Slashdot Mirror


The Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year 2015 Is an Emoji (oxforddictionaries.com)

AmiMoJo writes: For the first time ever, the Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year is a pictograph (that Slashdot is unable to reproduce), officially called the 'Face with Tears of Joy' emoji (U+1F602). Oxford University Press have partnered with SwiftKey to explore frequency and usage statistics for some of the most popular emoji across the world. Emoji is a Japanese word (pronounced "eh-mo-jee"), originating from Japanese mobile service providers who all had their own unique set before they were standardized in Unicode. Other notable words this year include "ad blocker," "Brexit" (British exit from the EU), lumbersexual and "they (singular)" (pronoun to refer to a person of unspecified sex).

151 comments

  1. Oxford gets it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    The modern app appers at Oxford know that only apps can app apps, which is why they're apping Emoji apps so we can app other apps using Emojis!

    Apps!

    1. Re:Oxford gets it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LUDDITE letters!

    2. Re:Oxford gets it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AmiMoJo doesn't app apps he japs japps. He can't get enough yellow cock:

    3. Re:Oxford gets it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you keep babbling this stupid crap? Did you swear to dedicate your life to the world's lamest crusade after an iPhone game gunned down your parents in an alleyway or something?

    4. Re:Oxford gets it! by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 1

      Can you add in a reference to 3d printing, self driving cars, "the cloud" and crowd-sourcing?

    5. Re:Oxford gets it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      With 3D printing,
      self-driving cars in the cloud,
      and crowd-sourcing apps.

      That's right motherfuckers - in a haiku.

  2. It's A Dark Day For Oxford by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    IDK language is teh suck anymor i h8 wots up.

    1. Re:It's A Dark Day For Oxford by MitchDev · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Dark day for intelligence when these stupid emojis are given "word" status...

      Now maybe thousand-word status since a picture is supposedly worth a thousand words...

    2. Re:It's A Dark Day For Oxford by mythosaz · · Score: 1, Funny

      Crazy, the idea of a pictograph being used to represent a word....

    3. Re:It's A Dark Day For Oxford by Krishnoid · · Score: 2

      And a dark day when a text-only technology website is behind the curve for, you know, text.

    4. Re:It's A Dark Day For Oxford by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue I see is how do you alphabetize an Emoji ? Where in the dictionary do I turn to find this thing? If it is defined as "Tears of Joy" then that isn't a word. It is 3 words, or a short phrase. Shouldn't a dictionary stay out of the literary world and stick the just words?

    5. Re:It's A Dark Day For Oxford by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      once upon a time, a picture was worth a thousand words, not just one.

      i guess the other 999 got lost in the cloud or something.

    6. Re:It's A Dark Day For Oxford by youngone · · Score: 0
      I agree entirely, I'm done with English. I'm going to switch to Anglo-Norman

      Who's with me? Speaking English just encourages this sort of nonsense.

    7. Re:It's A Dark Day For Oxford by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Does this mean that the English language has acquired its first official kanji? We have others, such as the common one for "merging traffic" that could be submitted for consideration.

    8. Re:It's A Dark Day For Oxford by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Kanji are alphabetized by stroke count and base radical, which is the simpler root pictograph that carries the meaning of a character in the same way that old Latin roots are used to form new words in English. For example, a cloud over a field is kaminari, thunder, and adding a vertical stroke through it turns it into inazuma, lightning.

    9. Re:It's A Dark Day For Oxford by ugliness · · Score: 1

      Sorry but I cant resist responding to this (nothing personal).

      How is it a dark day?

      Hieroglyphs anyone? Kanji?

      I can't really see a problem.
      And I'm a 50+ white male, whose use of them is rather minimal.

      English is an evolving language (and yes I hate the texting versions of words, for some strange reason I find that more annoying :) (see what I did there, precursor emoji :) (oops again, OK I'll stop now)

      We are not the French, our language is not set in stone.

      --
      "...but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology..." - FZ
    10. Re:It's A Dark Day For Oxford by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      English uses the 26 letters of the alphabet for words.

      Pictograms are pictograms, NOT English words.

      It's not really that difficult

  3. Uhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what in the fuck.

  4. F : A - I ( L by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... making their "dictionary" official...ly useless. Next time someone tries to use it as an authority in conversation, like, "well, the OED says that that word means..." you can shut that fool down by pointing out that they (Oxford) think emoticons are words.

    fuck 'em

    1. Re:F : A - I ( L by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, the OED is still a respectable scholarly work. This is just an offshoot that picks interesting words every year as a kind of PR stunt, and to show that they are actively studying language rather than just collecting words.

      Lumbersexual is a new one to me. Apparently it's someone who grooms and dresses to appear like a person who spends a lot of time outdoors (like a lumberjack I guess).

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:F : A - I ( L by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      LOL, basically anybody who lives in cold climates, and has a beard I think.

      Think plaid flannel.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:F : A - I ( L by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      Al Borland, is that you?

