Forum: Editors/Reviewers Hangout

"OK" (also spelled "okay", "ok", or "O.K.") is a word denoting approval, ...

I am a bit suspecting of the Wikipedia entry, mainly because both Oxford and Webster both give only 'OK' and 'okay'.

This makes sense to me as they are the only phonetically consistent words. The 'ok' would be pronounced 'ock' and the 'O.K.', by its structure, would be an acronym, and its not clear what the O and the K would be the initials of.

I agree with your usage of 'OK' capitalised all the time, but 'okay' would follow the normal capitalisation rules.

I tend to correct all variants other than 'OK' and 'okay'. I prefer 'okay' though because it is closer to what I believe (hope) is the original source of the word :-)

Like you I believe that OK came from Och Aye, particularly in view of how it is pronounced, though I note the dictionaries give a different (and much later) derivation but qualify it with 'presumably', 'possibly', or some similar note of doubt.
'Wikipedia is dubious on so many things that I think it is losing credibility rapidly.

A dead tree dictionary? Luddite! :)

At school, the teachers insisted the correct form was O.K.,

I wonder what reference the teachers were using to assert that, given the dictionaries don't agree. They don't even give 'O.K.' as a redundant form. But then maybe they did back when you were a stripling :-)

wonder if it's because OK is the abbreviation for Oklahoma.

Back before they shortened all the state abbreviations to two letters, Oklahoma was abbreviated Okla.

I'm not sure it really matters any more because it's obvious the true origin is lost or uncertain.

Yeah, I started there too, but where would we be if we didn't care about the spelling of any words whose origin we weren't certain of? But wait - are we there yet?

where would we be if we didn't care about the spelling

Well I could say, "Here! Here!" or I could say, "I could care less," but either might disturb people from their chaise lounges. :)

AJ

I always use OK, simply because it gives uniformity regardless of where used and is often used to start a sentence and I think something like: Pete said, "Ok, that went ok, now let's get the next one." just looks bad while: "OK, that went OK, now let's get the next one." looks better for being uniform.

And I still say that ALL CAPS, such as "OK" looks like you are shouting!
:)

I assume you're talking about how to spell it in fiction

I hadn't intended to restrict the discussion to fiction, but I can see how other forms might be acceptable when discussing 'OK'.

Gunfight at the Okay Corral? :)

O.K. Corral is correct. It was the Old Kindersley Corral, not the Acceptable Corral :-)

couldn't find the full name anywhere

You are welcome. Interestingly, it should really have been called 'The Gunfight Somewhere Near the O.K. Corral' because the actual historical gunfight happened on the other side of the block, not even within sight of the O.K. Corral.

Have you ever seen it?

No, sadly, I have not. It's unclear to me why it is such a big deal though. It only lasted a few seconds and not much damage was done. Perhaps it was the characters involved, and the need for Hollywood to build it up. Not sure.

But it pales against Ned Kelly's Last Stand in 1880, which involved nearly a dozen combatants, one wearing armour, left three dead and a building burned down, and lasted for more than 2 hours.

There have been three movies, but none of them were blockbusters :-)

I thought the alley was next to the O.K. Coral, not across the street from it.

It was on the next street up, the other side of the block from the O.K.Coral and a few lots along from the rear entrance. Like much of Holywood's fare, veracity is in short supply.

History.net
Wikipedia has a map.

the other side of the block from the O.K.Coral and a few lots along from the rear entrance.

Maybe the O.K. Corral was the most recognizable landmark at the time.

Unless of course it involved the rays and the sharks.

OK Corral

I rest my case ...

It's such a big deal because an old Wyatt Earp had the ear of an early Hollywood producer and pushed his story very effectively.

You are welcome. Interestingly, it should really have been called 'The Gunfight Somewhere Near the O.K. Corral' because the actual historical gunfight happened on the other side of the block, not even within sight of the O.K. Corral.

But, "The Shootout in Tombstone" would hardly have been unique.

It's been used for so long, it's its own word now

Not really all that long. It is a relative baby in the world of words.

As OK/okay it's only been around since the middle of the 19th century in the US, and later in other parts. It does not appear in the Blue-backed Speller, which dates it to later, and probably explains why there is no standard spelling in the US.

Of course if you subscribe to the origin that I do then it's been around with the exact same meaning, pronounced the same, but spelt a bit differently since the 15th century.

