Thats not a word, its not in the dictionary

[Chance1234]

Overheard the phrase in the subject last night and have heard it many times before, which im sure we all have,

In this case, it was the word "init"

Thinking about it though, is the person saying "Thats not a word, its not in the dictionary" just as bad as the person who said init ?



Chance,

F, G + Its official, its even on a organisation chart et all

 

[drlex]

anotherhiggins,
Nope, irregardless doesn't bother me; I just think that the speaker may have had a less formal education. Whilst I prefer to speak and write "proper" English as I was taught, I don't seek to correct others, as not only can I just measure against what was considered an 'ideal' in the 1970s, but also I don't wish to become a Grammar Nazi.


{There - Godwin's Law is now satisfied )


soi la, soi carré

 

[ESquared]

Higgins - that REALLY greats on me
...
"irregardless" really greats on me

Misspelling grates really grates on me!

Everyone makes mistakes. Somewhere we have to find room to allow them, unless we are perfect. But then, if we were perfect, we would be perfectly kind and loving, too, and have no need to correct others when they didn't want such correction.

 

[Welshbird]

Hehehehe

Fee

The question should be [red]Is it worth trying to do?[/red] not [blue] Can it be done?[/blue]

 

[mmerlinn]

Hmm,

If it is not in the dictionary it is not a word?

Does that mean that words did not exist before dictionaries existed???

If that is true, how could one create a dictionary of words that did not exist???


mmerlinn

"Political correctness is the BADGE of a COWARD!"

 

[ESquared]

mmerlinn, that is what I said, if not so succinctly as you did.

 

[eyetry]

The answer to the question is.... If it isn't in the dictionary it is not a word. It is slang.

Should it be used if not found in the dictionary? Depends on the situation. For example,

-In a formal business document you want to refrain from using slang unless the slang is the topic.

-In a blog, song or book? Who cares?

-In a presentation, depends.

Slang can be entertaining as well as attention getting. On the other hand I find certain words offensive. Like ‘Dis’ instead of ‘disrespectful’. The use of the word shows laziness on a speaker’s part. I understand how one would use it in a lyrical sense…

MY view of an excessive use of slang terms used to can, at times, parallel my view of swearing. I come from a lower middle class upbringing where both parents worked before it was fashionable. My father never swore and always said people who swore showed a poor vocabulary or a weak intellect. Pretty strong words for a man with a 8th grade education. I’ve found however that he was right to the extent that a judicious placement of the right word at the right time can really drive a point home.

 

[SantaMufasa]

The gigantic exception to such a rule of thumb is the Lexicon of IT Intelligentsia.

Would you explain, please?

My assertion was to corroborate your observation that…

Although nonstandard and uneducated don't necessarily have to go together.

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]

 

[johnwm]

My understanding is that most dictionaries don't claim to define how a word should be used, but rather describe how a word (or phrase) is used, or has been used in the past. In other words a dictionary is descriptive rather than prescriptive.

'Traunch' appears to be an alternative spelling (probably incorrectly derived from the pronunciation of 'tranche'). The original tranche probably comes from the Old French for slice or portion.

___________________________________________________________
If you want the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first.
'If we're supposed to work in Hex, why have we only got A fingers?'
Drive a Steam Roller
Steam Engine Prints

 

[ESquared]

If it isn't in the dictionary it is not a word. It is slang.

That doesn't make sense. What about all the words in the dictionary that are marked as slang? If it's slang before it's in the dictionary, and slang after it's in the dictionary, then there are words in the dictionary that aren't words... do you see where I'm going with this.

A dictionary researcher doesn't make slang into words by putting them into the dictionary. He or she recognizes what has already transpired in the world: a new word has come into existence. If it wasn't already a word, it wouldn't enter the dictionary.

Think of the day blog was first published in, say, Merriam-Webster's dictionary. If the word was used one day before, it wasn't a word? Then the moment the word was published in the dictionary (or perhaps entered into a database somewhere for online publishing) it WAS a word? What about the period of time between the publishing and the actual reading of that published entry by someone outside the publisher? Let's say at blogpublish+2 two different people use the word blog: one knows it is now in the dictionary and one does not. Is it a word in one case and not in the other? Or if it's a word in both cases, then the person who doesn't know it's published yet believes it's not a word but it really is?