      (no, I do not mean Frank Borland)

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re:F : A - I ( L by operagost · · Score: 1

      Is there a word for the people from central New Jersey (you know, the distinctly non-"Garden State" part) who wear camo, drive pickup trucks, line dance, and call themselves "rednecks"?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    5. Re:F : A - I ( L by geekmux · · Score: 0

      Actually, the OED is still a respectable scholarly work. This is just an offshoot that picks interesting words every year as a kind of PR stunt, and to show that they are actively studying language rather than just collecting words.

      Society "collects" and helps define words, not representatives from OED who merely work to validate them as an addition to OED.

      And President Obama could make a porn video as a "PR stunt". Doesn't mean it has fuck-all to do with his normal duties, much like dicking around with emojis has fuck-all to do with the english language.

    6. Re:F : A - I ( L by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah.. those are beta faggots pretending to be masculine.

    7. Re:F : A - I ( L by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Lumbersexual is a new one to me. Apparently it's someone who grooms and dresses to appear like a person who spends a lot of time outdoors (like a lumberjack I guess).

      This might be a bigger travesty than the emoji thing. I guess the suffix "-sexual" now also relates solely to the clothes somebody wears.

      For some reason, I don't think I'll be using the word "businesscasualsexual" any time soon.

    8. Re:F : A - I ( L by bigfinger76 · · Score: 3, Funny

      They're called rednecks.

    9. Re:F : A - I ( L by drjoe1e6 · · Score: 2

      Lumbersexual is a new one to me. Apparently it's someone who grooms and dresses to appear like a person who spends a lot of time outdoors (like a lumberjack I guess)

      And they're okay.

      --
      Lose = not win ...... Loose = not tight
    10. Re:F : A - I ( L by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Americans? ;-)

      Is this unique to New Jersey? I think not.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    11. Re:F : A - I ( L by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >

      Lumbersexual is a new one to me. Apparently it's someone who grooms and dresses to appear like a person who spends a lot of time outdoors (like a lumberjack I guess).

      They sleep all night and they work all day

    12. Re:F : A - I ( L by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 2

      Lumbersexual is a new one to me. Apparently it's someone who grooms and dresses to appear like a person who spends a lot of time outdoors (like a lumberjack I guess).

      they cut down trees, they wear high heels suspenders and a bra.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    13. Re:F : A - I ( L by godel_56 · · Score: 1

      Lumbersexual is a new one to me. Apparently it's someone who grooms and dresses to appear like a person who spends a lot of time outdoors (like a lumberjack I guess).

      Initially I thought it might be a guy who was capable of getting wood.

    14. Re:F : A - I ( L by jandrese · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the is a reaction to "metrosexual". I wonder how different it is from a "bear" in the same community? Perhaps more focused on attire than physique?

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    15. Re:F : A - I ( L by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lumbersexual guys are (generally presumed to be) straight. If they were gay, they'd be bears or otters.

      I suppose you could argue, though, that a lumbersexual woman is probably lesbian.

    16. Re:F : A - I ( L by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe. I'm not sure where the dividing line is. In the South and Midwest, such individuals are typically called "rednecks" or sometimes "hillbillies", with the latter being the prevalent slur (or badge of honor) in and around Appalachia. However, in the Northeast where I grew up, they are typically called "stickbillies", because they live way out in "the sticks". NJ seems to me to be closer to stickbilly than redneck or hillbilly.

      - T

  5. Pathetic. by pla · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Aaand, the OED just jumped the shark. Language may evolve, but at some point we need to draw the line - A pictogram does not count as a "word". Why not include Wood's American Gothic? Michaelangelo's statue of David (Or maybe they consider that more appropriate for the Italian dictionary?).

    / Lumbersexual. Nice knowin' ya, OED.

    1. Re:Pathetic. by PvtVoid · · Score: 2

      A pictogram does not count as a "word". .

      Tell that to the Chinese. Or the ancient Egyptians. Or the Mayans.

    2. Re:Pathetic. by jbmartin6 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I would be glad to, but they generally don't use English which is what the E in OED stands for

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    3. Re:Pathetic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, except for the "they (singular)" -- I really feel like a non-gendered singular pronoun for human beings was needed, and no one wants to be called "it."

    4. Re:Pathetic. by PvtVoid · · Score: 3, Funny

      I would be glad to, but they generally don't use English which is what the E in OED stands for

      Use emoji. They'll get the gist of it.

    5. Re:Pathetic. by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      I had hopes that something like "te" would become a popular replacement for he and she. Though they is genderless, it will always imply more than one in my book.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    6. Re:Pathetic. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      Indeed, the GP could have picked "ad blocker" which is clearly two words. I'm glad they included them, the more people learn about ad blockers the better.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Pathetic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't the OED, it's Oxford Dictionaries. They're both published by the Oxford University Press. I don't know how much overlap they have in staff, bu they have rather different purposes.