Either way, North America was settled by illiterate people, and much of our early writing has words that they spelled the way they sounded.

This statement is so much nonsense. As a matter of definition, illiterate people can't write at all.

That said, at the time there was a lot of variation in spelling even by people who were supposedly well educated. Look at some of the hand written documents by Thomas Jefferson of Benjamin Franklin. Not typewritten transcriptions but photographic reproductions of the original hand written documents.

This statement is so much nonsense. As a matter of definition, illiterate people can't write at all.

The OED defines illiterate as unable to read OR write, not read AND write, so the statement is valid. The two do not necessarily coexist.

Selecting two persons from the country that has been mentioned as the scene of the illiteracy, then stating they were supposedly well educated (presumably by American standards?), is not exactly using a high standard of proof.

were supposedly well educated

Are you seriously going to suggest that Thomas Jefferson, one of the leading authors of the US constitution and a founder of multiple universities or Benjamin Franklin, a printer, inventor, and one of our first diplomats as well as a holder of multiple honorary doctorates from English universities including Oxford were illiterate or in some way not well educated even by European standards of the time?

The OED defines illiterate as unable to read OR write, not read AND write, so the statement is valid. The two do not necessarily coexist.

No, the statement is not valid it may be plausible that a person could know how to read without knowing how to write, but the reverse is highly implausible.

No, the statement is not valid it may be plausible that a person could know how to read without knowing how to write

Thank you for supporting my point. They do not necessarily coexist.
As far as the point regarding Jefferson and Franklin. I did not 'suggest' that. I merely pointed out that using examples from the country concerned was not a high standard of proof.
The ability to read without comprehending the words as written is a slight advance over illiteracy, but is still not what would be considered 'educated' in England.

I suggest you stop defending the exceptionally difficult to defend theory that English subjects were more literate that ones in the Americas. Until about 1776 give or take a year or so and a War that brought in other European Powers, the Gentlemen under discussion were as "English" as any Scott, person born in Ireland, or any other part of the British Empire, where the sun never set. Several of the Georges were essentially Hanoverian, brought over to be a Protestant ruler. There may have been lots of illiterate hill people (West, by god, Virginia) but the wealthy Americans certainly were as literate as any man subject to the British Crown. Maybe more so than the wearer of that crown.

Thank you for supporting my point. They do not necessarily coexist.

No, I am not supporting you point. The ability to read can exist without the ability to write, the reverse is not true, the ability to write can not exist without the ability to read, there for an illiterate person by definition can not write so illiteracy can not be responsible for the variances in spellings in the colonies.

s far as the point regarding Jefferson and Franklin. I did not 'suggest' that. I merely pointed out that using examples from the country concerned was not a high standard of proof.

That depends on proof of what, I was not using them as proof that illiteracy was not rampant in the colonies, it was rampant among the English underclasses as well at that time.

My point was that the writings of those two well educated men display the same lack of standardized spellings as anything else in the colonies. In point of fact, there are documents from Franklin where he spell the same word several different ways within that single document.

I suggest that the lack of standardized spellings in the colonies and early US was a deliberate revolution against "the King's English as much as the revolutionary war was a revolution against the English government.

damned Yankee Webster

From experience, I know you can't invoke Noah, or poor US literacy, here without vociferous reactions.

It was indeed 'och aye' I was referring to (see the initial post) and it fits far better, especially if you hear a Scot say it, than any of the myriad other derivative explanations supporting a purely American source.

or poor US literacy

The literacy rate in England proper wasn't all that high at the time.

It was only 47% in 1696 and only reached 62% in 1800

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/literacy-rates

And in the colonies:

"The exercise is bound to be tentative, as it uses a biased sample and an ambiguous measure"-but he made the case that, among white New England men, about 60 percent of the population was literate between 1650 and 1670, a figure that rose to 85 percent between 1758 and 1762, and to 90 percent between 1787 and 1795. In cities such as Boston, the rate had come close to 100 percent by century's end.

http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/winter11/literacy.cfm

So a case can be made that literacy was higher in the colonies than in England proper.

If you want to make a case that literacy was worse in the American colonies or early US than in England, you need to cite sources rather than just asserting it with no basis

If you want to make a case that literacy was worse in the American colonies or early US than in England, you need to cite sources rather than just asserting it with no basis

I think you're forgetting that this is the internet.

white New England men

Does the article say what percentage of the population of what became the US was comprised of "white New England men" at those times?

