Poll: LOL and OMG are now words?

[Brandon237]

Technically, the dictionary is correct.
But I still cringe when I hear them in public, especially in the wrong context.
"I bit my tongue, lol.""Lol, a smartcar went by.""I just ate lol."
There should not be lols there, unless the tongue biting resulted in blood, the smartcar crashed because the driver was an idiot and the food contained E. Coli.

 

[alittlepepper]

Though I voted no, technically an acronym is still a word.
Driving the point a few feet deeper into the ground...maybe I'll get to the Mantle...

ac·ro·nym   
[ak-ruh-nim]
?noun
1.
a word formed from the initial letters or groups of letters of words in a set phrase or series of words, as Wac from Women's army Corps, OPEC from Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or loran from long-range navigation.
2.
an acrostic.

Edit: I still do not imagine "lol" or "omg" being used in casual conversation by speaking human beings, so I'm not sure it belongs in a dictionary.

 

[SilentCom]

It's probably already mentioned here but those aren't words. They're acronyms. When people say OMG and LOL, they say the letters. It would be a little awkward for people to say "lawl" or... omg...
I guess they're not the first acronyms to become words though, the word laser is an acronym for light amplified stimulated emission of radiation.

 

[HerbertTheHamster]

holy fuck language evolves

what is happening oh god the world is ending

 

[GeekFury]

ANYONE that uses LOL or OMG with me in real life, either ends up with my unending hate or with my boot so far up their backside they're flossing their teeth with my laces. People like that should be steralized or culled from the human race to stop their idiocy poluting the gene pool.

 

[Living Contradiction]

...and dictionaries continue to defeat the frakking purpose of language.

...

the entire point of written and spoken language is to convey a message with greater clarity than vague grunts and physical signs. slang is functionally grunting, as it only conveys vague feelings

Hmmm. So language has to have greater clarity and meaning than a physical sign to be considered valid, eh?

Tell me, when was the last time someone showed you their middle finger to express disapproval and/or annoyance with your opinion? Do you know of a clearer or more concise way to convey that meaning in language?

People use slang on a constant basis and when someone is confronted with slang they don't understand, there needs to be a place to go to find out what it means. That's what a dictionary is for: to provide explanation for words and acronyms, including and especially slang.

Change, however fleeting, needs to be noted. The word "impacted" used to stand for "pressed together" like an impacted tooth or impacted bowels. It has evolved to duplicate the meaning of the word "effected". I still joke with those who will listen that this usage is proof that social policies and political decisions are packed full of teeth or shit, but I also accept that enough people use the word in that way that it needs to be noted. And where should people go to find out the meaning of words if not in a dictionary?

If someone walks into my shop and asks for a "flat white", I'm going to ask him to clarify his meaning. If he looks at me funny and says, "Isn't it obvious?", I want something to consult so that I can say, "Ah, you're from Australia, I see. One cappuccino coming up."

That's what dictionaries are for: to help those of us who don't know the meaning of a word or phrase to find that meaning.

 

[Sonicron]

1.
a word formed from the initial letters or groups of letters of words in a set phrase or series of words, as Wac from Women's army Corps, OPEC from Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or loran from long-range navigation.

Wherever you cited this entry from, it is sorely lacking as a source.

 

[alittlepepper]

I cited it from Dictionary.com. I don't know where they get their source material, but I would sincerely hope something like Websters. In fairness, I do not know for sure.

 

[Sonicron]

I cited it from Dictionary.com. I don't know where they get their source material, but I would sincerely hope something like Websters. In fairness, I do not know for sure.

The definition, as it is given, is correct for the term 'abbreviation', not 'acronym'.

Concerning dictionaries and translators, the internet is shit as a source, which was proven to me many times during last semester's translation courses at university.

 

[Saelune]

But they are NOT words...they are...well, i dont remember the actual word, but they are multiple words.

Acronyms can go in the dictionary, as can slag.

People actually voted for "Yes" ?

Please excuse me while I go hang myself.

This has set a precedent. Prepare to watch civilization crumble.

I'm pretty sure Chaucer was criticised for "ruining" the language, and Shakespeare used to just make words up.

OT: LOL isn't pointless, its just become ironic, in that you only say it out loud when you're not actually laughing.