    8. Re:Pathetic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Makes about as much sense as "Woman of the Year": Bruce Jenner!

    9. Re:Pathetic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    10. Re:Pathetic. by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Yes. If I wanted to learn a whole bunch of pictograms, I'd just learn... chinese ! We have 26 symbols that we combine to write any word imaginable (even new ones). Learning thousands of ugly-ass glyphs (and remembering their unicode code) is not what I want to waste my brain cells for. That's so retarded. Which is alos why I hate user interfaces that identify everything by icons; give me their fucking NAMES on the screen, not a slightly lighter green oval with two yellow dots to remember what the app is. !

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    11. Re:Pathetic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried sending them an emoji in the mail, but they sent one back saying they couldn't understand.

      Turns out their paper doesn't support emojis.

    12. Re:Pathetic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oxford Emoji Dictionary?

      I don't think so.

    13. Re:Pathetic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Retarded is assuming that what you've done (learning your 26 pictograms, etc) means that you're "done".

      Evolve, dumbass...that's what your brain is for.

    14. Re:Pathetic. by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Aaand, the OED just jumped the shark.

      You're living in the last century. "jumped the shark" has been replaced by "nuked the fridge".

    15. Re:Pathetic. by klapaucjusz · · Score: 1

      I agree, except for the "they (singular)"

      Both singular "they" and "he" are perfectly fine neutral pronouns in English. Thackeray writes:

      A person can't help their birth.

      while the English version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has:

      No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality

    16. Re:Pathetic. by NexFlamma · · Score: 1

      I support your comment as a kneejerk reaction, but let's be clear: This is a PR stunt. The OED may be a staid reference book, but it won't print itself and its editors won't work for free. You have to drum up public interest to maintain mindshare and thus sales, and given the OED's limited appeal in a world saturated by digital entertainment choosing an emoji and declaring it a word is a clever move.

      By choosing an emoji, the OED has made millions of people actively think about the OED, and when the hell was the last time you had ANY reason to think about the OED?

    17. Re:Pathetic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just watch this, which explains it better than I can

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf6FRtmZewg

    18. Re:Pathetic. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      A pictogram most certainly is a word.
      At ideograms and logograms you may stop if you are to dumb to grasp them.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    19. Re:Pathetic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Transportation may evolve, but an automobile does not count as a vehicle!
      Warfare may evolve, but a gun does not count as a weapon!
      Entertainment may evolve, but a television program does not count as a book!
      Computers may evolve, but 640k should be enough for anyone!
      Government may evolve, but North Korea does not count as a republic!
      Bowel evacuation may evolve, but an enema does not count as diarrhea!

    20. Re:Pathetic. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I would say, it is in the eye of the beholder if chinese script is ugly. I find them extremely esthetic.
      If you think so, it is fine not to learn them.

      However you are pretty dumb if you believe Chinese use unicodes to 'type' chinese on a a keyboard.

      I concur with the stupid modern icons on computer screens, I prefer text, too. Hence Imalways switch if the tool bar and use the menu, and if they make sense I learn the shortcuts.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    21. Re:Pathetic. by dargaud · · Score: 1

      I never meant ugly, but I disagree that "an image is worth a thousand words". If you've never seen (and memorized) the glyph (or the icon) before, you have no idea what it means. I've seen chinese and japanese people type text, I know it doesn't involve unicode, but it's still pretty mysterious to me; I meant that in the context of emoticons.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    22. Re: Pathetic. by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      You're right. Thinking that learning more glyphs wastes brain cells is retarded. I don't have any studies to cite, but it seems to me that it would make the brain more nimble. Though to cite either position definitively might be retarded without said studies.

  6. Let's just throw out all the rules of English then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    "They" as a singular pronoun? What the fuck? We already have a gender-neutral singular pronoun, "it." Oh, but you want to use a pronoun to refer to a person on an unknown gender? We have one for that too, it's "he." No reason to ignore the rules of grammar just because it hurts your feelings. Or, to put it in new-speak, hurts your SJW feels.

  7. Thumbs down by kaatochacha · · Score: 3, Insightful

    sad face.

  8. Cue the Luddites by PvtVoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Before the inevitable 60 posts bemoaning the fall of civilization, it's probably worth noting that logographic scripts are very common in the world, and have been used throughout history. What could be more revolutionary, and interesting, in the 21st century to see logographic elements making inroads into languages with alphabetic scripts? Kudos to Oxford!

    1. Re:Cue the Luddites by VorpalRodent · · Score: 2

      This is a remarkably thoughtful post. Thanks for the reading material on these scripts.

      However...I still have to disagree with Oxford and will assert my right to resort to ad hominem attacks against them and their editors.

      What I give them kudos for is that they considered a pronoun that we've had forever to be a notable word (instead of attempting to validate the dumb new made-up pronouns). I have mixed feelings about all of this crap. Our language is a living language, and as such is evolving. At the same time, get off my lawn and stop making up stupid words and abbreviating things that there is already a proper way to say. Get off my lawn!

