quote: McDonald's Corp. is reviving its campaign to ditch the dictionary definition of "McJob," this time setting its sites on the vocabulary of Britons. The world's largest fast food company said Tuesday it plans to launch a campaign in the U.K. this spring to get the country's dictionary houses to change current references to the word "McJob."
The Oxford English Dictionary, considered by many wordsmiths as the gold standard for the English language, is one of those that will be targeted. It defines the noun as "an unstimulating, low-paid job with few prospects, esp. one created by the expansion of the service sector."
quote: In 2003, editors at the Merriam-Webster dictionary declined to remove or change their definition of "McJob" after McDonald's balked at its inclusion in the book's 11th edition. Instead, the Springfield, Mass. publisher said the word was accurate and appropriate.
Your thoughts, Hatrack? Does the definition of McJob, however accurate, demean the McDonald's Corporation? If so, do you think they can do anything about it? Unless they copyrighted the use of "Mc" in front of their words (not likely) what could they do? Could they sue for slander or libel even if the definition is, to a degree, accurate? Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
They can't do a gosh-darn thing about it. Yay for freedom!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Hopefully the shameful flavor of the word mcjob will influence Mcdonalds into offering more attractive benefits to their workforce, it wouldn't be the first time a company has done it.
Then again their prices might go up if the do. Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I don't think they can/should be able to do something about it. However, I think it is a dumb thing to put into a dictionary.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lupus: I don't think they can/should be able to do something about it. However, I think it is a dumb thing to put into a dictionary.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Unless and until working at McDonalds ceases to be an unsatisfying, low-paying job with few prospects, I don't think there's a whole lot they can do about it. I'm kind of amused that they're swinging the PR bat at it, though- I mean, it's not like there seems to be a lack of people signing up for those McJobs in most places.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Technically, you can sue for anything, especially if you have enough money, but I would be ashamed of our courts if they won. I'd never heard of Mcjob as a word but if it is one, then that definition seems fine to me. The only problem I see with it is that it targets one company. Granted, McDonald's, as the largest fast food company, is kind of the standard and as far as that goes, it's going to have to take the good with the bad.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Unless and until working at McDonalds ceases to be an unsatisfying, low-paying job with few prospects, I don't think there's a whole lot they can do about it.
If those standards are met, do you think the dictionary would revise the definition?
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
quote: "Dictionaries are supposed to be paragons of accuracy. And in this case, they got it completely wrong," said Walt Riker, a McDonald's spokesman. "It's a complete disservice and incredibly demeaning to a terrific work force and a company that's been a jobs and opportunity machine for 50 years."
What Mr. Riker is failing to grasp is that the dictionaries did not coin the word; they're merely reporting on a word in common usage today and providing a defnition based on what what was clearly intended by the speakers/writers who use it. Trying to get a dictionary to change its definition is simply ludicrous. And irritating.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:If those standards are met, do you think the dictionary would revise the definition?
Only if people stop using the word in this context, which is relatively unlikely.
Perhaps they can start calling them "Wal-Jobs" or something, but once the meme is out there, it tends to stick around.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I've heard the "Mc" added to other things as well, such as McDojos, which unflatteringly refers to a certain type of ubiquitous martial arts dojo.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Uprooted: What Mr. Riker is failing to grasp is that the dictionaries did not coin the word; they're merely reporting on a word in common usage today and providing a defnition based on what what was clearly intended by the speakers/writers who use it. Trying to get a dictionary to change its definition is simply ludicrous. And irritating.
You are exactly right. What most people fail to realize is that dictionaries are descriptive tools—they just reflect the words that are out there among English speakers. There was a post on this subject on Language Log the other day, and I think the conclusion is spot-on:
quote:In a way, the McJobs matter is a self-inflicted wound. At the 1987 trial in which McDonald's prevented Quality Inns International from naming a new hotel chain McSleep Inns, a corporate representative related how the company's icon, Ronald McDonald, had traveled around the country and actually taught children how to add the Mc- prefix before many different words, such as "McFries," "McShakes," and "McBest." Then McDonald's vice-president for advertising testified that the purpose of this campaign was to create a "McLanguage" that was specifically associated with McDonald's. The campaign worked. Suddenly hundreds of new Mc- words appeared in the press, including "McHospital," "McStory," "McTelevision," "McArt," "McLawyers," and, you guessed it, "McJobs." The meaning conveyed by Mc- was pretty clear in all the newly created words.
