Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Oxford Dictionary Does Science Fiction 144

Posted by timothy from the narfle-the-garthag dept.
Embedded Geek writes: "The News Log for Locus has an item about the Oxford English Dictionary's attempt to capture unique words and phrases used in various fields. It has begun with a pilot site for science fiction. Specifically, they are looking for published uses of specific words in Science Fiction, SF Criticism, and SF Fandom. The goal is not to create a glossary of terms but rather find the earliest (antedating), latest (postdating), and intermediate (interdating) uses of these words already in the dictionary in books, magazines, etc. They are soliciting help from the public in this effort. Presumably, if this effort is a success, they will begin working on other fields: other literature, programming, open source... who knows?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Oxford Dictionary Does Science Fiction More

Oxford Dictionary Does Science Fiction

Comments Filter:
  • No "grok"?

    • Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Nick Number ( 447026 ) on Wednesday December 12, 2001 @01:47AM (#2691984) Homepage Journal
      No "grok"?

      From the OED page [66.108.177.107]:
      This list is not meant to be a glossary of SF terminology: it is only a list of those terms that the OED has a particular need to have researched. Certain terms have been excluded from this list because we know beyond doubt that we have the earliest possible example, the circumstances of the coinage being known. These include dalek, robot, and grok. There is no need to point out the absence of these words.
      • Damn, totally missed that! =)
      • we know beyond doubt that we have the earliest possible example, the circumstances of the coinage being known.

        What does that mean?

        • They know where it first started..what they are looking for is the origin of the words, and since they know exactly where those began without question, they don't need any more clarification. For example, Grok comes from the Illuminatus! Trilogy by Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea, and was coined completely therein. there are no earlier uses of the word and hence it is the definitive beginning of it's usage.

          -Q
      • Silly person. Read it again -- or better yet, I'll translate:

        "You might notice we didn't put some words on our list that you think is important (such as 'grok', 'dalek' and 'robot'). We aren't asking for information about these words because we already know everything we need to know."

        I could also add the inferrance:

        "Please don't send us info about 'grok'. We don't need to get flooded with emails about 'grok'. We've already read "Stranger in a Strange Land"; please give us data we can use."
  • So, the term Grok has came into common usage. A friend at church, during a talk, said, my friends can't grok,...err..., understand this principal.

    ~Steve

    PS - just had to get something insightful. Hoping for fp! ;)

    • Re:grok (Score:2, Funny)

      by CmdrSanity ( 531251 )
      MIT has a class called 6.002 (circuits and electronics). During the first lecture I attended, the speaker is talking about the high and low voltage for a transistor. He's standing under a projected image of a transitor and spreads his arms wide. He says "I want you to grok this! It has got to meld with the essense of your being." Half the class groaned, the other half just looked utterly confused. Not a bad response, surpised me at any rate.

    • Re:grok (Score:1)

      by inio ( 26835 )
      You're too late. grok is allready in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition [dictionary.com]. If they have it, I would assume that the OED does too.

  • How timely (Score:3, Funny)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Wednesday December 12, 2001 @01:50AM (#2691993)
    Does this has anything to do with the current /. poll [slashdot.org] ? If so, should we expected to find CowboyNeal in the Oxford dictionary anytime soon ?

  • Open source dictionary (Score:4, Informative)

    by T-Lex ( 519231 ) on Wednesday December 12, 2001 @01:51AM (#2691996)
    Read the professor and the madman, it's a great read and will explain to you that this is the same process they used to collect all of the original words...

    It was a joint collaboration very much like open-source software!
    • I will have to second that. The Professor and the Madman [amazon.com] by Simon Winchester is a great read. Fairly short (~270p) and large typeface, so it buzzes past pretty quick, but it is a great "history" of the origins of the O.E.D. and the people that made it possible.

      Just goes to prove that once they lock you up in an institute for the mentally insane, that you can still be productive.
      Hmmm... I wonder if they have broadband...