      --
      Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
    2. Re:Cue the Luddites by PvtVoid · · Score: 0

      GTFOML!

      ROFL! :-) :-)

    3. Re:Cue the Luddites by geekmux · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Before the inevitable 60 posts bemoaning the fall of civilization, it's probably worth noting that logographic scripts are very common in the world, and have been used throughout history. What could be more revolutionary, and interesting, in the 21st century to see logographic elements making inroads into languages with alphabetic scripts? Kudos to Oxford!

      It's probably worth noting that at one point the Ford Motor company only made one car (The Model T), and while the concept of automobiles and transportation has endured throughout history, the concept of one way to do it has long died, along with the kitsch of a crank-start car (a.k.a. using pictures to communicate)

      If Ford were to start selling one kind of car again regardless of where roads may take us today, that's hardly room for praise. At some point a person with half a brain is going to ask the all-important what-the-fuck-were-you-thinking question that clearly wasn't asked at Oxford when adopting a picture as a word.

      The "inroads" that brought logographic scripts into existence were born from ignorance, and there's a reason they have died off throughout history. We have words for that shit now.

    4. Re:Cue the Luddites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      If Ford were to start selling one kind of car again regardless of where roads may take us today, that's hardly room for praise.

      I dunno... if the past is any indicator, people might go crazy with joy if Ford decided to make it white, remove all but one door, round off all the edges and triple the price.

    5. Re:Cue the Luddites by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      The "inroads" that brought logographic scripts into existence were born from ignorance, and there's a reason they have died off throughout history.

      Wow, that's a remarkably ethnocentric perspective, considering that the world's most populous country uses a logographic script.

      Alphabetic scripts have a huge advantage with respect to mechanical typesetting, but I would argue that the rise in popularity of emoji is a de facto demonstration that electronic typesetting is eroding that advantage away to nearly nothing. If I can type a logographic word with five keystrokes that would take ten for the equivalent alphabetic word, which one wins? What we're seeing is that people are realizing that everyday expression is facilitated by a mixed alphabetic / logographic system, and they're voting with their thumbs.

    6. Re:Cue the Luddites by PvtVoid · · Score: 2

      I dunno... if the past is any indicator, people might go crazy with joy if Ford decided to make it white, remove all but one door, round off all the edges and triple the price.

      That would be the upcoming Apple ICar.

    7. Re:Cue the Luddites by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Chinese, and even the Egyptian hieroglyphics, isn't logographic in the same sense that emoji is. A purely logographic system is impractical, which is why there are none in use today.

      It's a horridly inefficient and vague way to communicate any but the most superficial concepts. How would you even select the relevant five icons from the increasing number of pages of emoji?

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    8. Re:Cue the Luddites by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      It's probably worth noting that at one point the Ford Motor company only made one car (The Model T)

      And, to show how flexible the company was, you could buy a brand-new one in any color you wanted, as long as you wanted black.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    9. Re:Cue the Luddites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be the upcoming Apple ICar.

      Really? No kidding. It's not as though everyone had already got it before you decided to add one to your post count.

  9. Bad pun... by MrKrillls · · Score: 2

    There are no words for this.

    Seriously. This is nuts.

    --
    Don't step on the baby.
    1. Re:Bad pun... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about "idiocracy"?

    2. Re:Bad pun... by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      I think the word you're looking for is :(

  10. "that Slashdot is unable to reproduce" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why don't you support Unicode you stupid fucks?

    1. Re:"that Slashdot is unable to reproduce" by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      Hell, that's possibly the best argument in opposition to Unicode on Slashdot I've ever read!!

  11. Re:Let's just throw out all the rules of English t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's for trans people who wear a different gender hat every day -- or don't wear a gender hat at all

    it is still grammatically grating, pick a pronoun, stick with it, "genderfluidity" is probably one of the most annoying concepts ever

  12. Singular "they" by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm surprised singular "they" has only just now made it. I've heard it (and used it myself) since the 1980s.

    Times change. Language changes.

    ...laura

    1. Re:Singular "they" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Language changes.

      Yes, yes they does.

    2. Re:Singular "they" by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the singular, gender-neutral use of the word "they" has been around a lot longer than the 1980s.

      "When a person is cold they might shiver" is hardly a new grammatical construct.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Singular "they" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They" being recognized as a singular pronoun is a long-time coming.

      However... "Dictionaries" being the singular possessive is a new one to me.

    4. Re:Singular "they" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but unfortunately it's no longer wrong.

    5. Re:Singular "they" by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, but unfortunately it's no longer wrong.

      It has never been wrong. The use of "they" like that isn't a new construct, was never wrong.

      In fact, it's been correct for a very long time.

      But you're just making a fool of yourself when you go around telling users of singular they that theyâ(TM)re wrong, because theyâ(TM)re not.

