Poll: LOL and OMG are now words?

[Lukeje]

Hmm... so I actually just looked up the record for `OMG' in the OED; the first citation they use of it is from 1917. I really didn't expect it to be that old...

The first reference for `lol' is however 1990 (more the sort of age I was expecting).

 

[Zechnophobe]

LOL (lol) and OMG (omg) have both been put into the Oxford English Dictionary.
I think this is sad news and they should have been kept to the internet, you can't even say lol when smiling or laughing, so it's it's effectively...pointless, unless you use it like a slow clap, as mentioned in the article.
What are your opinions on this?

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12893416

It really isn't that complex.

1) Do people commonly say lawl or ohemgee?
2) If yes, put their definition in the dictionary

This is what dictionaries are for.

 

[theultimateend]

LOL (lol) and OMG (omg) have both been put into the Oxford English Dictionary.
I think this is sad news and they should have been kept to the internet, you can't even say lol when smiling or laughing, so it's it's effectively...pointless, unless you use it like a slow clap, as mentioned in the article.
What are your opinions on this?

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12893416

I think back to the day when an ancient man said:

"Oh really? Are you honestly telling me that "What" is now a word? This is nonsense! Only a fool would use that word! Our language is dying."

LOL (lol) and OMG (omg) have both been put into the Oxford English Dictionary.
I think this is sad news and they should have been kept to the internet, you can't even say lol when smiling or laughing, so it's it's effectively...pointless, unless you use it like a slow clap, as mentioned in the article.
What are your opinions on this?

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12893416

It really isn't that complex.

1) Do people commonly say lawl or ohemgee?
2) If yes, put their definition in the dictionary

This is what dictionaries are for.

Don't you dare bring reality into this discussion! Being a language hipster is all I have left!

 

[Lukeje]

I don't accept this. Please try again. I understand the evolution of language that is differed by location and such but really? The first person i see using this out loud is getting punched. And before someone says something about me being close minded and that this is how the world works or some other bullshit know this. I don't care. I understand how this isn't the death of "Culture" but why do something so stupid as to add "lol" "omg" to the dictionary. Why not add something like Thrice?

Thrice is in the OED. It has been since 1912.

 

[azurine]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHY CRUEL WORLD? WHY?!?

 

[Dystopia]

Just chiming in to say that is both disturbing and upsetting. Way to ruin the English language, Internet

 

[TheIronRuler]

They are abbreviations, but in my language similar words become formal, though a golden apple being an orange (abbreviation) in my language makes sense to some extent, but this is simply idiotic.

 

[Bobbity]

So it would seem. I do actually tend to say lol as a word now, rather than LOL, so for me, that, at least, is right.

 

[dmase]

The definitions aren't for you there for posterity. They are a cultural phenomenon of abbreviation guaranteed to be used well through the information age.

OR

Old people kept complaining about how they didn't know what the whippersnappers where saying online.

 

[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.

Do people use them? Yes.
Do they have meaning? Yes.
Are they widespread? Yes.

Qualifies for a dictionary entry in my mind. If we went by how you lot think, we'd still be talking the same way we did 1000 years ago. Its kind of like conservatism - ultimately pointless, because everything changes anyway, no matter how much you try and delay it.

People will use it whether its in the dictionary or not, so again, I don't really see the issue. Likewise, you're not forced to use it because its in the dictionary.

I am definatly someone who thinks that language should go with the times, but slang is slang. I really do not condone people talking like idiots (hene why I will never support..."ebonics")

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

People need to get over this. If q.e.d. can be in the dictionary, so can lol and omg. Would you consider quod erat demonstrandum unsuitable for the dictionary because philosophers and mathematicians decided to be lazy?

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

Every time I hear someone say 'lol' or 'omg' out loud I have the sudden urge to punch them in the face. Urban dictionary most definitely, but not the Oxford/Webster/whatever dictionary. That's just ridiculous, besides saying 'lol' is kinda redundant to me, you are already laughing, why are you saying that?

Call me whatever you like, I really don't care, but this is the kind of shit that annoys the hell out of me.

 

[Lukeje]

I don't accept this. Please try again. I understand the evolution of language that is differed by location and such but really? The first person i see using this out loud is getting punched. And before someone says something about me being close minded and that this is how the world works or some other bullshit know this. I don't care. I understand how this isn't the death of "Culture" but why do something so stupid as to add "lol" "omg" to the dictionary. Why not add something like Thrice?

Thrice is in the OED. It has been since 1912.

Then which Dictionary isn't it in? Websters?

I have no idea. It seems to be in the online Merriam-Webster.

 

[armadillo122]

No because they aren't actual words.They are shortenings. Besides,tehy are not using in any serious context or by anyone else than confused, pimple-ridden teenage boys.

Oh how passionately I hate them!

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

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

Except it hasn't set the precedent, the precedent was already there. Phrases like SOS and AWOL have been in dictionaries for years. Languages change and evolve over time, and whilst I'm not a fan of 'LOLspeak' it was inevitable that this would happen.

 

[Dimitriov]

You know how the Oxford English dictionary is the penultimate source for what is and is not proper English? Yeah not anymore.

Seriously guys, we liked you because you were supposed to be stuffy and proper. Doing stuff like this just makes you look ridiculous, like a man in his 40's coming up to you, wearing his cap backwards, and saying "how's it going, brah?"

Do. Not. Want.

Now I can't use 'lol' as a substitute for actual laughter ironically.

PS: The great irony here is that The Escapist is telling me 'lol' is a spelling error.

 

[Aphex Demon]

If that's the case why ain't WTF or FTW relevant to the addition?

 

[Wintermoot]

they are abriviations for Laughing Out Load (LOL) and O My God (not gosh God)(OMG)

 

[putowtin]

What? Oh well there goes the english language!

 

[Woodsey]

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.

Do people use them? Yes.
Do they have meaning? Yes.
Are they widespread? Yes.

Qualifies for a dictionary entry in my mind. If we went by how you lot think, we'd still be talking the same way we did 1000 years ago. Its kind of like conservatism - ultimately pointless, because everything changes anyway, no matter how much you try and delay it.

People will use it whether its in the dictionary or not, so again, I don't really see the issue. Likewise, you're not forced to use it because its in the dictionary.

I am definatly someone who thinks that language should go with the times, but slang is slang. I really do not condone people talking like idiots (hene why I will never support..."ebonics")

Well, slang isn't slang. Its not exactly clear cut on which words fit into that category, and including slang in the directionary means that people are "talking like idiots" already; likewise, including it in the dictionary does not mean people are suddenly going to start using it more. Dictionaries also note which words would be considered slang anyway, just like they note which are abbreviations, verbs, adjectives, etc.

Dictionaries document language, they doesn't create it.