  • TANJ! Now the Mundanes are going to know what it is to FAFIATE and GAFIATE, to LOC and APAHACK...and finally, they will have to acknowledge that Fanzine came from SF Fandom!

    FIAWOL!
    Farrell McGovern
    Concom CAN-CON (www.achilles.net/~cancon)

  • Oh no .... (Score:3, Funny)

    by reaper20 ( 23396 ) on Wednesday December 12, 2001 @01:57AM (#2692016) Homepage
    I see cyberpunk made the list ...... great.

    No if you don't mind, I think I'll continue webifying my infostructure, in order to monetize your desktop.
  • Back in the day when I was watching Next Generation re-runs, DS9, and voyager all at the same time ... I couldn't figure outwho the hell anyone was ...

    But with all the Science Fiction words and works out there ... I think there is already wo0rks such as this on the net that already ...

    Ohh well I could be wrong.

  • Stanislaw Lem (Score:4, Funny)

    by S. E. James ( 520730 ) on Wednesday December 12, 2001 @02:01AM (#2692030)
    I bet this turns out like The Futurological Congress.
    "Onefoot, twofoot. Threefooter, fourfooted. Footing, footingly, footling. Footage, befootery. Footment. And footloose gets you footless, unfooted, defeeted. Ah, defeetism. Feetish, feetus. . .feetback? Infoot and outfoot! I think we're getting somewhere. Feetality, twofootalitarianism."
    "But these words have no meaning!"
    "At the moment, no, but they will. . ."

    • Re:Stanislaw Lem (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Douglas Adams also released a dictionary of words that haven't been invented yet, complete with meanings - it's called "The Meaning of Liff", and is not one of his better books.
      • What this book and its successor, "The Deeper Meaning of Liff" do is take place names and fit meanings to them, eg:

        Sompting: The act of involuntarilty dribbling on your pillow in your sleep
        Lusby: The above bra bulge of a woman who insists she's actually a cup size smaller than she really is.

        Tom.

  • Do you really want to work on this? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by befletch ( 42204 ) on Wednesday December 12, 2001 @02:03AM (#2692041)

    I'm torn. The OED is an extremely important resource for the English language, and having more people contribute can only be a good thing. Actually, the Oxford has a history of community contributions so the concept is not entirely new. Just the medium.

    On the other hand, online access costs something like US$550/year for a private individual, which just seems a little excessive. It seems a little like getting open source coders to work on your closed source commercial project.

    Yes, it is expensive to build and maintain something like the OED and they claim that they're not actually trying to make money, just cover their costs. Here's some numbers in an old Salon article:

    http://www.salon.com/books/log/1999/09/08/oed/

    I guess it just saddens me that access is so unaffordable, when the resource itself is so rich. Am I being unreasonable?

    • My advice: fina library with one, for I once thought the same, but many libraries have a copy, for referance. Unconveinent maybe, but it's there, and for the public. Better than nothing, I suppose :)

    • Yes, I'm torn too. For it to really be an open source effort (in the sense of not requiring a fairly sizeable centralized $$$ flow), you would need volunteer editors as well as volunteers who contribute raw data. And based on my experience at dmoz.org [dmoz.org], it isn't clear to me how well it would work for the OED (dmoz is great in a lot of ways, but there are plenty of problems too with neglected categories and standards which aren't uniform and the like).

      But having said all that, the OED would be more useful if it were easier/cheaper to get one's hands on a copy. So the status quo has drawbacks which are more than merely theoretical.

    • Ok, so who's up for creating a perl-driven database site where we can all go and type in OUR favorite words and their definitions.

      Since it costs nothing to set-up, why not keep the dictionary in public (community) control?
    • Keep in mind, there are a number of ways to access the full on-line OED for free. If you really want access, you can find a way. For example:

      - Most colleges and universities have access, and if you're an alumnus -- and join the alumni association -- you'll probably retain your access.