      That you don't know it was already correct is your damned problem.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:Singular "they" by Raseri · · Score: 1

      True, but that's always been an incorrect use of "they". The correct pronoun would be "he", "she", or "he or she" (pick whichever one you want). If you really wanted to use "they" anyway the sentence would be, "When people are cold they might shiver."

      --
      Writhe your naked ass to the mindless groove.
    7. Re:Singular "they" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I had a writing teacher tell me it was wrong then she bemoaned the masculine and made us write he/she or just she.

      What a crackpot.

    8. Re:Singular "they" by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's because this year transgender issues have really come into the public conciousness, and I've seen a number of mainstream media outlets publishing articles on the language surrounding them. The general public is becoming more aware and learning how to speak about transgender people and issues without accidentally being offensive.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Singular "they" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure the singular, gender-neutral use of the word "they" has been around a lot longer than the 1980s.

      "When a person is cold they might shiver" is hardly a new grammatical construct.

      There is already a word for this. One instead should say "When one is cold, one might shiver". However, seeing as how irregardless is now an official word I'm not surprised that this knuckle dragging use of they is now considered standard.

    10. Re:Singular "they" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think there's anything unfortunate about it. There was enough of a need for such a thing in English that many options had been formulated over the years that never caught on. If "they" moves into that role I'm fine with it, and "he or she" still remains an option to use.

    11. Re:Singular "they" by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      True, but that's always been an incorrect use of "they". The correct pronoun would be "he", "she", or "he or she" (pick whichever one you want).

      My short answer to you is: that is utter bullshit.

      You got some facts to back that up? Or just your own mistaken belief?

      English is not a language in which everything has a gender. Claiming "he" and "she" are the only valid singular pronouns is wrong.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    12. Re:Singular "they" by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      True, but that's always been an incorrect use of "they".

      According to who?

      (YIDTD)

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    13. Re:Singular "they" by Raseri · · Score: 1

      While the bold text is really convincing and completely negates the instruction of every English teacher on Earth, you forgot the link to the blog that was using other blogs as citations. As for "valid singular pronouns", we have "one": "When one is cold one might shiver." We also have "it", though it's generally not used in reference to people, unless, of course, you keep your victims at the bottom of a hole in your basement floor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      Writhe your naked ass to the mindless groove.
    14. Re:Singular "they" by NeoNormal · · Score: 1

      I, for one, have used it in this manner for 60+ years. But I thought it was mostly confined to the South where I grew up.

    15. Re:Singular "they" by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 2

      It's because this year transgender issues have really come into the public conciousness, and I've seen a number of mainstream media outlets publishing articles on the language surrounding them. The general public is becoming more aware and learning how to speak about transgender people and issues without accidentally being offensive.

      I don't view this as a transgender issue. I view it as a needed word. At one time "he" was accepted as a generic third-person singular pronoun, but since few people born since about 1920 accept it as such, we needed a new word. Singular "they" fills that need.

      ...laura

    16. Re:Singular "they" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Like SJWs give a shit what actual women think. Notice how this only became an issue when men pretending to be women all of a sudden found that they got called by the "wrong" pronouns.

    17. Re:Singular "they" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also in Oz since at least the 70s.

      The English since at least 2000, when I was travelling. (I remember a note left on a table).

    18. Re:Singular "they" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One can find singular "they" in the works of Shakespeare, and it has been common usage for at least that long. English teachers tend to be prescriptivists, so continue perpetuating the more recent (1800s) prescriptivism against singular "they" in favor of gender-neutral "he". Given that singular "you" replaced "thou" in the 1700s, a much more recent change in usage than singular "they", there is no valid excuse for singular "they" to have been considered unacceptable all this time, regardless of what your (and my) English teachers drilled into us a few decades ago. The presciptivists have finally lost their futile battle against a common usage which preceded them by many decades, and most importantly IMHO, a usage that presents little to no cognitive difficulty in ordinary communications. One wonders why nobody fought so hard to preserve "thou".

      - T

  13. So no word of the year this year? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An emoji may be interesting from a linguistic perspective, but it's not a word, is it?

    1. Re:So no word of the year this year? by chubs · · Score: 1

      What quality separates a series of lines that resemble something in the real world from a series of lines that represent abstract concepts that, when strung together, represent something in the real world? Emoji aren't words because they are more concrete than letters? Personally, I hate emoji. However, having codified meanings for the things that my coworkers use to fill the chat that I am obligated to watch since it occasionally contains work-related content would mean I would spend a lot less time with three of those abstract characters (W, T and F) running through my head.

    2. Re:So no word of the year this year? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What separates a word from an ideogram is that a word is comprised of "letters" or "characters", which at least roughly represent the pronunciation of the word, and an ideogram is not. This distinction doesn't mean that an emoji is better or worse than a word (I have an opinion on that too, but it's beside the point). It would however be imprecise to call an emoji a word.

    3. Re:So no word of the year this year? by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      No, that's not true at all. Spoken words are comprised of 0 letters or characters, they are comprised only of sounds (phones). Other languages have fully-ideographic written forms.

