This is one of the scariest things I have read all day. A critique of Merriam-Webster's new slang-filled dictionary.
I'm pissed. Pissed. Who in their right mind would ever go to look up "McJob" in a dictionary? What??
Great points made. A withering criticism of the wrong-headedness behind such a stupid project.
"Conversate" indeed.
Posted by Sheila O'Malley at August 22, 2003 02:26 PM | TrackBackSlang belongs in a dictionary of slang, or a completist edition (with all 700,000 or so words), not in the equivalent of a college-level reference. But it may be fun when someone defends using "McJob", perhaps referring to Rozencrantz or Yorick, with "But it's in the dictionary!"
Well at first I thought you were overreacting, and the columnist too. There's also a small mistake: I do use the term "far out" and know others who do as well.
However, I would agree that things like this shouldn't be in a standard collegiate desktop reference. It should be in a slang dictionary.
Language changes, and some slang DOES become standard language. I don't know where and when lexicographers should draw the line, but to read this it sounds like the M-W folks have gone a bit too far.
Posted by: Dean ESmay at August 23, 2003 04:48 AMThe critique's author has an excellent online magazine, The Vocabula Review, at www.vocabula.com. Subscriptions are very cheap. A great read for language conservatives.
enough.... the english language is being punished. it was bad enough when folks used 'goes' and 'went' instead of says or said, respectively, but this is rediculous.
on the other hand, if you don't update it outrageously often, how do you make money?
Posted by: cris at August 24, 2003 06:22 PMOh shit! I thought it was MacJob - Thanks!
Posted by: Jim at August 25, 2003 12:12 AMDearest: dictionaries should also define meaning of words in current use [drop slang no longer in use]. That's what they are supposed to do [it's alright, not all right]. Are you now an apologist for the cowardly French? love, dad
Posted by: dad at August 25, 2003 09:17 AM"Are you now an apologist for the cowardly French?"
I liked that!
Posted by: Jim at August 25, 2003 09:26 PMThe only reason they put all these words in the dictionary is so boys 9-14 years old can giggle over the words they find in it during study hall.
Posted by: Jake at August 25, 2003 10:30 PMI do not want language to be static - or pure. (A la the "cowardly French" with their "le weekend", etc., because the sanctity of French must be preserved at all cost.)
I guess it was the "McJob" that really got to me. (Or should I say "which" really got to me? I always get the "that/which" phenomenon mixed up.)
Posted by: red at August 26, 2003 10:29 AMIf I think of "McJob" lasting say, two centuries, I have a bit of fun picturing a gathering of philologists attempting to discern its derivation: a Scottish reference to the Book of Job?
Of course, if it does survive so will enough references to establish its derivation. But will the group I picture be sensible enough to chuckle when Woody Allen discovers that in his future Ronald McDonald's fare has become "health food?"