      - Ditto for community colleges. Most community collges usually offer library cards for the public-at-large. These days, once you get a library card at a comm coll, you usually have access to their on-line catalog -- which probably includes on-line access to the OED.

      - Also -- perhaps oddest of all -- if you join the 'History Book Club' (and perhaps others -- the Reader's Subscription, Quality Paperback Book Club, etc.) you are granted access to the on-line OED through their websites. I just discovered this the other day. I signed up for the History Book Club (in order to get the 4 free books) and then received an email explaining that I now had access to the full on-line OED.

      - And finally, don't forget there's a compact OED -- two big volumes with a magnifying glass -- that contains the *complete* OED. (Doesn't include any recent updates, but it's fantastic for what it does contain -- and it's the most recent edition.) I received the Compact OED several years ago for free for joining the Book-of-the-Month club. The compact OED is also available for around $299 (I think) at Borders and Barnes and Noble. (If you know an employee of either of those stores, you can get a nice discount.)

      So, yeah, there are *many* ways of getting the OED -- hard copy and on-line. And most likely you already have access for free but don't know it -- local library, college, community college, book club!

      Kelso
    • I guess it just saddens me that access is so unaffordable, when the resource itself is so rich. Am I being unreasonable?

      Maybe you are, maybe you're not. But let me put it in a context for you.

      I think it's a bad idea to compare it to coding, open/closed-source, etc. This is not the right paradigm. I think this is more like an academic work. For example, if you write a scholarly article, you submit it to some journal or another. They don't pay you anything, and they even take the copyright. Then they turn around and sell these journals for tons of money. For example, it is common for mathematics journals to cost an institution US$1000 or more a year. The authors of the papers get nothing from this.

      Of course, if you're associated with a reasonable university, you'll be able to gain access to these journals as a scholar. So it seems to me that contributing to the OED is completely analogous to scholarly publication.

    • but the CD-ROM is UKP 175.00 plus VAT [oup.co.uk] (US $295 [oup-usa.org]) so $550 per year is not necessarily the cheapest option.

      I'd love one, don't know how I'd find the time for browsing all those cross-references though.

  • Yeah, but.... (Score:3, Informative)

    by heyetv ( 248750 ) on Wednesday December 12, 2001 @02:03AM (#2692042)


    It only costs us $550/year [oed.com] per person to use the Oxford English Dictionary online...
    • and use the one poor folk use which is free (like beer) http://m-w.com/
      • You do get what you pay for though: M-W has a lot of non-standard definitions, some of which are holdovers from the time when it was fashionable to smuggle connotations into definitions that had more to do with the compiler's political and religious beliefs than had to do with the words. Oxford has for the most part purged itself of such things, as well as being MUCH more extensive about documenting all sorts of different meangins and even their origins, which is why it is the preferred source. However, regular users (like me) aren't apt to encounter the differences.
    • It's the real thing, too!

      Grit your teeth and (gag) join the Quality Paperback Book Club (http://www.qpb.com). Once the dust settles, you get free online access to the OED, as long as you buy a book every six months.

      I hate book clubs, but this works for me.
      • QPBC was actually a fairly inoffensive book club. I don't know if they still do this, but when I finally got tired of sending in my monthly "No thanks" cards and asked to cancel my membership, they offered to switch me into a mode where I would still get the regular catalogs but didn't have to respond if I didn't want anything.

        Maybe I should look at them again... online OED access would be nice. Do you have a link that mentions that offer? I didn't see it in my quick glance at www.qpb.com.

    • The online rate is rather unreasonable. I don't know why they do that since the compact dead tree version (with magnifying glass) is more reasonably priced (at least for what you get). If memory serves it can be had for under $300.