And why fix it at publishing timepoint? It is just as reasonable to say it has "become a word" the moment some dictionary worker merely decides that the word is going to be published. But then if that's all that's necessary, then isn't it in fact the researcher reaching some critical mass of enough published examples that makes it a word, so it is the final publication of it that then makes it a word. So it's really the writer who used the word in the publication that the researcher found who makes a word a word, and it happens on the day it's published. Unless then it happens on the day the publisher decides to publish it...

I know it's getting silly. Which indicates that can't be right. Something being a word is not tied to a definite, predefined point in time. Inclusion of the word in a dictionary is a judgment call. Word is an open concept, not a closed one, like deciding whether a hairy face has a beard on it or just some hair that doesn't add up to a beard yet.

And looking up word in the dictionary gives:

[ul]1. a unit of language, consisting of one or more spoken sounds or their written representation, that functions as a principal carrier of meaning. Words are composed of one or more morphemes and are either the smallest units susceptible of independent use or consist of two or three such units combined under certain linking conditions, as with the loss of primary accent that distinguishes black'bird' from black' bird'. Words are usually separated by spaces in writing, and are distinguished phonologically, as by accent, in many languages.[/ul]

There is nothing in there that requires the thing to be formally codified in a dictionary. And now that I think about it, which dictionary? If it's published in one but not another, is that a word? If I start my own publishing house and print 23 copies of my own dictionary have I made something a word that was only slang before? How many copies have to be printed? Do any of them have to be read? ... and so on and so forth.

Consider the word geas I mentioned before. I think it's a word, in English. I've read it only in English books. It was not italicized. The writers just used it. Context told me its meaning. I encountered it repeatedly.

That thing is a word, dictionary entry or not.

 

[eyetry]

A string of letters is not a word just because someone wants to pretend it is.

Please give me an example of a word the is defined as slang in a credible dictionary.

Also, I believe that there are standards that must be met before a 'word' can be added to the dictionary (though those standards may have been relaxed by those evil baby boomers for their children ). For example, people used "ain't" for many years, perhaps decades before it was added to the Dictionary. It was completely, socially unacceptable to use it (and still is as far as I'm concerned). If used in a discussion or paper parents, teachers and english professors would constantly refer you to a dictionary when used saying "If it isn't in the dictioary it isn't a word!"

eyetry

ps: Plz keep in mind that I'z jez 'yanking' yer chain.

 

[pinkgecko]

Please give me an example of a word the is defined as slang in a credible dictionary.

Redneck is described as "slang" or "informal" in Dictionary.com, American Heritage Dictionary, and Online Etymology Dictionary. I don't have any printed dictionaries with me, but look up redneck, cracker, etc.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redneck

[blue]When birds fly in the correct formation, they need only exert half the effort. Even in nature, teamwork results in collective laziness.[/blue]

 

[pinkgecko]

Or here's one from Merriam-Webster. Took some searching - they don't have much slang from my generation in there, so had to go back a few years:

Main Entry: rad
Function: adjective
Date: 1982
slang : cool, radical

[blue]When birds fly in the correct formation, they need only exert half the effort. Even in nature, teamwork results in collective laziness.[/blue]

 

[CajunCenturion]

How about props

==> A string of letters is not a word just because someone wants to pretend it is.
That's true, however, once that string of letters convey a meaning known by both the sender and receiver, then it becomes part of the lexicon and is a word.

==> Also, I believe that there are standards that must be met before a 'word' can be added to the dictionary (though those standards may have been relaxed by those evil baby boomers for their children )
Yes, that's true, there are standards that must be met before a word is included in a dictionary, but I'm not sure that I agree with the claim about the standards being relaxed. The key point however, is that these standards apply to dictionary inclusion, not to a determination of whether or not a string of letters is a word. In fact, dictionary editors may watch a word for years before including it in a dictionary to ensure that the word will stick, and the meaning is consistent. During this process, citations are tracked and maintained in the language corpus. Sometimes a word can find its way into a dictionary seemingly overnight if it becomes widespread and established quickly. Other words take more time to become established.

I would agree that it's not a word until it's recorded in the language corpus, but making to the dictionary is more a function of word usage, not a function of word existence.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read
FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[ESquared]

CC already said what I was going to about conveying a meaning shared by speaker and hearer.

However, pushing the "birth point" of a word to the language corpus isn't really different than considering it to be when published in the dictionary. Both are recognitions of something that has already happened, or is already going on.

The best one can say is either "that's not a word I understand" or "that's not a word I choose to recognize as legitimate."