      I would say it differently: a word is something with at least one widely-used verbal representation (making allowances for accents, variation in voice, and tomato-"tomahto" differences).

      We generally don't consider a real-life smile a word, even though that's a well-understood form of visual communication. The middle finger or "okay" hand-sign isn't a word either, even though they have different meanings in different cultures, just like regular words.

      Of course, by that argument I think ":)" is, arguably, a word, with a less-used variant spelling of "smiley".

  14. and so my transition began. by nimbius · · Score: 3, Funny

    Until reading this article Id been a chipper young admin, fast at the keyboard with a gentle hand to users but once I'd gazed upon this fact, this indelible pockmark upon our society in this foul year of our lord 2015, My hair burst a radiant white and a shock of that same hue flew throught the beard I never before had. Hair filled my nostrils and a pocket protector flew furiously into my button up homage to the cartesian plane. small stuffed tux's and beasties fell from the heavens unto my cubicle and a smattering of old userfriendly comics printed upon delicate tractor paper adhered themselves to the walls. my mundane gaze turned slowly into a furious scowl and I knew what must be done. I furiously cranked out a script to sync microsoft ldap parameters to my desktop for my user, configured NIS, and reverted every account in the organization to csh. I then forwarded my phone to the switchboad and the switchboard to a cream cheese factory in wisconsin. Gathering my briefcase now filled with LISA digests and a calculator from the cold war I made my way to the pub for the day and silently muttered

    "Kids....Kids on my lawn..."

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:and so my transition began. by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      I wish I had some mod points for you, Sir.

  15. Re:Hate emojis ... by operagost · · Score: 2

    because I really am not interested in seeing "champagne champagne baboons-"

    BUTTOCKS

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  16. Re:Let's just throw out all the rules of English t by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    No, those are its

  17. Singular "They" by chubs · · Score: 1

    If it's in Oxford, it's official. I can stop using "he or she" and just use "they". So much less work. I'm even willing to not be annoyed that emoji are in the dictionary if it means I get this.

  18. "they (singular)" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has been in use for a hundred years. It's proper and established english since forever.

  19. I have a word for the person... by geekmux · · Score: 0

    ...who wants to define a picture as a word.

    Idiot.

    Since we are talking about a dictionary here, let me add another word to help elaborate and clarify.

    Fucking Idiot.

    1. Re:I have a word for the person... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Nobody has defined a picture as a word. They've said "the word which denotes a picture used as a word" is a word.

      You know: emoji.

      You will note that "emoji" is not a picture.

      What are you on about? I bet your mother knows what an emoji is ... which is probably why it became a word of the year.

      You might as well complain we have the word statue, because a statue isn't a word either.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:I have a word for the person... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      That person that you're calling an idiot for using pictures as words wants you to get off their lawn. After all, their language is a couple thousand years older than yours.

    3. Re:I have a word for the person... by Raseri · · Score: 2

      Nobody has defined a picture as a word. They've said "the word which denotes a picture used as a word" is a word.

      From TFS:

      the Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year is a pictograph

      Better luck next time.

      --
      Writhe your naked ass to the mindless groove.
  20. lumbersexual? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    noun: A young urban man who cultivates an appearance and style of dress (typified by a beard and check shirt) suggestive of a rugged outdoor lifestyle.

    I'm old fashioned, I guess. We used to call guys like that "men," or, if they worked in the timber industry, "girlie men"

    1. Re:lumbersexual? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had to look that one up too... Lumbersexual; A Metro-sexual who has the need to hold on to some outdoor based rugged-ness, thus opting to keep a finely trimmed beard. George Michael is a total lumbersexual.

    2. Re:lumbersexual? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay,
      I sleep all night and I work all day.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  21. Next year, I nominate.... by dasgoober · · Score: 1

    ... the extended middle finger, which has been in use long before the emoji and much more often. (and was my first reaction to this announcement)

  22. Seems to Fit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When Slashdot's editors can't spell the possessive of the singular word "dictionary" correctly, then we are reduced to pictographs for the dear future.

  23. "(that Slashdot is unable to reproduce)" by Lew+Perin · · Score: 1

    Could we have UTF-8, please, on Slashdot? If not for emoji, then for characters in non-European languages? I know people have been asking for this for years now - it's embarrassing.

    --
    Sorry, I forgot there are ads on the Web; I use Lynx.
  24. Re:Hate emojis ... by devman · · Score: 2

    This is a unicode code point, 1F602 specifically. Your user-agent doesn't download the resource, it is like any other character and rendered with your local font assuming it has a glyph for this code point.

  25. Re:Hate emojis ... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 3, Informative

    The vast majority of this crap is just enabling third parties to track your fucking email and texts as everyone has to download the stupid things.

    I thought the whole point of the new "emoji" stuff was that they're now standard Unicode characters, so the images are part of the normal fonts on your system. If your computer has to download the image every time someone puts one in a text message, somebody is Doing It Wrong, and it isn't the person sending you the text message.