If you want to make a case

Not me. I was just saying you could not mention it here without vociferous reactions ...

Not me. I was just saying you could not mention it here without vociferous reactions ...

Because it is a baseless allegation that illiteracy was any worse among American settlers of any given economic class than it was among those with similar economic standing in Europe and / or England. It is true that literacy rates were poor by modern standards, but they just as bad everywhere else in the world at the time.

Because it is a baseless allegation

Perhaps I should take my own advice and leave the wasp nest alone, but it's really hard to do.

Trust me when I tell you that the view of the US from the outside is VERY different to the view from the inside.

leave the wasp nest alone

A wasps nest would have hundreds rushing to the defence rather than just one. I think ostrich is a more suitable metaphor.

I think ostrich is a more suitable metaphor

Point taken. I should listen to my own advice more often ...

Trust me when I tell you that the view of the US from the outside is VERY different to the view from the inside.

That doesn't make the outsider right about everything, or even anything in terms of their views of the US.

Besides, the British and / or Europeans thinking that the American colonies or early US were more literate more likely stems from ignorance of their own history. They don't understand that back then even in their own countries it was unusual for people outside either being part of the church hierarchy or upper class to be literate.

Trust me when I tell you that the view of the US from the outside is VERY different to the view from the inside.

That doesn't make the outsider right about everything, or even anything in terms of their views of the US.

But at least we don't have a form of nationalism engrained in us from the time we first go to school. (OH, and I heard that from an American). We can look at the US position relatively unbiased OK so the papers print what they want

You also wrote

They don't understand that back then even in their own countries it was unusual for people outside either being part of the church hierarchy or upper class to be literate.

Certainly many of us do. (Our equivalent of hillbillies may not but they have difficulty choosing between Adam's Ale and Water)

We can look at the US position relatively unbiased OK so the papers print what they want

Bull. There is plenty of bias resulting from geo-political issues.

I am not sure I know what a geo-political issue is.

Bias seems to me to be a result of differences between groups of people based on race, ethnic differences, religion, envy of wealth or other desirable characteristics (height, IQ score, athletic ability, long life, breast or penis size), "patriotism" for own country or region (The South will rise again). I may have left some differences out, in High School, freshmen are discriminated against by people in higher grades. You can't play on our athletic teams or go to certain dances (Proms just for Seniors). Or date upper classmen. Actually underclass women can sometimes date upper classmen, its older women prefer not to be seen with younger men. Maybe that isn't bias? But avoiding members of a group that you do not belong to looks kinda/sorta like it to me.

We can look at the US position relatively unbiased OK so the papers print what they want

Bull. There is plenty of bias resulting from geo-political issues.

Sure like the Texas Educational Board voting to drop any education about the founding fathers of the US and substitute American astronauts.

This is exactly the kind of nonsense I am talking about, No, the Texas Board of Education (which admittedly does plenty of stupid things) did not do anything like that.

This is the closest thing I could find

Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term "separation between church and state.")

Only one of the Founding Fathers was taken out and even then, in only one very limited context, he was not completely removed from the history curriculum.

Oh, and there are no American astronauts in the list of replacement names

It is true that literacy rates were poor by modern standards, but they just as bad everywhere else in the world at the time

I think that that is the point I was trying to make. Sometimes I live within walking distance of a town whence a shipload went to North America so I can only judge from what I see in historical records

Jamestown, 1607 had a high percentage of "gentlemen" who had no idea about farming which is why so much of the colony starved to death.

The Pilgrims off the Mayflower were religious dissenters (from Church of England) and mostly could read the Bible. They didn't do all that well farming either, despite being shown how by native Americans who put a fish in with the seed as a form of fertilizer. There were a few soldiers (Miles Standish comes to mind) who did some hunting but any skills in either the farming or outdoor area came from experience gained in North America. The Pilgrims came to Massachusetts from the Netherlands where they were refugees from England. The Jamestown boys were looking to get rich, not farm or do other ungentlemanly deeds like making a living. Neither colony could be considered an unqualified success. Weather and soil were more favorable in Virginia, but until they developed Tobacco and demand for it in the home country, there wasn't much economic reason to be here. Settlers in the West Indies using slaves to grow sugarcane and converting the result to rum did much better financially.