Now McDonald's wants to upgrade the very meaning it created all by itself. That may take some doing.
If you want to create a new prefix and then release it into the wild, you can hardly complain that it's no longer tame.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'm just waiting for the dictionaries to add McSteamy and McDreamy.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:Unless and until working at McDonalds ceases to be an unsatisfying, low-paying job with few prospects, I don't think there's a whole lot they can do about it.
If those standards are met, do you think the dictionary would revise the definition?
I think one could wait a loooong time for McDonalds to meet those standards.
But, hypothetically speaking, no, I don't think the dictionary would revise its definition. But McDonalds might actually be able to win a lawsuit. Most kinds of defamation lawsuits require that the story/phrase/word/whatever be untrue.
ADD: One random, unverified internet source claims McDonalds presently has a job turnover rate of around 200% yearly.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I'm just waiting for the dictionaries to add McSteamy and McDreamy.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I think that there's absolutely no way that McDonalds could ever win such a suit. Here's the dictionary from the Oxford English Dictionary:
quote:An unstimulating, low-paid job with few prospects, esp. one created by the expansion of the service sector.
First of all, there's no reference to McDonalds anywhere in there. And this word with its meaning is a fact—that is, people use that word to mean just what the dictionary describes. There's no untruth, there's no malice, there's no opinion on McDonalds from the OED or even anything directed at McDonalds.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
Heck, even if somehow McDonalds became a paragon of gainful employment the term likely wouldn't change for a long time. The way I see it, the phrase wasn't even specifically deirected at McDonalds per-se, but more at the whole fast-food/convenience industry that grew along with it. Even if it were a dream to work there, the "Mc" designator would often still be used to denote the cookie-cutter nature of something. This based on the vast proliferation of McDonalds across the world, so even if the "low-paid job with few prospects" eventually dropped off it would just be replaced with something like: "run-of-the-mill corporate drone job with few prospects"
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
And the really stupid thing about all this is . . . does McDonald's really think that if this word becomes firmly entrenched in the English language, that they will have fewer applicants or that the quality of their employees will change? Call a spade a spade for heaven's sake. There are lots of people who need a job, even if it's "an unstimulating, low-paid job with few prospects."
If they want to bother somebody, go bother the Washington Post, which, according to the article, published the first usage of the word "McJob" some time ago. And good luck with that one. Poor, poor, McDonald's, with over a gazillion customers served. I think a monstrously successful company with a clown as its icon, no less, needs to have a bit of a sense of humor about itself. If they were smart, they would wage a snappy counter-campaign putting a positive spin on the term McJob rather than going after dictionaries, for heaven's sake!
ETA: Especially in light of the "mc" campaign described in Jon Boy's post!
[ March 22, 2007, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: Uprooted ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Uprooted:
quote: "Dictionaries are supposed to be paragons of accuracy. And in this case, they got it completely wrong," said Walt Riker, a McDonald's spokesman. "It's a complete disservice and incredibly demeaning to a terrific work force and a company that's been a jobs and opportunity machine for 50 years."
What Mr. Riker is failing to grasp is that the dictionaries did not coin the word; they're merely reporting on a word in common usage today and providing a defnition based on what what was clearly intended by the speakers/writers who use it. Trying to get a dictionary to change its definition is simply ludicrous. And irritating.
Yeah.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I think the whole campaign is simply a PR stunt. "No PR is bad PR", is the operational principle that McD's is using here, IMHO.