  • I'm pretty sure the word Avatar was used to denote virtual personas in Shadow Run prior to 1992. Can anyone confirm this?
    • I believe use of Avatar for virtual personas may date back to Vernor Vinge's True Name's. I can't seem to find my copy of the story though.
    • Avatar is a *real* word. Its definition is:
      Function: noun
      Etymology: Sanskrit avatAra descent, from avatarati he descends, from ava- away + tarati he crosses over -- more at UKASE, THROUGH
      Date: 1784
      1 : the incarnation of a Hindu deity (as Vishnu)
      2 a : an incarnation in human form b : an embodiment (as of a concept or philosophy) often in a person
      3 : a variant phase or version of a continuing basic entity
      From Miriam Webster online [m-w.com].
      It predates SF and is just recycled like many other terms.
      • Yes, that's true, but now it has another meaning that refers to the virtual persona of a computer user. That's why it's on the list. Existing words get new meanings all the time and these new meanings have to be added to reference sources.

        Your not wrong, you're just not completely right. :)

  • How about ... (Score:3, Redundant)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Wednesday December 12, 2001 @02:07AM (#2692049)
    "being slashdotted" or "karma whore" ? after all, /. is science-fiction, even it's a lot more fiction than science.
  • So you mean a hacker is not one who makes things with an axe? Great, I'll have to go get a new one of these dictionary things...

  • Hey cool! (Score:1, Troll)

    by benedict ( 9959 )
    I set up jessesword.com.

    I wonder if it'll get slashdotted. If so, that will be a personal first. So far it seems ok, but it is 1:13 AM EST after all.
  • At long last, the dweomer may finally be dispelled.
  • Ok, so here's where all in this karass show off how big our yarbles are by tossing in the most arcane references to obscure literary works which we groked in our frappy intoxicated days of youth...

    That is, if those even count as sci-fi references...

  • Proper credit? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thebigbadme ( 194140 ) on Wednesday December 12, 2001 @02:27AM (#2692093)
    To me this seems to be a good case of an attempt to give credit where credit is due. Nothing like having the satisfaction that thousands, if not millions (or i guess billions) of people will now understand the origins of some of our vernacular.

    This could come in handy for future generations as well...
    An interesting insight to add to analyze within the context of the "Whorfian Hypothesis"
    Having to do with studying how a language evolves, and becomes structured, even words that were 'made-up' have a bit of relevance to them. When a new word is formed it must have a base (to allow for proper edict realizations) or more specifically a history. That's sort-of how the Klingon Language got it's gears going; taking the words that were used (in context - disecting sentences) and applying the rules to form the rest of what has become Klingon. English (even bastardized American English [the sort I use]) follows the same sort of process.

    I would guess that this new attempt of Oxford's will be even more revolutionary than many percieve at this time.

  • I call AI for John McCarthy (Score:4, Informative)

    by wdavies ( 163941 ) on Wednesday December 12, 2001 @02:31AM (#2692105) Homepage
    Copy of a message I sent the editor :) I can't believe they couldn't predate 1971 for AI (see Sci Fi Word List [66.108.177.107])

    Hi Mike,

    Science predates Science Fiction :) Next time I see him [JM], I'll mention it :)
    Winton

    AI or Artificial Intelligence

    Coined by John McCarthy [in a SCIENCE setting, not SCI-FI!], 1956. Seems to be fairly unanimous.... concept goes way back.
    " He [JM] invited them to Vermont for "The Dartmouth summer research project on artificial intelligence." (reference [thinkquest.org])

    1956 John McCarthy coined the term "artificial intelligence" as the topic of the Dartmouth Conference, the first conference devoted to the subject. (reference [aaai.org])
    • They are looking for instances of 'AI', not 'artificial intelligence'.
      • I thought that might be the case, but as others pointed out, it costs $350/pa to use the OED on-line, so I couldn't check whether they already had Artificial Intelligence expanded upon.

        I've passed it on to JMC to see if he remembers the origin of the abbreviation.