Its not a matter of can, its a matter of should...
It should not.

 

[Treefingers]

A third of us think it should be in there?

They are just commonly used acronyms, they aren't words, by admitting these, you open the door to any acronym, if it gets popular enough.

abbreviations are words now?

What, like scuba? Or radar?

Well, I can't speak for Mr. Finch58, however, those are more acceptable as they evolved from technology, these words evolved from primary school kids who were too lazy to write full words. But point well taken, perhaps english is ready to devolve further, as it did when it included those words. Next it'll be C, U, 2, Y, , [ect]. I'm not convinced that adding LOL and OMG to the official vocabulary is a step forward, I doubt whether or not Scuba or Radar were even questioned when they were added, and that questionable factor alone, has to say
something.

I see your point, but the difference between why/y, see/c or you/u is that lol and omg carry meanings independent of 'laugh out loud' or 'oh my god'. When was the last time you typed 'lol' whilst actually laughing? Saying 'lol' or 'omg' out loud have a certain irony that doesn't have an equivalent in the English language.

Of course it's a step forward for the language, as it is recognising another form of expression that otherwise can't be expressed in the exact same way. To not add them would be to handicap ourselves. Just because it's a term that you seem to think is beneath you doesn't take away the fact that it has something to add in its own right.

As for the questionable factor, you think that no other words have been questioned before their addition to the dictionary? You think that people didn't look at Shakespeare with one raised eyebrow when he first wrote the word 'puking'?

Actually I think u/2/c are individual letters so they probably just can't be.

Having one letter doesn't stop words from being included. See 'a', 'i' or 'o'.

I don't believe that omg carries a different meaning, to me, but lol I'd have to give concession for, maybe that does mean more than its individual words allow. Typing is one thing, but actually saying these words, that?s another.

I agree that 'omg' is more of a stretch than 'lol' in having a different meaning, but it still does in my opinion. As for typing/saying... it is reasonably common for people to say these words out loud, but ultimately i think that's kind of irrelevant as dictionaries aren't exclusive to oral language.

Well it?s a simplification in the language, that much is certain, and there are ways to see that as a merit and a disadvantage, such as 'math' a shortening of a shortening for mathematics (maths is the original shortening).

My point is exactly that it's not a simplification of the language. Certainly not how 'math' is a simplification of 'maths' or 'mathematics'. 'Math' and 'Mathematics' mean the same thing.

Although the roots of the terms 'lol' and 'omg' are mere simplifications, these days they carry their own meanings, and are therefore deserving of their own entry.

I don't follow how we'd be handicapped by, almost the exact same number of people would use the words before and after its addition. Just to clarify, the term isn't so much beneath me, I simply don't respect the decision of Oxford to add it to the language as I believe it devalues it more ways than it enriches it.

Dictionaries exist to document/describe how our language is (or has been) used. Not so that language purists can tell us how we should be using it.

You mention that the same number of people will be using the term before and after it's inclusion. So why is everyone freaking out about its inclusion then? Just because it's in our dictionary doesn't mean it's going to take over our language. You aren't going to see a national news anchor formally saying 'lol' in the middle of a serious news report.

Yes, 'lol' is a slang term. It's a silly term. But it's commonly used and has a specific new meaning and on that basis it ought to be included. To not include it would be elitism.

When i mention handicapping ourselves, i'm not specifically referring it's inclusion, rather it's recognisation as a term in general. Not allowing our vocabulary to increase is to handicap ourselves, as language is our primary means of expressing, i believe we should allow our 'toolbox' for communication to be as large as possible.

EDIT: Interesting, as time has gone on, now only a quarter of participants think these words should be in the dictionary.

A mark of The Escapist's elitism, nothing more.

I'd have to strongly disagree with you there. Just because the majority of this 300 odd sample, agree it's ridiculous (although, some what unimportant a fact it may be), that doesn't instantly make us all elitists does it? I think that's a bit harsh, not the mention untrue anyway.

Well, yeah, to be blunt i think it kind of does. All the arguments on here basically boil down to "The word 'lol' isn't good enough to be included in my language."

That's kind of elitist, don't you think?