Posted by Perplexity'sDaughter (Member # 9668) on :
I doubt McDonald's is going to suffer too much from the definition. There will still be plenty of highschool kids who want a job and they'll be just as likely to apply at McDonalds as any other fast food place, despite what's written in a dictionary.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
You'll never be able to afford to buy a McMansion on the pay you get at your McJob.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
*McCries*
Posted by The Reader (Member # 3636) on :
McDonalds complains about McJobs, but then brags that so many people successful people, and just so many people, got their first job at McDonalds, where they learned about work schedules and how to deal with bosses. Then these people moved on. This implies that McDonalds knows that its positions "[Are] unstimulating, low-paid job[s] with few prospects..." and is trying to shamelessly take opposing positions at the same time.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:What most people fail to realize is that dictionaries are descriptive tools—they just reflect the words that are out there among English speakers.
Yup. The dictionary tells us what words mean when people use them, not what they should mean.
If people use the word McJob to describe an unstimulating, low-paid job with few prospects, then it is absolutely correct for the dictionary to reflect that.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
*high-fives Porteiro*
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Yup. The dictionary tells us what words mean when people use them, not what they should mean.
Grumpy because you managed to say that so much better than I did!
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
McDonalds tries too hard avoid looking like what it obviously is.
If they want to be viewed as an upscale, healthy restaurant chain that offers good long-term jobs with excellent working conditions, then they should actually become such a restaurant chain, rather than use advertising campaigns to pretend like they are. Nobody is fooled, I think.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: *high-fives Porteiro*
I had a good teacher.
*wet-wipes hand to prevent cancer*
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:I think it is a dumb thing to put into a dictionary.
Exactly! This is one reason I have been very upset about the current state of modern dictionaries. Just another sign of dumbing down America (or English for that matter). There are way too many more important words that should be in a dictionary to add in these phrases that are at best silly and never going to be used outside of a limited context.
Just in case anyone will say the usual - then you don't have to buy them - well, I haven't. I own a large three volume set that is far more useful.
". . . dictionaries did not coin the word; they're merely reporting on a word in common usage today and providing a defnition based on what what was clearly intended by the speakers/writers who use it."
Dictionaries, if they are at all useful, should not be reporting on anything. They should be a reference and teaching tool for improving English knowledge and skills for at least vocabulary. Adding Mc-whatever jargon is horrible and degrading for any educational tool worth using. Otherwise they are nothing more than fun reading material that quickly goes out of date.
"I doubt McDonald's is going to suffer too much from the definition."
I guess I have already said this before, but the English language suffers. Can you imagine a college kid using McJob in a serious college paper? For that matter, an article in an important professional journal that doesn't have to do with economics?
"The dictionary tells us what words mean when people use them, not what they should mean."
YIKES! I think any dictionary worth its salt will say what the words should mean. Saying what people mean (particularly contemporary) should be lower down on the definition and perhaps as a side note for the most jargon specific.
None of this has anything to do with defending McDonalds. I don't care about that. It has everything to do with the state of education these days.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
We need these words in the dictionary, if only for the sake of my chances in Scrabble!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Adding Mc-whatever jargon is horrible and degrading for any educational tool worth using.
Being able to look up the definition of McJob seems pretty useful to me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
While we may not want to admit the ugly cousins are related to us, I think a comprehensive dictionary that leaves out words that are part of the language is a failure of a dictionary.
You could put out a dictionary that covers only the respectable words in English, but it is, inherently, non-comprehensive.
The proplem with defining words by what they "should" mean, beyond not being a dictionary but rather an ettiquette guide, is the question of who gets to define the "should." One of the things that I love about English is that it is so egalitarian and democratic. If enough people say a word and mean it a certain way, it is part of the language.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
How? Didn't you already know what it meant? Finally, lets assume you didn't. Why would it be useful to put it in a dictionary when all you need to do is ask the person who said it what they mean? Its not as if it is a complicated word that is important to the English language.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"You could put out a dictionary that covers only the respectable words in English, but it is, inherently, non-comprehensive. "
Such as my four volume set. To say that isn't comprehensive wouldn't be a very good description. Yet, it isn't filled with modern jargon that is of "one note" use. I guess its about what one considers the reason for a dictionary.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I guess its about what one considered the reason for a dictionary.