Lets not go overboard on how great our founding fathers were to provide education for everyone. Mandatory education was for children, and often allowed dropping out a what seems to us a fairly early age. There were child workers in factories working 10 and 12 hour days. Slaves not only did not get "free" education, there were laws against teaching them to read, at least in the south. One of the big compromises that got agreement on the Constitution was that slaves counted as three fifths of a person for determining the population of states, for representation in the House of Representatives. Of course slaves could not vote, the North didn't want to count them at all, the south wanted all its population to count, even though much of it was slaves.

Some children were too far from schools, or their parents wanted them to work on the farm or ranch. Students get expelled for misbehavior and lose their chance at education even today. I think there are lots of people who would think our education system is far from perfect.

It seems clear this thread is mortally wounded, so one last shot to add to the carnage.

your foppish word usages

That seems fairly personal to me. 'Foppish' has only one meaning that I have been able to find in any dictionary. 'Your' is fairly specific. If you told me I was a fop or a dandy to my face you would need one of your many guns to remain unharmed.

I have said elsewhere that US spelling is the bane of my voluntary life. I am NOT saying it is 'wrong' or 'ignorant' or should in some way be 'corrected'. I just pointed out that the differences were eminently avoidable 'back then' but the isolationism so prevalent found voice in a 'new' and 'better' way of spelling, with only the locals considered.

I know writers who are aiming at international audiences (including the US) have trouble deciding which 'version' of English to use. Sadly it is not possible to please both sides. It is not only the US 'side' that becomes belligerent and says

your ... word usages will be rejected just as you reject ours!

I know authors who insist on non-US spelling even though their primary audience is the 25% of English speakers who live in North America.

It's a real nuisance that simply isn't apparent to those in the US. Maybe it will all finally settle down when everything 'American' is finally accepted as the way things should be by the rest of the world too.

Anyway, I'm going to have a Scotch and lament the passing of this thread.

I have said elsewhere that US spelling is the bane of my voluntary life. I am NOT saying it is 'wrong' or 'ignorant' or should in some way be 'corrected'. I just pointed out that the differences were eminently avoidable 'back then' but the isolationism so prevalent found voice in a 'new' and 'better' way of spelling, with only the locals considered.

Whilst I can appreciate the quality of the education and experience of most of the writers here there was one answer written in American English which I found entirely incomprehensible - first time it has happened to me because usually if I say the letters the word is apparent. Don't ask what it was - I've been out for a few days

I generally use the language used in whichever country the story occurs in.

I'm sure that would work for dialogue, and I agree it is the best approach for dialogue. In fact good writers often change 'languages' depending on the speaker. I don't interpret 'language' here as just being limited to spelling, but also including idioms, memes, patterns and accents.

But for narrative, should it not be targeted at the readership? They, after all, are the ones that are best comfortable with it.

There is another massive dog's breakfast waiting for anyone starting a thread on the differences between simple idioms in various places, and some of them are so contrary that I always advise eschewing their use completely. But that's another thing ...

If the narrator uses British spelling and the characters all speak American, you'll have readers scratching their heads.

For me, language differentiation is a great deal more than simply spelling. Spelling is the least of it. Spelling is for the reader, not the characters. Are you saying that a non-US author has to use US spelling if the story is set in the US? What happens when the story contains both US and non-US characters and locations, maybe in equal part? Does the US component take precedent? What if the US component is only say 10%. Can it be written with non-US spelling then?

For me, language differentiation is a great deal more than simply spelling. Spelling is the least of it. Spelling is for the reader, not the characters. Are you saying that a non-US author has to use US spelling if the story is set in the US? What happens when the story contains both US and non-US characters and locations, maybe in equal part? Does the US component take precedent? What if the US component is only say 10%. Can it be written with non-US spelling then?

Sorry Zom. Mountains and molehills. CAN a non-US author write American successfully? Individual words perhaps but the American conceptualisation, the local scenarios, the cultures? I think not without having been immersed in them. That is what makes any foreign language so difficult to learn. For us American words are not too difficult to understand and I hope Pom and Strine are as easy for you. After immersion in League or Union how could a Brit write about what you call football when use of the foot is almost banned?

You write your language and we'll write ours but please don't get too complex (for example League and Union are the UK types of rugger, Pom is British, Strine is Aussie but I can't expect quite such a deep understanding of those cultures).