        Cheers,
        Winton
        • The OED has 1956 as the earliest cite for "artificial intelligence", in a paper by Minsky. The source is cited as "Heuristic Aspects Artificial Intelligence Probl. (M.I.T. Lincoln Lab. Group Rep. 34-55)". If this can be antedated by a print reference from McCarthy earlier that year, that would be great.

          Mike Christie (OED sf citations moderator)

        • Hi Mike,

          Following on our thread, X-posted to /.
          If you need the original hardcopy I guess
          it could be obtained from Rockefeller or
          maybe the NYker? JMC himself might have
          a copy in his files (I don't know his current
          Secretary at the moment, and don't want to bother
          him again.

          Cheers,
          Winton

          FORWARD FROM John McCarthy:

          The proposal to the Rockefeller Foundation, in my files as

          href=http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/da rtmouth.html [stanford.edu]

          (and in HTML form)

          [stanford.edu]
          http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartm ou th/dartmouth.html

          for the summer project on artificial intelligence was August 1955.

          Since they supported it, it would have been in their list of grants in
          1955 or 1956. The New Yorker picked it up, perhaps from the list of
          grants, and one of their bottom-of-the-column wisecracks said
          something like "about time". That may be 1956 but could be later.
  • Just sent in a canonical reference for Clarke's Laws, as propounded by Clarke himself.

    Of course, it's not the earliest cite, but if anyone has a pre-1972 cite, feel free to send it in.

  • the jargon file (Score:2, Informative)

    by Transient0 ( 175617 )
    Assuming(as was stated) that these boys are planning to eventually get into the tech field. I wonder if anyone has pointed them in the direction of the yet. [tuxedo.org]

    I mean besides being a good read, there is some pretty useful information in there from a linguistic point of view.

  • Oxford dictionary definition: The Slashdot Effect (Score:4, Funny)

    by Nathdot ( 465087 ) on Wednesday December 12, 2001 @03:16AM (#2692168)
    Let's just hope their none too vindictive

    The Slashdot Effect: (phrase, colloq.) The process by which a server is brought down causing hardworking Oxford dictionary staff to lose many, many invaluable hours of work and research. (see: assholes)

    :)
  • asteroid field (n.) antedating 1980

    You must be kidding me. The Empire Strikes Back (episode 5 for all the kiddies) was released in 1980, and I know for a fact that the term 'asteroid field' was used in this movie. If this turns out to be the first use of this... well, it's rather freaky, don't you think? I'm as big a SW fan as anyone, but I never considered it anywhere near hard scifi!

    • I'll have to thumb through some of the old novels, but I'm sure the term was used in some of the old hard sci-fi like Heinlein or Asimov or countless others who coined such terms as "asteroid mining" in the 40s and 50s.
  • Then at last we might have definitive definitions for terms like "Haacker", "free", "open source", and "3733t d00dz"
  • Newspeak.

    Hmm... Is this how it begins?

    Well, wait, now, I suppose Newspeak would be listed then, wouldn't it?

    Heh. Self referencing, even.

  • A good idea. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Apuleius ( 6901 ) on Wednesday December 12, 2001 @04:34AM (#2692325) Journal
    The one area where science fiction has influence on Anglophone society at large (i.e. not just geeks) is the constant introduction of idioms into general usage. People who make their living tracking the evolution of the English language do need to keep an eye on science fiction.
  • "hoop" = (verb) To destroy or break, to be rendered useless, also used commonly in the past tense (ie. This car is hooped.)
  • I was surprised that Asimov's three laws of robotics [clark.net] were not included in the list. They had such an impact on future s-f stories about robots or A.I.

    Dan Simmons even coined the word asimotif [multimania.com] (quote from the french edition) in his book "Endymion".

    For those who have never heard of these laws, here they are :

    The 1940 Laws of Robotics

    First Law:
    A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

    Second Law:
    A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

    Third Law:
    A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

    If you want to see how Asimov dealt with these, I suggest reading "I, Robot" [fatbrain.com], a little old but still interesting.
    • That would be because the 3 laws of robotics don't actually contain any new words, just a bunch of ones the OED already has.

