Meh
- Thread starter crimsondynamics
- Start date
Recommended Videos
My point is that it just seems lazy. Instead of not being able to describe something and using their own words, or renaming something it seems that any effort has been taken out so that you don't have slang you have a basic grunt. Instead of not being able to, creating the necessity of literary evolution, we have people not being bothered to use words that they understand.
It just seems like a lazy term to me, that's why I don't like it. And If my Grandparents didn't like my language why can I not dislike my Grand-childrens? I'm not trying to stop it, it's inevitable, I just dislike it.
It just seems like a lazy term to me, that's why I don't like it. And If my Grandparents didn't like my language why can I not dislike my Grand-childrens? I'm not trying to stop it, it's inevitable, I just dislike it.
There's a difference between new words, 'meh' for example, and the poor use of existing words, 'irony' for example.
Meh is a word that my group of friends have used for years. We are all English, university educated and generally well spoken people. It is a fantastic exclamation to be used to display complete and utter disinterest in something. Example: "Guys! You want to go see Max Payne tonight?" "Meh." This in one, three letter word, expresses that a) you are not really up for it, b) the suggestion is innately stupid, and importantly c) if I was forced or there was no other option it would not be the end of the world.
The corruption of existing words is of course natural but I am a defender of irony. People use it to mean humorously coincidental rather than a complex definition based on a situation or phrase's outcome being opposite of what was expected or said, ie sarcasm is ironic. The real issue with ironic is that there is only one good word for it, and many for what it is commonly mistaken as (which is why English losing gay as a description for happy isn't a big deal because, well, we have happy for it!).
But that called all be futile bullshit. Roflcopter away.
Meh is a word that my group of friends have used for years. We are all English, university educated and generally well spoken people. It is a fantastic exclamation to be used to display complete and utter disinterest in something. Example: "Guys! You want to go see Max Payne tonight?" "Meh." This in one, three letter word, expresses that a) you are not really up for it, b) the suggestion is innately stupid, and importantly c) if I was forced or there was no other option it would not be the end of the world.
The corruption of existing words is of course natural but I am a defender of irony. People use it to mean humorously coincidental rather than a complex definition based on a situation or phrase's outcome being opposite of what was expected or said, ie sarcasm is ironic. The real issue with ironic is that there is only one good word for it, and many for what it is commonly mistaken as (which is why English losing gay as a description for happy isn't a big deal because, well, we have happy for it!).
But that called all be futile bullshit. Roflcopter away.
Laziness is one of the three key forces that changes language. The other two are: the desire to be more expressive than before (were you really "terrified" or were you just "afraid"?); and efforts to standardise and make sense of the inconsistencies of a language (many past tenses of English - well-known for their craziness - have been standardised: kine is no longer the plural of cow, and neither is eyn the plural of eye). In fact, to call it "laziness" is only half the picture; it's the human desire to say more with less. Economy is a better term. When economy is used in literature, that's all right. When economy is used in day-to-day language, apparently it's slovenly.Reaperman Wompa said:
The tongue we speak today is tangled beyond recognition by laziness: take the word "not". Seems like a simple word. In fact it used to be several: it was once "ne a whit" (not a whit - we would say "not at all", "not one jot", "no way". See the continual desire to be overly expressive in our no's?). Thanks to the human desire for economy, ne a whit changed to nawhit, to nawt (which is still around in a slightly different form), to not. There's nothing objectively good or bad with the human desire for economy in speech - it just is. Some people simply prefer to say "meh" instead of "This subject bores me." (which sounds a bit mean, actually) In a hundred years, 'meh' will be as socially acceptable as 'not' is today, even though centuries earlier it would have been thought extremely lazy.
i have a solution. we travel back to 1980 and either kill or steralize every fucking human being on earth. and yes i realize this, i dont care, its worth it to avoid full 1337 speak in our... oh god im doing it now, i had to correct 1337 speak out at least 5 times before i posted this SOMEBODY HAS TO GO BACK IN TIME AND KILL ALL OF OUR PARENTS BEFORE THEY MEET! QUICKLY!
Lukeje said:
I'm not sure exactly how it works in English, but in Spanish there supposedly is one authority, and that is the Real Academia Española (Royal Spanish Academy) and they are the only ones that officially create or deprecate words.Milford Cubicle said:
During my childhood I used Webster's but I don't think Webster's is any better or worse than the Oxford dictionary. From my understanding Oxford covers "English English" and dictionaries such as Webster's cover "American English".