CAN a non-US author write American successfully?

Yeah, I think so. I am sure I have seen it done :-) It's not like US culture is a secret anymore ...

sejintenej

CAN a non-US author write American successfully?

Yeah, I think so. I am sure I have seen it done :-) It's not like US culture is a secret anymore

Having been there and lived with Natal English for 49 years (today!) I still couldn't be sure of getting that absolutely right.

As for the US, which part of which state are we talking about? (Don't answer that - one friend owns a coal mine in Kentucky, another is from CA, others from MD and NY: they are all like chalk and cheese)

Edit: thanks to The Grim Reaper I think I would get arrested for writing in Natal English where by definition a coloured person is a half-caste and not anything darker, whites are separated from Asians (with Japanese honorary whites) ........ I notice even the US has moved away from Afro-American

where the main character and narrator are clearly of US origin I use US spelling and terms

Interesting. I understand about the terms, especially in dialogue, but is the spelling because you are expecting US readership to baulk otherwise, or do you think that non-US readerships would be generally erudite enough to expect US spelling?

do you think that non-US readerships would be generally erudite enough to expect US spelling?

If UK English is their native language I would say "no doubt". We have been inundated by US films, music, some books, radio for so long that it is close to second nature. I suspect there is a class which wouldn't understand - the class that doesn't even read UK English but looks at magna books

But for narrative, should it not be targeted at the readership? They, after all, are the ones that are best comfortable with it.

Not necessarily. This is another 'gray area' in writing.

For instance, Brett Hart wrote everything in the vernacular of his main character, narrative or not, and it worked well for him.

Others target the readers, and still others just write in their own style.

My advice is to use whichever makes you comfortable, so long as you get the story out of your head and written. Worry about the details, later.

:)

@tppm

What do you do with Ms?

Spell it out as "Messes Alice Swanson"!

But that's not how Ms is pronounced. It's closer to, but not exactly "mzzz".

But that's not how Ms is pronounced. It's closer to, but not exactly "mzzz".

The normal pronunciation is just "miz" (IPA: mIz; m as in my, i as in lid, z as in zoo). The "mzzz" version usually only shows up when a character, generally an older male, is being sarcastic.

Sometimes, but not often, you'll see it spelled "Mz.", which I think may be gender neutral.

No, It's supposed to be neutral to marital status (Miss vs Mrs (sorry, not sure of the full spelling)).

Mister is not gender neutral but tells you nothing about a man's marital status.

As to Mz. being gender neutral, have you ever met a man who asked to be addressed as Mz.?

I don't want to disappoint any BDSM fans, but male children too young to be called Mister were called Master. Sometimes young Master Charles. Nicknames were not used, it wouldn't be young Master Chuck, or Bob, or Dick. Ordinarily it would be Butler speak to identify the children of the household as Miss or Master.

I don't want to disappoint any BDSM fans, but male children too young to be called Mister were called Master.

My understanding is that Miss vs Mrs is about marital status and has no age component. A 90 year old spinster would still be Miss.

For master to be equivalent to miss, unmarried men would have to be called master even if they are in their 40s or 50s.

My understanding is that Miss vs Mrs is about marital status and has no age component. A 90 year old spinster would still be Miss.

Yes, but...
The first company I worked for had a simple policy if you couldn't see a wedding ring and didn't know otherwise:
If the woman looked over 25 then you called her Miss because either she is Miss or she probably wished that she were unmarried. If she looked younger you addressed her as Missus because she was married (in those days girls were over the top at 21)or she wished that she was. In all the years I never had any female complain about that - few did put me right but in a friendly manner.

though most people never learned the proper way to pronounce it

Because few women other than militant feminists insist on being referred to as Ms., so few men ever have need to try to pronounce it.

Because few women other than militant feminists insist on being referred to as Ms., so few men ever have need to try to pronounce it.

Where are you? Ms is standard here (in L.A.).

Where are you? Ms is standard here (in L.A.).

South eastern corner of Wisconsin, not far from the Illinois boarder. Very few use Ms around here.

only the archaic form of Mz. is pronounced "Mzz"

Well that finally clinches it. I am archaic. As are a lot of folk I know, and lots of folk I don't know, but have heard speaking.

discovered while doing online research

Wikipedia?