  26. Re:Let's just throw out all the rules of English t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you know latin? Then you knew what "neutrum" means: none of both. It does make sense to use the plural to indicate that the sex is not known.

    And english is left quite unharmed by the SJWs. Take german for example. There their invented "politically correct" way of addressing men and women equally is by using the suffix "_innen" or "Innen", which is very very similar for the suffix "innen" to show its a group only made of females. Before their destructive "efforts", the gender neutral version was to just have no sexual suffix. But it wasn't liked by the feminists, as it was also used to refer to groups with only men. And this could have been solved so easily by introducing a suffix which only includes men, which would create an actual symmetric setup: one suffix for men, one for women, and if there is no suffix, it refers to both.

    Latin has a very strict rule. It says that the first man in a group makes the group's genus male. German had this rule as well, but it is weaked up and trampled upon by these "feminists".

  27. What does it mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Word of the Year. And I don't even know what it means. Is this an Apple or Facebook thing?

  28. Grammar by Unknown1337 · · Score: 0

    I don't know what's worse. The fact that this story is true or the headline's grammar... I hope they intended plurality and missed the possessive Dictionaries', but it would make far more sense to be Dictionary's. I guess proper grammar doesn't mean anything to a dictionary these days...

    1. Re: Grammar by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      No, from what I gather they used 'Dictionaries' properly. I don't know if it is the whole company or just a division, but apparently it is part of the name of the organization that is responsible for all the different dictionaries the company publishes.

  29. "Lumbersexual" in the dictionary? Really? by fieldstone · · Score: 1

    I really don't get the trend of adding the suffix "-sexual" to lifestyle choices that have nothing to do with sexuality.

    "Metrosexual" makes just as little sense, but it's older so I guess we've accepted it.

  30. He's a lumberjack and he's OK by rossdee · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Lumbersexual is a new one to me. Apparently it's someone who grooms and dresses to appear like a person who spends a lot of time outdoors (like a lumberjack I guess)."

    Put on womens clothing and hang around in bars?

    1. Re:He's a lumberjack and he's OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's not the next step after treehugging? Or plain phallic posturing? You know, extreme wood?

  31. Re:Hate emojis ... by shellbeach · · Score: 1

    The vast majority of this crap is just enabling third parties to track your fucking email and texts as everyone has to download the stupid things.

    Android has come with emojis as a system resource since 4.1 (and I assume iOS has had them built-in for similarly as long). You don't download them (and certainly not each time ... that would be incredibly weird). You can be reassured that no bandwidth has been wasted by the world (at least, not as far as emojis are concerned). (And using them as trackers? Seriously? Most apps easily have the permissions to track their users without ever having to resort to emoji-based methods, even if emoji-tracking was even possible ...)

    That said, I think that emojis are ugly, stupid and are dumbing down communication. The OED has lost any remaining credibility if it's adding emoji as words (god help us all), and it can get off my lawn.

  32. Re:Let's just throw out all the rules of English t by noldrin · · Score: 3, Informative

    The use of "they" as a singular pronounce dates back to the 15th century and is a generally understood convention, one which is receiving increased use due to increased need to refer to people in a way which is dignified.

  33. What ever happened to ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Smilies and emoticons ?

  34. I no longer recognize their authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also, nobody has to buy a dictionary to learn to spell the different emoji. Seems like a poor business decision.

  35. Meanwhile, at OED Headquarters... by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 1

    Boss: Everyone gather round. Listen, guys, this new line of Merriam-Webster-brand phosphorescent butt plugs is killing us! If we want to stay relevant in the twenty-first century, we have to innovate, people! Who has some forward-thinking ideas for our next edition?

    Worker 1: What if started a FaceBook account for every word in the dictionary?

    Worker 2: What if we used a different color of ink for every part of speech? No, wait, a different scent!

    Worker 3: What if we started calling ourselves OXDIC.com?

    Boss: Yes, perfect, these are all great ideas. Henderson, what's your idea? Henderson? Hey, where's Henderson?

    Worker 1: I think he's in his cube writing definitions.

    Boss: Okay, I'll fire Henderson after the meeting. Meanwhile, here's my idea, and it's a beaut: the Word of the Year is a cartoon picture of a taco.

    Workers: Brilliant, boss!... Great work!... Our storied tradition of excellence is preserved!...

  36. This is all a conspiracy by jittles · · Score: 1

    Everybody knows that the Ancient Egyptians are using the Japanese people as pawns in their Illuminati style conspiracy to reintroduce hieroglyphics. First it's emojis and the next thing you know, everything will be drawn as pictures on stone tablets and papyrus.

  37. Re:Hate emojis ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well it might be. It's not imposible that they're copy/pasting the .gif into the message or something similar instead of using the unicode character.

  38. Swiftkey by jpkunst · · Score: 1

    So is Swifkey logging everything their users type? How come they know these statistics? Disturbing.

