughing matter. We don't laugh at her boobs do we?

    2. Re:Chinook Jargon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which makes sense when you think about it. Elation, enthusiasm, triumph.

    3. Re:Chinook Jargon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a Russian American co-worker whose son (3) speaks a combination of the two languages.

      He had to close the car door when filling up because his son was shouting "Die sister, die!" (Give me sister, give me).

    4. Re:Chinook Jargon by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      I laugh at boobs.

    5. Re:Chinook Jargon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your wife is 8 years old?

    6. Re:Chinook Jargon by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      In that case, you could probably make a killing reselling WOOT! fanny packs among her tribe.

  30. There most certainly are by F69631 · · Score: 1

    Speak for your own country. In Finland, at least, we have Research Institute for the Languages of Finland.

    The Research Institute for the Languages of Finland is a governmental linguistic research institute of Finland geared at studies of Finnish, Swedish (Cf. Finland Swedish), the Sami languages, Romani language, and the Finnish Sign Language. The institute is charged with the standardization of languages used in Finland.

    Emphasis mine. In Swedish, there is a very similar body of Swedish Language Council.

    The Swedish Language Council (Swedish: Språkrådet) is the primary regulatory body for the advancement and cultivation of the Swedish language. The council is partially funded by the Swedish government and has semi-official status. The council asserts control over the language through the publication of various books with recommendations in spelling and grammar as well as books on linguistics intended for a general audience, the sales of which are used to fund its operation.

    You might also be interested in this rather long list of language regulators from other countries. So there are indeed words and ways to spell them which are considered official.

  31. Desperate Attempt to Stay Relevant by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The problem with the Oxford English Dictionary is that it has become the "Guinness World Records" of dictionaries - adding all sorts of dumb-assed "words" for no other reason than to make the headlines and be "hip", with one single goal - get press to sell whatever it is they sell.

    I'm guessing that they have some "on-line" product, as not too many people are buying huge multi-volume book series these days.

    But rest assured, adding all this trendy "1337" crap and other new words that the young folks are spewing (get the fuck off my lawn) is being done *not* because these words have passed the test of time and are now semi-permanent in our lingual consciousness, but rather a desperate attempt of these "dictionaries" to stay relevant and thus stay profitable.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Desperate Attempt to Stay Relevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A dictionary just like a hammer is a tool.
      The purpose of it is to make it possible to look up the meaning of a word.
      If grandpa hear the kids on his lawn say "woot" and tries to look it up in the dictionary the word has to be there or the dictionary is useless to him.
      Any dictionary who tries to be an authorative "serious" source of words is pretty useless but I guess people like you will still buy it because "it looks nice in the bookshelf."

    2. Re:Desperate Attempt to Stay Relevant by SmallMonkeyPirate · · Score: 2

      The OED reflects words in common usage at the time of the publication of the edition not necessarily words that have passed the test of time. Words are not removed so that someone is the future can read a book published x years previously and still have a reference guide for those that are now out of use and the reader has not previously seen defined or been taught. It is a reflection of what is in use not a conservative list of what should be in use if everyone spoke the same static language. If that were the case we be missing a lot of words used quite correctly everyday in the tech press and would may not be able to understand them correctly in years to come once they drop out of use. As for staying profitable and relevant, the UK pays OED for free online access for EVERY library card holder in Britain so they can log in and use it from home or the library. That makes it very relevant as I cannot afford to pay for digital access nor buy a complete edition, and I would hope at least a little profitable.

    3. Re:Desperate Attempt to Stay Relevant by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      For that the urban dictionary would be more useful, although some definitions may be shocking.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  32. In related news by qxcv · · Score: 1

    The Concise Oxford English Dictionary was today renamed to "T3h ub3r5h0r+ gr@mm4r h4ck3r5 ch34+ 5h34+". Co-author of the dictionary, Edmund Weiner (alias "w3iner69"), said the move was made "for teh lulz" and that "411 ur wrdz r b3lng 2 us". Leaked copies of the latest edition are in fact ROT13d, and editors appear to have adopted Unicode in order to create crude textual illustrations.

    --
    "The most dangerous enemy of a better solution is an existing codebase that is just good enough." -- Eric S. Raymond
  33. Social media and instant-access technology in 1911 by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    From the article:

    Since publishing its first edition back in 1911, the COED shows how the effects of social media and instant-access technology on language has created a variety of new words while modifying existing definitions such as “follower”.

    Wow, I didn't know that there already were social media and instant-access technology in 1911.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  34. Dictionaries. by Cant+use+a+slash+wtf · · Score: 1

    So do words have to get approval from dictionaries now to become a word? I'm pretty sure words like 'jeggings' and 'mankini' have been commonly known colloquialisms for a while now. '"Woot" becomes a word' is not a very accurate title.