It's more common in the business world

Not in my neck of the woods. I work in corporate IT. I have had two different women for managers over the years, many women as co-workers. A very diverse workplace as well, a lot of first and second generation immigrants from India, Pakistan, China, Russia. Some times it felt like the white guys were a minority.

None of the women I have worked with used Ms.

It was more common years ago, and was never popular in the less well-developed countries.

It was never popular in the mid western US states.

The normal pronunciation is just "miz"

Is there really any normal in today's multi-dialect world? It is certainly not pronounced "miz" where I hail from, but rather the "mzz" that tppm describes.

Is there really any normal in today's multi-dialect world?

Was there ever really any normal?

Was there ever really any normal?

Can't say for sure. Perhaps there was back in Chaucer's day, but maybe it was worse then. I can't say because I wasn't there.

I don't have a lot of understanding of, and hence confidence in, the reconstruction of language pronunciations pre sound recording or dictionaries with phonetics. I suspect the reconstructions are based on proses, or rhythmic structures like rhyming verse, but that would only get you so far, especially with pictographic scripts.

I didn't mean to imply that you were foppish

Thank you for the explanation.

the ideas you were proposing were extremely fickle concepts.

Which ones, specifically, that I proposed?

foppish

Foppish? Really? I'm sorry I started this thread now. I certainly wont be starting another. CW has managed to turn it into a fight. Foppish? Abuse is the refuge of those who have run out of ideas.

CW has managed to turn it into a fight. Foppish? Abuse is the refuge of those who have run out of ideas.

As if calling Americans illiterate isn't abuse.

As if calling Americans illiterate isn't abuse

Gloves off. Grow a brain. Where in this thread has anyone called Americans illiterate?

The ONLY mention like that in this thread is once, referring to those who settled North America, who were at that time probably British.

Come on - show me where the supposed abuse is, apart from in your imagination. Just your saying something doesn't make it so.

Front up!

Its been a long topic, have we discussed okeydokey? I don't know anyone who used it, but I think I heard it a long time ago.

have we discussed okeydokey?

I guess we could but, with the original sentiment of the thread, I would have to point out that dictionaries give it as 'okey dokey' or 'okey-dokey' but not 'okeydokey' :-) Or is it 'och eye doech eh?'

I am going to continue it:

Sadly, that's continuing the diversion, not the main topic ...

Sounds like a major source of politicians!

:D

It's certainly where Donald Trump's hair originated.

And here I thought his hair was cast titanium

The next time you play Bridge, bid No-Trump.

abbreviations and some acronyms (which, contrary to popular opinion, are a different thing, not a sub-type).

Actually, a lot of what people call acronyms are just initialisms. The definition of Acronym may eventually shift to cover initialisms but it isn't universally recognized as doing so yet. To be a proper acronym it has to be pronounceable as a word, otherwise it's just an initialism.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/05/the-difference-between-an-acronym-and-an-initialism/

Actually, a lot of what people call acronyms are just initialisms.

Here I was thinking initialisms were already a subset of acronyms.

According to Webster:
Full Definition of acronym:
a word (as NATO, radar, or laser) formed from the initial letter or letters of each of the successive parts or major parts of a compound term; also: an abbreviation (as FBI) formed from initial letters:

and again:
Definition of initialism:
an abbreviation formed from initial letters.

My geriatric logic sees the latter as a subset of the former, according to Webster at least.

looking to merge the two

Bit past looking to methinks. Webster provides academic evidence that popular usage eventually becomes the reference, at least in the US.

Oxford and New World have not jumped on the bandwagon yet.

I was interested to learn that acronym itself is only 73 years old, and it's changing its meaning already!

It would seem the current Webster's management are looking to merge the two.

Webster's tends to base it's definitions on popular usage. They are constantly combing print and online media for new words or new usages for existing words. They were the first US based dictionary to list ain't.

All Webster's has done is capture the fact that most people don't know what an initialism is and think initialisms are acronyms.

They were the first US based dictionary to list ain't.

That's just wrong. I was taught that 'ain't' ain't a real word!

Are they the same ones who say that an emoji (not the word, but the characters) are words? That's kinda like when the 'artist formerly known as Prince' changed his name to a symbol that the symbol he used was a word.

Are they the same ones who say that an emoji (not the word, but the characters) are words?

Probably. I haven't followed that particular issue, but that strikes me as in line with what they have done on other word use issues.