Exactly. Is it prescriptive (English speakers should use these words.) or descriptive (English speakers use these words.)?
I think a prescriptive dictionary is not a dictionary at all, but is instead an etiquette guide.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I don't know if it is prescriptive, but for me its about what these English words ARE.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You know what really annoys me about this? They put the word in with caps, which means it can't be used in Scrabble. And "mcjob" is a yummy Scrabble word.
The whole mcphenomenon would be a useful tool in the Scrabble arsenal.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What do you mean by what they are? What the words signify or mean, or what they are as cultural artifacts?
quote:Such as my four volume set. To say that isn't comprehensive wouldn't be a very good description.
Well, it isn't completely. The Oxford English Dictionary is dozens of volumes, so anything shorter is obviously leaving out some words. If it is leaving out ANY words, it isn't comprehensive. That's not meant pejoratively - it can still be a very nice dictionary.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
What the words signify or mean when used in an ordinary or traditional sense. Like I said, having modern or jargon specific definitions added on to a word should be near the bottom or as a side note. Any modern or jargon-like words should either be left out or put into a dictionary that is for those kind of things.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Occasional, I had this very discussion when I was 14 or so with my English teacher.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Any modern or jargon-like words should either be left out or put into a dictionary that is for those kind of things.
Like a comprehensive dictionary that covers every word in the language?
If I understand what you're saying, you want the standard desktop dictionary to not include informal words or words from dialects.
That's fine. It's leaving things out, but it is choosing to limit its scope. That's certainly okay - desktop dictionaries have to.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"The Oxford English Dictionary is dozens of volumes"
Ok, that is different. If they want to put in Mcjobs when they have that much room, fine by me (although I still think it takes away some credibility. A word should be used for at least 20 to 50 years first). My familiarity with dictionaries that actually get used are one to three volumes. And, sadly, these quick reference dictionaries *still* add words that take away room for more important ones.
"20 to 50 years first." Otherwise, you are going to have to buy a book every year with things you could ask the person sitting next to you - or pay attention to context - to understand easily. I use dictionaries to help me spell a word or know what one means, not as a cultural indicator.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: If they want to be viewed as an upscale, healthy restaurant chain that offers good long-term jobs with excellent working conditions, then they should actually become such a restaurant chain, rather than use advertising campaigns to pretend like they are. Nobody is fooled, I think.
I was! You stole my innocence, you heartless s.o.b.! Give it back!
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I think you greatly misunderstand the purpose of a dictionary, Occasional. It's definitely not to define only the words that meet a certain standard, like those that could be used in a college paper. The English language is not suffering, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be. It's just changing, as all languages do, and that apparently bothers you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I think you greatly misunderstand the purpose of a dictionary, Occasional. It's definitely not to define only the words that meet a certain standard, like those that could be used in a college paper. The English language is not suffering, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be. It's just changing, as all languages do, and that apparently bothers you.
Yeah, tell 'em all to fark off. You're a hoopy frood.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"It's just changing, as all languages do, and that apparently bothers you."
No, it doesn't. It is a matter of priority. As words fall out of favor or use, they can be excused. I am not worried that an 1828 dictionary is not the same as a 1980 one. What I am worried about is that there are legit words that are getting left out because new words that are not essential to the English language (and more indicative of pop culture) are crowding them out.
What is the purpose of a dictionary to you? I know what the purpose of a dictionary is for me.
This discussion has gotten me into thinking of getting into the dictionary writing market. Are words and their definitions copywrited? Do I have to come up with my own way of describing them in my own words? I could call it "The Literate English Dictionary" compilation.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:This book and its companion, The Highly Selective Thesaurus for the Extraordinarily Literate, are prescriptive rather than descriptive, dedicated to recording language as it should be rather than how it often is.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:What I am worried about is that there are legit words that are getting left out because new words that are not essential to the English language (and more indicative of pop culture) are crowding them out.
Such as?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: You know what really annoys me about this? They put the word in with caps, which means it can't be used in Scrabble. And "mcjob" is a yummy Scrabble word.