      They do however include a word from Asimov, 'positronic' (his robots have 'positronic' brains), cited in 1941
      • That would be because the 3 laws of robotics don't actually contain any new words, just a bunch of ones the OED already has.

        I also thought that but the list contains Clarke laws and Sturgeon law, that's what motivated my post.
        • Hi; Mike Christie here; I'm the person moderating the OED sf website and responding to emails there. We've had a lot of emails in the last few hours, so my response time is going to drop from a day or two to perhaps as long as a week, though I will be trying to keep up. I'll answer every email I get, so please don't think I'm ignoring you.

          I think the Asimov's Robotics laws probably do need to be added, and I'll be talking to the OED editors about it soon. Please go ahead and send in cites: I should say that although I have a large sf collection, and have submitted many cites, one reason for the webpage is that I don't have time to dig out every cite that is relevant (though I often have the original magazine publication of a story, which is useful). So even if something seems obvious to you, go ahead and send it in.

          I also want to say that we currently can't accept citations from web pages. I'm interested in hearing about them, because they may lead to a subsequent print citation, but for the moment they don't go in the database. I mention it because several people have sent the results of, for example, Google searches. They're interesting (and I'll reply individually to those folks) but unfortunately they're not citable.

          Mike

    • Asimov is officially credited with coining the term "robotics". I believe that's already in Oxford, though.

      Robot, of course, was something he took from some old Russian SF writer, can't remember the name...

      In addition to these, Asimov was a brilliant scientist and an amazing writer, and not merely of SF, but of all sorts of intriguing stuff. Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein together probably had as much influence on the course of SF as did the founders of SF, ie. Verne and Wells. ^_^

      -Kasreyn
  • Let's give 'em 42!
  • words like Micro$oft, MicroSh!t, MicroShaft, M$ etc gets into the dictionary ;-)

  • Etymology (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Descartes ( 124922 )
    I think what's more important than the fact that they're compiling Sci-Fi definitions is that they're looking at the origins.

    This is really what makes the OED so much better than any other dictionary. As a student of classical languages I can't express how enough how annyoing it is to hear someone incorrectly use a word they got out of the thesaurus . I think the OED is sort of the anti-thesaurus, really.

    Now I'm not a huge Sci-Fi geek, (Except for quoting the Star Wars movies at appropriate times in conversation.) but I'm sure they feel the same way when people talk about the "Vulcan face-grab".

    • Re:Etymology (Score:2, Interesting)

      by T-Lex ( 519231 )
      "As a student of classical languages I can't express how enough how annyoing it is to hear someone incorrectly use a word they got out of the thesaurus."

      I'm sure we all pity your plight.

      plight /plVIt/ n.2ME. [AN plit var. of OFr. ploit, pleit fold, PLAIT n. In branch I perh. infl. by prec.]
      I 1 Condition, state. Now esp. an unfortunate condition, a predicament. ME.

      What is ironic about your post, however,

      ironic /VI"rQnIk/ a.M17. [Fr. ironique or late L ironicus f. Gk eironikos dissembling, feigning ignorance, f. as IRONY n.: see -IC.]
      Pertaining to irony; uttering or given to irony; of the nature of or containing irony; = IRONICAL 1, 2.That's not a very satisfying definition, is it? Oh well.

      is that so many of the words in the OED are there because of an initial misusage . . .

      misusage /mIs"ju:sIdZ/ n. Now rare.M16. [f. MIS-1 2 + USAGE.]1 Misconduct; corrupt practice, abuse. M-L16.2 Ill usage; mistreatment. Formerly also in pl., instances of this. M16.
      3 Bad or wrong use, misuse. M16.

      . . .that became accepted and standardized.