  39. How can this be ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... an objective contest when there is no barf emoji yet?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  40. Before the "Emoji" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    we had the graphic emoticons on instant messengers, and that was before the turn of the century. Before that (since September '82) using ASCII text, like :-)

    Ohhh wait, but just like patents, now it's "on a mobile device" and it's suddenly new?

  41. Re: Let's just throw out all the rules of English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've always just assumed that the singular use of "they" was already in the dictionary.

  42. Where is this emoji located in the dictionary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does it come after Z?

  43. Re:Hate emojis ... by gstoddart · · Score: 0

    I thought the whole point of the new "emoji" stuff was that they're now standard Unicode characters

    For the last several years it hasn't been. People have downloaded apps and keyboards which provide them.

    They certainly haven't defined every possible emoji in unicode ... I'm sure there are still people out there with "sparkly unicorn" and "pooping frog" emojis -- I'm pretty sure there are actual poop emojis.

    So, yeah, to date, emojis are specific, not in a standard, not built into your device, and typically if your friend installs some emojis on their phone and sends them to you ... you will need to fetch them.

    Emojis didn't spring into existence as part of unicode. They were cobbled together and passed around using apps and bandwidth.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  44. Re:Hate emojis ... by blazer1024 · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure there are actual poop emojis.

    The standard Unicode poop emoji is U+1F4A9

    In most renderings I've seen it's actually smiling!

  45. emoji, because hieroglyph was tough to spell? by holophrastic · · Score: 1

    Back to cave walls? I guess we're fueling the future of archeology.

  46. Re:Hate emojis ... by fnj · · Score: 1

    Android has come with emojis as a system resource since 4.1

    My phone has been stuck on 4.0.4 for years and will be stuck there forever, you insensitive so-and-so. Android - ya want a new windshield wiper, ya gotta buy a new model car.

  47. Re:Let's just throw out all the rules of English t by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 1

    I've been using "they" that way my whole life. It's not to avoid hurting anyone's feelings. It's just a common way people use that word, and part of how I grew up speaking. Glad OED has finally caught up with me.

    --
    "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
  48. Re: Hate emojis ... by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    So, I guess the Chinese and Japanese have been wrong all this time, then? The Japanese variant is called Kanji and I am on my phone just now so I don't feel like looking what the Chinese is called at the moment. What? You think these emoji are somehow different?

  49. Re:Let's just throw out all the rules of English t by MacTO · · Score: 1

    I'm actually surprise that "they (singular)" wasn't already in the dictionary, and never really understood why some people opposed it. It sure beats all of the debates over using "he/she", or people saying that the use of "he" or "she" is not meant to imply gender, or people arguing that "it" is valid or disrespectful. Not only is "they (singular)" in common use, there is enough redundancy in the English language that you can figure out whether it is singular or plural, it avoids the politics of "he/she", it does not require explanations of inclusivity, and it does not use a word that is typically associated with inanimate objects.

  50. Re:Let's just throw out all the rules of English t by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 1

    According to http://dictionary.reference.co..., it's been used that way for centuries. This isn't anything new.

    --
    "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
  51. Here is a new word for you, Emodium. by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

    Emodium is used to treat visual diarrhoea caused by Emoji abuse.

  52. Just advertisment by lastman71 · · Score: 1

    ... now everybody is talking about the Oxford Dictionary. Many people had spend time discussing about this, and now we know that exist a "Oxford Dictionary Word of the year".

  53. Re:Hate emojis ... by shellbeach · · Score: 1

    Android has come with emojis as a system resource since 4.1

    My phone has been stuck on 4.0.4 for years and will be stuck there forever, you insensitive so-and-so. Android - ya want a new windshield wiper, ya gotta buy a new model car.

    http://forum.xda-developers.co...

    Fixed that for you. Android -- ya want a new windshield wiper, ya gotta install it yourself. But at least it's open and free.

  54. Re: Hate emojis ... by shellbeach · · Score: 1

    So, I guess the Chinese and Japanese have been wrong all this time, then?

    Actually, yes. The amount of time wasted learning Kanji in Japanese schooling is nuts, IMO. And the affect on literacy is similarly appalling -- you can't even read a newspaper without completing secondary school, because of the need to memorise all those characters.

    I'm a big fan of Japan switching over completely to hiragana. One simple phonetic alphabet for everything, anyone with a couple of years of primary school ed. can read, what's not to like? Kanji is seriously holding Japan back.

    Just my two yen.

  55. What, how did this happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They were called emoticons initially - How did "emoji" occur? I understand that over time how words change and adapt, but in such a short amount of time how has the beloved "emoticon" been bastardised to "emoji". This makes me sad and/or angry!

    Oxford Dictionary has a lot to answer for, however if they EVER put the abomination which is "bae" in the Dictionary then I shall drive to Oxford (assuming it is published in Oxford and not outsourced to some small tribe in some third world country) and give them a piece of my mind.