The whole mcphenomenon would be a useful tool in the Scrabble arsenal.
Or just come play with us. We're very lax about the "is it in the dictionary" rule. We don't even have one available when we play. We use just about any word we can reasonably use in a sentence.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I was! You stole my innocence, you heartless s.o.b.! Give it back!"
Best post on thread award! Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "It's just changing, as all languages do, and that apparently bothers you."
No, it doesn't.
Well, you did complain about the dumbing down of America, so it certainly seems like it bothers you. Perhaps I misunderstood.
quote:It is a matter of priority. As words fall out of favor or use, they can be excused. I am not worried that an 1828 dictionary is not the same as a 1980 one. What I am worried about is that there are legit words that are getting left out because new words that are not essential to the English language (and more indicative of pop culture) are crowding them out.
As JT asked, what words are being left out? There are probably thousand of words in a standard collegiate dictionary that I've never even seen before. I don't know what important words should be in there that aren't. Plus, I think you might have a different definition of "essential" than others. Maybe pop culture is essential for many people.
quote:What is the purpose of a dictionary to you? I know what the purpose of a dictionary is for me.
To be essentially a catalogue or index of the language. Here's Merriam-Webster's first definition:
quote:a reference source in print or electronic form containing words usually alphabetically arranged along with information about their forms, pronunciations, functions, etymologies, meanings, and syntactical and idiomatic uses
I don't see anything wrong with that definition, nor do I see how including "mcjob" violates it.
quote:This discussion has gotten me into thinking of getting into the dictionary writing market. Are words and their definitions copywrited? Do I have to come up with my own way of describing them in my own words? I could call it "The Literate English Dictionary" compilation.
Words and their meanings are not copyrighted. The specific definitions are, though. You'd have to come up with definitions in your own words.
Edit: Also, I want to post this just because I think it's funny.
[ March 23, 2007, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Katharina, I haven't had time to check it out, but the dictionary sounds very interesting.
[ March 23, 2007, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"As JT asked, what words are being left out?"
I am not a walking dictionary, but I can at least go by personal experience. There have been many times that I have wanted to know the meaning of a word and not found it in a typical college level dictionary. Usually, I just look it up on the Internet as I find that more reliable in finding what I want. That is probably the reason I even have a three volume dictionary.
Jon Boy, you and I have completely different reasons for wanting a dictionary. That is fine by me. I suppose, as one person said in the comments section of Katharina's link, there are those who use words for communication and those who use them for accuracy and careful word choice.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I guess I still don't see how including a word like "mcjob" causes a typical collegiate dictionary like Merriam-Webster's to fail in the task of helping you find the words you want. I don't see how communication and accurate word choice are conflicting goals that a dictionary must be forced to choose between.
You also expressed dismay that the word was included in any dictionary at all, even though it's in the 20-volume Oxford English Dictionary, which does not remove words, even obsolete ones, to save space. So how is it horrible and degrading to include it in the OED?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Jon Boy, if you don't understand I honestly can't explain it to you beyond any way I have already tried. I know this is a conversation killer, but we will just have to agree to disagree. Read Katharina's link to the dictionary for some comments on my own feelings said better.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The average specimen of a dictionary is not the OED, so if someone pictures a dictionary, I'm not surprised it was not the OED.
I don't think Occ was thinking of the OED because he mentioned the issue of space, and space is not an issue in the OED.
ETA: I think this post needs one more mention of the OED.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Occasional, I think you would like the book about the making of the Oxford English Dictionary. There is mention of this kind of conversation taking place during the making of it, and it's a very well-written book. I enjoyed it very much.
That's an excellent book, and I'll second the recommendation.
And I think I'll second what Katie said on the previous page: I don't think you really want a dictionary, but rather a usage or language etiquette guide—a book that doesn't just tell you what words are out there, but rather which words are deemed to meet certain standards. And that's just not what a dictionary is.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Jon Boy, from what he said I've changed my mind. It could be a dictionary, just a non-comprehensive dictionary with a specialized scope.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
If you did read my other words once the OED was explained, I did relax my critical opinion of it including Mcjob. Not that I think of all the words out there it should have been included.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Sorry, Occasional. I was looking over your other posts to see if there were any points I had overlooked, but I guess I still missed that one.