  35. A response from the coal face by carndearg · · Score: 5, Informative

    Since the OED lexicographers are over an office divider from where I am sitting I guess I'm in a good position to answer this.

    The most important point to make about modern dictionaries is that they are descriptive not prescriptive. That is to say that they describe the language as it evolves rather than tell you how you should use it. Lexicographers are like scientists though they do not generally consider themselves as such, everything they include in their dictionaries has made it there through painstaking linguistic research.

    Please believe me when I tell you that my lexicographer colleagues have no interest in being 'hip'. Trust me on this one, I see them walk past my desk every day. Instead they are passionately interested in language and when a word has amassed enough evidence of usage in modern English they include it in their modern English dictionaries. Evidence of sufficiently common usage to be considered to have entered the language is their only value judgement.

    It is also worth spelling out the differences between the different Oxford dictionaries. The OED is a massive multi-volume historical dictionary based on human research. You would use it to find the etymologies of words over a milennium. The Oxford Dictionary of English and the Concise Oxford English Dictionary however are corpus based dictionaries, they are derived from computational analysis of a billion-plus word corpus of contemporary English. That kind of stuff should be right up the average Slashdotter's street. Thus words like 'woot' and 'leet' (The lexicographers are funny about numbers in words, don't blame me) will not have been selected for trendiness but because the corpus analysis tells us people are using them.

    The multi-volume book sells rather well as it happens. Not to many individuals but there are a lot of schools, universities and libraries in the world. And yes, we do have two dictionary websites. But as to a desperate attempt to stay profitable, the OED itself is not likely ever to do that. It took decades to produce its first edition, decades more for the second. We are a publishing company that is also a not-for-profit department of a major university so the OED is a project created for its academic value rather than its monetary return.

    1. Re:A response from the coal face by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, it's in the OED *because* it's an "official" word, q.v. http://www.ted.com/talks/erin_mckean_redefines_the_dictionary.html

  36. If you have mod points, give them to the parent. by carndearg · · Score: 1

    The OED is a descriptivist dictionary, as opposed to a prescriptivist dictionary. That means that the OED includes words that are actually being used, rather than prescribing which words should and should not be used. This means including words that many people object to, but too bad, there are a large number of people who use the word regardless of any official position about the word.

    If you want to speak a language which has a prescriptivist authority, then I recommend French or Spanish, they have institutes that declare what is and is not proper language, and if you disagree, then you're wrong. If you want a language that is generally descriptivist, then stick with the Germanic languages, where we recognize that the authority on language is a native speaker, and not some people locked up in a room declaring that "ain't isn't a word" even though 70% of the population uses it on a regular basis.

    If I had mod points I'd give 'em to your post. Sitting next door to the OED lexicographers I couldn't have put it better myself.

  37. Huzzah! by Wootery · · Score: 1

    Huzzah!

  38. BOC by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    I'm just excited because I finally won a boc from woot.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  39. mankini? jeggings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the first time in my life I ever see those "words".

    Please define.

  40. Date added? by synapse7 · · Score: 1

    Is there some way to enable details for Oxford Dictionaries online to show date a word was added.

  41. It is a word as soon as a native speaker uses it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no such thing as an "official" word. If a native speaker of a language uses anything as a word, it is a word. You get to coin new words on the spot.

  42. Serious?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet the word "Funner" is still not in there and probably more widely used.... our dictionaries are messed with all sorts of ridiculous words.

  43. Hamlet, Act V Scene 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shakespeare used it, albeit with an apostrophe...

              'Swounds, show me what thou'lt do:
              Woo't weep? woo't fight? woo't fast? woo't tear thyself?
              Woo't drink up eisel? eat a crocodile?
              I'll do't. Dost thou come here to whine?
              To outface me with leaping in her grave?
              Be buried quick with her, and so will I:
              And, if thou prate of mountains, let them throw
              Millions of acres on us, till our ground,
              Singeing his pate against the burning zone,
              Make Ossa like a wart! Nay, an thou'lt mouth,
              I'll rant as well as thou.

  44. No African anthro buffs here? by chaboud · · Score: 1

    Woot (not w00t) is the god and original ancestor of the Kuba people of Zaire. He mated with his sister (if memory serves) Ngaady a Mwaash in a sort of Adam and Eve way for the Kuba people. Woot is most commonly depicted in some pretty badass masks. Well worth checking out.

  45. Must be Friday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is the smaller but most widely recognized derivative

    I try not to be a grammar Nazi but their talking about dictionaries...

    Yep it's Friday.

  46. Whoot: there it is! by vaporland · · Score: 1
    --
    Ask Me About... The 80's!
    1. Re:Whoot: there it is! by vaporland · · Score: 1

      They don't look like geeks to me. This predates leetspeak by at least a decade.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBwvFBxf_Eg

      --
      Ask Me About... The 80's!