Collins is an "English English" dictionary and you are right, given the presence of the Oxford dictionary Collins is probably not quite in the same category of importance, but in the USA I think they have their own "standard" to follow.
http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/catalog/authordetail.cfm?authorID=4268the fifth said:
Keep your sword sharp!
Yes, but dictionary.com doesn't appear to use the Collins dictionary in its results. Having said that, dictionary.com does include the American Heritage dictionary which does define "lol".Amnestic said:
crimsondynamics said:
I mean, if we compare spoken and written English to what it was 200 years ago, then I think the "bastardization" is a large improvement. I'm not sure "omgwtfbbq" will ever make it into a respectable dictionary though -- I think you, or anyone else, who thinks that the internet alone shapes English lexicon is a bit egotistical.
I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with it, and I don't think it's spiraling out of control. I don't think internet speak will appear on University letter heads, either.
Ya'll is socially acceptable here in Florida when speaking, but no one uses Ya'll on a paper etc where they are trying to sound intelligent.
Again, keep in mind that there are still tons and tons of people who remain unplugged to the internet world wide, and for these people it will be extremely hard for the internet to shape any aspect of their lives, ie. language.
I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with it, and I don't think it's spiraling out of control. I don't think internet speak will appear on University letter heads, either.
Ya'll is socially acceptable here in Florida when speaking, but no one uses Ya'll on a paper etc where they are trying to sound intelligent.
I'm a Medieval English student, and I have no problem with the word 'meh', because it adds functionality to the language: it doesn't replace another word, it is simply an addition. Loan words occur all the time, and my own speech is littered with Welsh words, from when I was at uni in Wales..
What I find annoying is the degredation of grammar/spelling that text speak evokes, because it reduces possible meaning: failing to use correct grammar constrains you to using only the most literal meaning of the sentence, instead of being able to give it nuances. It oughtn't get into the dictionary, because its not an advancement.
However, it cannot be denied that, however it's looked at, text speech is actually a product of the older generation. The character limits on text messages and the often punitive pricing of them (compared to the average teenager's income) means that finding a way of reducing letters is necessary, and text speak is an obvious, effective and clever way of doing this. If text speak is a real worry, the thing to do would be to change the way text messages are charged (by words, perhaps, rather than letters?), or accept that financial pressures are going to propogate it, rather than see its demise..
What I find annoying is the degredation of grammar/spelling that text speak evokes, because it reduces possible meaning: failing to use correct grammar constrains you to using only the most literal meaning of the sentence, instead of being able to give it nuances. It oughtn't get into the dictionary, because its not an advancement.
However, it cannot be denied that, however it's looked at, text speech is actually a product of the older generation. The character limits on text messages and the often punitive pricing of them (compared to the average teenager's income) means that finding a way of reducing letters is necessary, and text speak is an obvious, effective and clever way of doing this. If text speak is a real worry, the thing to do would be to change the way text messages are charged (by words, perhaps, rather than letters?), or accept that financial pressures are going to propogate it, rather than see its demise..
I work with Chinese employees and I see elite-speak creeping up in our Skype chats. Chinese tend to be great at writing and less so in verbal expression but seeing someone who can barely speak English write "brb" or "lol" on a text message indicates their acceptance of elite-speak as well as their willingness to use it (their rationale being "I see all the native speakers using it, I might as well"). They're probably just unaware of the slightly negative connotations that native English speakers associate with elite-speak.Uszi said:
But like you said, I doubt I will ever receive a formal email or sign a contract riddled with internet slang and shorthand. (Or is that short-type?) Elite-speak will probably evolve into a pseudo-language of its own, accepted and encouraged in certain social circles and contexts, and frowned upon in others - very much like slang is today.
it is. but only if i, or one of the others who will be effected gets to do it. and as your all spineless cowards who would attempt to save yourselves. or perhaps you care about the WSGMM and dont want to cause a paradox or something, i cant be sure about you, but i know i, for one, would be for it to avoid this. and LOL is NOT A FUCKING WORD. its an acronym. there is a difference between words and acronyms for fucks sake you would think that someone who works writing dictionaries would fucking know this.Zac_Dai said:
edit: to answer the post above mine: i beleive it is "barbecue" as in the sauce.