Katie: Hmm. I think whether you call it a dictionary or not is sort of beside the point. The point is that (from what I gather) Occasional wants not a typical descriptive dictionary, but a more prescriptive reference guide. And that's fine if that's what he wants. But I disagree that all dictionaries should follow that kind of standard. But like Occasional already said, we'll probably just have to agree to disagree on that issue.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think we are talking past each other. I don't agree with your assessment of what Occ was looking for.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:What I am worried about is that there are legit words that are getting left out because new words that are not essential to the English language (and more indicative of pop culture) are crowding them out.
The vast majority of English words are unnecessary, if you're willing to use homonyms and circomlocutions.
A large fraction of our beloved tongue is superfluous, as there are multitudinous ways to say anything.
The English language has high levels or built-in redundancy, which means that almost all parts of it could be safely eliminated.
But still, trying to remove words from the language (or keep them from entering) for that reason would be double-plus ungood.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"But I disagree that all dictionaries should follow that kind of standard."
I actually agree with you on that. Not all dictionaries should follow the same pattern. For instance, there is a need for a medical or technical dictionary. There will probably be good reasons for a modern or popular dictionary.
However, my complaint is about the dictionaries I have seen used in College. They have as many "misses" as they do "hits" where I think it shouldn't be the case. A "General" reference shouldn't have as many new popular enteries.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I think you mean double-plus unMcgood
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
McD's brought this on themselves, anyway. After the McGriddle, McNuggets, and all that, expecting people to not say "McJob" would be like expecting OSC to jump for joy if Hillary Clinton won the 2008 presidentials. Not...gonna...happen.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I think you mean double-plus unMcgood
I think you're double-plus right.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think we are talking past each other. I don't agree with your assessment of what Occ was looking for.
You're probably right, but Occasional said he was giving up on trying to explain himself. And from what I can tell, he hasn't said that he either agrees or disagrees with your interpretation, so I can't exactly be sure that you've got it right and I don't. I'm not really sure where that leaves things.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Since he isn't going to explain and we don't agree, I think we should drop it.
ETA: Or, armwrestle.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"A large fraction of our beloved tongue is superfluous, as there are multitudinous ways to say anything."
I agree with this. And I am not against getting rid of words in a general dictionary that have become out of use. What I do think is that English has become so clogged with colloquialisms based on pop culture that it has become inarticulate. High school and college expectations for education has suffered as less students can communicate accurately. Dictionaries made for these audiences that add those very modernisms of popular phrases only contribute to the bable. Educational standards have been seriously compromised.
[ March 23, 2007, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Armwrestling it is!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:This book and its companion, The Highly Selective Thesaurus for the Extraordinarily Literate, are prescriptive rather than descriptive, dedicated to recording language as it should be rather than how it often is.
I really want this.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:What I do think is that English has become so clogged with colloquialisms based on pop culture that it has become inarticulate. High school and college expectations for education has suffered as less students can communicate accurately.
I don't disagree. But you're tilting at the wrong windmill by placing blame on the dictionary. You're shooting the messenger, so to speak.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:This book and its companion, The Highly Selective Thesaurus for the Extraordinarily Literate, are prescriptive rather than descriptive, dedicated to recording language as it should be rather than how it often is.
Interesting.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I only blame the dictionary so far as it contributes. What they include adds some legitimacy to words where it probably shouldn't.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
"Doubleplus" doesn't have a hyphen. The whole point of Newspeak is to make language more rapid and staccato; putting in hyphens slows down the reader. Doubleplusungood! Verging crimethink!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The whole point of Newspeak was to limit the words available for the citizens to use, thus limiting the ideas they were able to think.
Edit: Although, doing some reading, it appears that what you say is correct, except for saying that it was the main goal of Newspeak:
quote:A staccato rhythm of short syllables was also a goal, further reducing the need for deep thinking about language.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
Grumpy because you managed to say that so much better than I did!