 

[Innegativeion]

Neither are words, both acronyms. The twats who decided to put them in the dictionary need to be struck in the back of the head and told to know what phrases actually mean before trying to put them in.

Had this been done preemptively, they might have realized "laugh", "out", "loud", "oh", "my", and "god" were already in the dictionary.

 

[Tipsythegza]

I wish i was still in school to use these in a paper.

 

[Googooguru]

Sure why not .. its not the first acronym to make it into the dictionary.. See Scuba (Self contained underwater breathing Apparatus)as example

 

[rednose1]

I kind of get the impression that dictionaries have been desperately trying to cling to relevance in recent years, starting with my discomfort at them including Stephen Colbert's "truthiness" as a word a few years back. I love Colbert but people shouldn't be allowed to create real words just because they're famous.

Anyways, I haven't cracked open a dictionary since the day I discovered spell check on Microsoft Word.

Go look up Shakespeare, he invented plenty of words that we use commonly today (accommodation, lapse, invulnerable being just some of them.)

While I am on the side that doesn't like the fact that these have become words, language does evolve. Dictionaries just keep track of said evolution.

As far as to why I don't like the fact that LOL and OMG have become words, is that I fear that the English language will soon look like internet type everywhere (lik OMG, I <3 u s0 muchhhh haha ha lol!) This stuff makes me cringe.

 

[MisterGobbles]

Really, the only reason that they're in the dictionary is so that people can look and see what they mean (as if they didn't know already, but whatever). This just makes it official, more of a formality on the dictionary's part. It doesn't mean that they are true words (because they aren't; they often include phrases and acronyms in the dictionary) that should be used in formal sentences or spoken out loud.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Kids now days, with their 'WTF's and 'LOLS' and their dropping the 'E' in 'Olde'....

 

[justnotcricket]

Just because it's in the dictionary doesn't mean you should use it...

They're acronyms. Acronyms can go in the dictionary - they're part of the English language.

Should you use them outside the internet? No. I swear, I want to hit people who say 'lol' instead of, you know, actually laughing? Or similing?

Should you use them on the internet? Or in a text message? Sure. =)

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

Linguist input time!

LOL and OMG are words. Both are abbreviations; the first is an acronym, the second an initialism. In any case, no matter the detail of analysis, both of these morphemes are subject to set word formation processes, and are rightly classified as words.
Not particularly pleasing ones, I grant you, but words nonetheless.

-EDIT- To clarify: Only LOL is an acronym, OMG is not. The rule is quite simple: If you can pronounce the abbreviation as a word according to the phonetic properties of the language, it's an acronym, but if you cannot and have to spell out every single letter of the abbreviation in order to pronounce it, it's an initialism.

yes, but while you can pronounce LOL, you should not. i've never heard anyone say pronounce LOL as "loll" or "lull" without being chased from the room in a hail of derisive laughter. when used "correctly" it's always spelled out. so, to me, it's still an initialism, not an acronym. but... i suppose it's quite open to interpretation and the dynamic nature of language.

 

[Sonicron]

Linguist input time!

LOL and OMG are words. Both are abbreviations; the first is an acronym, the second an initialism. In any case, no matter the detail of analysis, both of these morphemes are subject to set word formation processes, and are rightly classified as words.
Not particularly pleasing ones, I grant you, but words nonetheless.

-EDIT- To clarify: Only LOL is an acronym, OMG is not. The rule is quite simple: If you can pronounce the abbreviation as a word according to the phonetic properties of the language, it's an acronym, but if you cannot and have to spell out every single letter of the abbreviation in order to pronounce it, it's an initialism.

yes, but while you can pronounce LOL, you should not. i've never heard anyone say pronounce LOL as "loll" or "lull" without being chased from the room in a hail of derisive laughter. when used "correctly" it's always spelled out. so, to me, it's still an initialism, not an acronym. but... i suppose it's quite open to interpretation and the dynamic nature of language.

The point is that you can pronounce it as a single word in accordance with the phonetic rules of English.
However, I must admit to you that I hadn't thought about this particular example in terms of language dynamics. Where I live (Germany), pronouncing LOL as a single word in spoken language is rather easy and therefor probably more common than in English-speaking countries; I realize now that while the word still has the properties of an acronym, it's likely more often used as an initialism in spoken English.