The schoolteacher chooses to recognize only words that are found in the dictionary. This doesn't mean there aren't words that aren't in the dictionary. He or she just doesn't recognize them, as an academic tool.

 

[eyetry]

How about yanking....

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/yanking

'Slang To extract or remove abruptly: yanked the starting pitcher early in the game.'

 

[AnotherHiggins]

Of course they aren't words, they're phrases

Strictly speaking, using that definition, then 'goodbye' isn't a word because, unless I've been missinformed, it's a contraction of 'God be with you'. I have a feeling you would have a hard time getting it accepted that goodbye isn't a word. We're back to the question of 'where does common (mis)usage become the accepted norm?'

That's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm trying - unsuccessfully, it seems - to point out that whether "innit" is a word has nothing to do with it being proper use.

Hmmm. I'll try again:

[tab]Innit = isn't it = is it not
"Is", "It" and "Not" are all words. "Isn't" is a word.

So innit's inclusion in a dictionary is completely irrelevant to whether it is 'correct' or 'incorrect'.

It is a phrase. It is a sentence, even.

You wouldn't find "How are you doing today" in the dictionary, either. That doesn't make it incorrect.

Put a strong accent on that phrase or just say it quickly without enunciating. The person from the OP might as well point out that " 'Howayadointoday' is not a word, it's not in the dictionary". Well no $#!%. What does that have to do with anything??

Sure, words can be grouped together and, if they become common enough they might become words in their own right. But that isn't even the issue here.

Back to the OP:

Thinking about it though, is the person saying "Thats not a word, its not in the dictionary" just as bad as the person who said init ?

I think it has been well argued that inclusion in a dictionary isn't the defining trait of a word. But in this particular case with the "word" innit, I'd say that the naysayer is worse than the innit-sayer. Innit might be grating to hear for some, but at least it is logical, unlike the other person's response.

eyetry - Well played. Making that word a link would have helped though. Either the joke or I was too obtuse.

[tt]_____
[blue]-John[/blue][/tt]
[tab][red]The plural of anecdote is not data[/red]

Help us help you. Please read FAQ 181-2886 before posting.

 

[2ffat]

Just to lighten (or confuse) things a little:

http://www.comics.com/comics/getfuzzy/archive/getfuzzy-20071128.html

James P. Cottingham
-----------------------------------------
[sup]I'm number 1,229!
I'm number 1,229![/sup]

 

[BobRodes]

<How could one create a dictionary of words that did not exist?

One could perhaps start thusly:

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe.
All mimsy were the borogroves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!

He took his vorpal swod in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgy wood
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

And has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous ay! Callooh! Callay!
He chortled in his joy.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe
All mimsy were the borogroves.
And the mome raths outgrabe.

I point out the words "chortle" and "galumph" which have become common in spoken and written langugage 120 years after they were invented here. Although one will not find these words in the dictionary, one will find them discussed here:

http://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Word-Makers-Pictures-Language/dp/0841411530.

At some point I suspect that these words will not be taken as slang. I personally found the word "chortle" to stick out as a legitimate word when I first read "Jabberwock", since I was already familiar with it. However, the fact that the origin of the word is known down to its original creator suggests that there will be great resistance to adding it to a dictionary.

 

[ESquared]

All mimsy were the borogroves.

It's borogoves.

 

[sleipnir214]

Although one will not find these words in the dictionary

However, the fact that the origin of the word is known down to its original creator suggests that there will be great resistance to adding it to a dictionary.

Knowing the coiner of a word does not, I think affect whether it will be accepted. In fact, if the coiner is an author of a popular work, it seems intuitively correct to say that the work's popularity will drive the acceptance of an included coined word. (see This article about Shakespeare's influence on English)

I defy anyone to find a modern dictionary that does not include an entry for chortle -- even my kids' elementary-school dictionary has an entry for the word.

Although galumph seems a bit less common (it doesn't appear in my kids' dictionary), both of my old college dictionaries have entries for it.

At any rate, English is breathtakingly promiscuous when it comes to accepting words. An article at alphadictionary.com, I think, says it best:

It is true that English borrows recklessly from virtually every language on earth. In fact, &quot;borrow&quot; may be too weak in speaking of English; we should say that English aggressively mugs other languages for their lexical treasure

Want to ask the best questions? Read Eric S. Raymond's essay &quot;How To Ask Questions The Smart Way&quot;. TANSTAAFL!