So they appear to be trying to justify slang and dialect as normal usage.

As to the issue of normal usage, I would tend to agree with Websters. Formal rules may define "proper usage", but "normal usage" is the way the majority of real people speak/write, whether that agrees with the formal rules or not.

Basically, though that isn't the way they would put it.

Webster's core philosophy is that language in general, not just the English language, is defined by the way real people speak and write in every day circumstances, not by formal rules written by some authority.

Yeah, but who gets to decide which group of real people is the one you go with.

Edited:

Simple, the group of real people you go with is everyone. Majority rules. Webster's is focused on US not international English, so it's everyone in the US.

As I said, they are constantly combing all forms of media in the US for word references/usages. I don't know the exact cut off points, but a given word/usage has to his some minimum number of uses / references in a given time frame before they incorporate it. If there are multiple conflicting usages they go with the one with the greatest number of media references.

Yep, that is pretty much it.

then we best get writing and drown the wankers out!

If you can't join em, beat em!

Simple, the group of real people you go with is everyone. Majority rules. Webster's is focused on US not international English, so it's everyone in the US.

So they reckon the Kentucky hillbilly speaks the same as a Cajun in the marshes as the immigrant in Texas as the toff in Hollywood as the professor at Yale. They must be screwed out of their tiny minds

@Dominions Son

Simple, the group of real people you go with is everyone. Majority rules. Webster's is focused on US not international English, so it's everyone in the US.

So they reckon the Kentucky hillbilly speaks the same as a Cajun in the marshes as the immigrant in Texas as the toff in Hollywood as the professor at Yale. They must be screwed out of their tiny minds

IMNSHO if there are conflicts the dictionary entry(s) should be AOTA.

So they reckon the Kentucky hillbilly speaks the same as a Cajun in the marshes as the immigrant in Texas as the toff in Hollywood as the professor at Yale. They must be screwed out of their tiny minds

No, generally to make it in, something must be used enough to go beyond such narrow sub-culture groups.

My geriatric logic sees the latter as a subset of the former, according to Webster at least.

And if you check other dictionaries, you will find that currently, Webster's is the only one that defines acronym and initialism so that initialism is a subset of acronym rather than the other way around.

FBI agent says "I'm Special Agent [fitb] from the FBI."

In a back room, out of earshot of the Special Agent, some says to his companions, "Yo, the feebs [or contrarily, the feds, though that could be any of half a dozen agencies] are here."

With regards to the FBI, that's the initials while its acronym is FeBI and is pronounced Feebee. It would seem the current Webster's management are looking to merge the two.

I have never heard "feebee" I have heard "feeb".

Webster's tends to base it's definitions on popular usage. They are constantly combing print and online media for new words or new usages for existing words. They were the first US based dictionary to list ain't.

All Webster's has done is capture the fact that most people don't know what an initialism is and think initialisms are acronyms.

My understanding is that English language dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive, from the OED on down and from Johnson to the present.

@Dicrostonyx

but I would write "How are you, Mister Smith?", because the character is saying "mister".

What do you do with Ms?

Down here Ms is pronounced Mizz in some cases and Miss in other (personal preference of the person addressed)

On the rare occasions I've heard it spoken it's generally been Mzz (the zz being an extrememly soft u then zzzz). And calling a Ms a Miss is just asking to cop an earful. "If I wanted to be called Miss I'd put that on the form, it's Mzz..."

Both have been around a long time and their meaning is generally understood, but because of their clumsy construction they imply something different than what is intended.

What meaning other than the intended on is implied by ain't?

That's just wrong. I was taught that 'ain't' ain't a real word!

That's an oversimplification, you were probably told that at a young age.

Why is it that when others make tongue-in-cheek remarks everyone seems to catch on? Didn't the double ain't give it away?

Because you left the :) off.

Seriously, I have heard that "ain't" is a contraction of "am not", though I don't remember if I've ever heard where the "i" came from, and it's often used where "isn't" would be correct. So, "I ain't..." is correct usage, while "He ain't..." isn't.

dialectic double contraction

It seems it has also originated from two usages independently. Both from "am not; are not; is not" (to be not), and from "has not; have not etc." (to have not).

Ain'ts are usually married to Uncles.

Sometimes they are married to other ain'ts.

Because you left the :) off.

Don't feel isolated. I suffer from this syndrome constantly.