      You could learn a lesson from Samuel Johnson, friend. Words change... so should you.

  • A golden opportunity to help the OED grok 'grok'.
  • 1. "He Doesn't Frap his Kokks!?"


    2. "Bioroid" (That's a gimme.)


    3. Carla Speed McNeil


    -Prime Commonalities? Definitions/explanations? If you can do it without a search engine, you win a thousand points, and prove yourself worthy of this site.


    -Fantastic Lad

  • Oh, these dictionary folks could just hook onto E2 [everything2.com] and saturate themselves.
  • ...haven't these folks been to Everything2 [everything2.com] yet?
  • .. Hmm... making a whole new language within an already established language which was formed from several already established languages... the english, as I've been told by other peoples of other languages, have no sense of language....

    ...sure we have language... we have open source (its a language durnit, you gotta live breathe and speak open source...)... we have sci fi, fantasy, romance... its enough to make my head spin.

    Now... this new collaboration... it will be a *very* useful tool for hopeful writers... a new resource for more "language" as words get used, and reused. Heck, maybe we'll all be going around the galaxy with towels at improbable rates.

    I say yah! Free fun for those who enjoy creativity.
  • Spotted a few immediately obvious omissions: conapt, leady, kipple, etc.
  • I think this word will become the next "grok". I've heard people use it in real life.

    For the uninitiated, "frel" is an expletive used on Farscape.

  • Woot!

    or

    w00t!

  • Junk English (Score:3, Informative)

    by cfeagans ( 183944 ) on Wednesday December 12, 2001 @12:56PM (#2693697) Homepage
    I just listened to an interview on NPR last night with Ken Smith, the author of a book called Junk English [blastbooks.com], in which he compiles a list of crap that we speak. The book sounded fascinating and funny... I've ordered a copy already.

    He discussed his research, which involved review countless junk mail, spam, advertisements, corporate memos, etc. The book is broken down into type of language like Distraction Modifiers, Self-Help Jargon, Second Hand English, and Invisible Diminishers. For the latter, he cited an example being "only $99.95!" as if this is a low amount.

    He also has some excerpts listed on the site above that are very intersting.

    The thesis of his book seems to be that we are slowly degrading the English language, especially with our culture of hype. But I look at it from the Open Source perspective! If it doesn't work for you, add something to it or change some meaning... if others accept the change, then you've made a valuable contribution. If not, then you still have your own little version, only not every one will understand what you're saying. Now that's crunk!

    I look forward to seeing the "end result" of new Oxford Dictionary! I really want a definitive definition for hydrospanner (isn't it a bridge?).

    Cheers!
    Carl

    • Sounds interesting, but how does he support degradation as opposed to evolution? Languages change. They always have. If a particular term becomes commonly used, who says that is "bad"? And who gives them the right to say it?

      There's a childrens story that my daughter had where a boy decided, just to be annoying, to call a pen a "frindle". And he kept at it. Eventually, people around him started using the term, and the it spread out. years later the term had become so popular that it was entered into a dictionary. Now this is just a kids story, but the idea behind it is sound. If I use a term and you understand it, how can it be improper.

      That said, I completely agreed with an above poster that any l337 5p33k3r5 should be shot on sight. There's improper and then there's ignorant.
  • This will really improve my vocabulary. As a side note, the term cyberspace was invented by the writter William Gibson in his cyberpunk novel Neuromancer to describe the digital world that looks like an evolution of our net. --theKiyote
  • That Gharlane of Eddore passed away this summer. He would've known just about everything of importance to this porject.
  • from the "SF Fandom" section:

    slash (n.) antedating 1988, (sense is fan fiction
    about a pairing of fictional characters)

    I will die laughing the day I see this in the dictionary.

    btw, for those who don't know when they mean when they say "pairing" they mean male/male or female/female pairings. In practice though they mean male/male pairings. I've never heard of a f/f pairing called slash.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close