Surely "domination" and "diplomatic" seeing as science and culture are both victory conditions?
phantuba ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 01:56:45 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Interesting point actually, I was thinking of it in terms of output-per-turn items.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:02:43 on November 19, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
They're also both yields so you're both correct! Hurrah!
LtLabcoat ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:57:03 on December 14, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
diplomatic
Only in Civ5 though.
Code for the previous two games suggest that a Diplomatic Victory was also going to be a possible way to win, but it seems that they were cut from the games for unknown reasons.
Eh, there's dick pics and then there's pics of dicks.
Amunium ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 10:28:57 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
The Danish word of the year 2014 is "MobilePay". That's not even a word, it's the name of a specific mobile app developed by Denmark's largest bank. I don't even…
zgrove ยท -8 points ยท Posted at 01:59:09 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Science and culture are complicated words for you?
Grandy12 ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 02:15:10 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Nah, just too on-the-nose.
me1505 ยท 105 points ยท Posted at 00:00:14 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Because "science" and "culture" didn't exist before the last few years?
The OED is documenting the language as it evolves, and using new words each year that have achieved widespread popularity, such as "vape", "muggle", "selfie" and, in this case, that emoji. Emoji have massively taken off recently with the widespread social media support and smart phones.
Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they aren't becoming widely used and understood.
BiDo_Boss ยท 38 points ยท Posted at 00:21:27 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I agree, but they could have at least used the fucking word "emoji" instead of an actual emoji -_-
me1505 ยท 35 points ยท Posted at 00:22:51 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Well... from a linguistic point of view, it's complicated. There is no universal definition on what a word is, though what most tend to agree on is that it's a spoken, written or signed symbol that conveys meaning. Emoji are part of Unicode, which makes them characters, not pictures. ๐ has a meaning that's stable across cultures with little variation, and it can be used in written or spoken conversation (one could argue that it represents laughter or the depicted facial expression during a conversation). Although ๐ is not what we traditionally think of as a word, it has a stronger connection with signed words. Denying ๐'s word-like characteristics is like denying the word-like characteristics of saluting with the index and middle fingers (a greeting in ASL). Sure, it's not the same as writing down "cheers!" in the Latin alphabet, but it has the same purpose and results.
This is actually a very interesting and somewhat controversial topic that linguists across the world have been discussing over the last few years, and I'm sure /r/linguistics would have something cool to say about it.
Was it really necessary to insult someone over this?
BiDo_Boss ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 00:32:10 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
More people use Scumbag Steve and other memes than they actally say "Scumbag Steve" or even "meme". So, they should make word of the year 2016 a picture of Scumbag Steve...?
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 04:19:08 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Being widely used and understood still doesn't make it a word.
What part of speech is it? A noun? verb? article? adjective?
Languages have specific structures that make them languages. This is why many linguists do not consider the communications employed by great apes and corvids to be "language."
An emoji is a symbol used to represent a nonverbal emotional cue in a verbal-only medium such as texts. It's inferior to poetics and advanced diction in depth, but superior in its immediacy. But it's still a symbol - an illustration of a face - not a word.
Are hieroglyphics not a valid linguistic form of communications either since they are just pictures?
greg19735 ยท 22 points ยท Posted at 00:31:33 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
How can the word science be word of the year though? And culture? They're so boring and I don't see how those words are more important than any other.
[deleted] ยท 80 points ยท Posted at 20:48:18 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
No no no. OED is a perfectly reputable dictionary. The Oxford Dictionary, on the other hand, (notice the word "English" has been omitted) has turned to trash. OED is academic, while OD is about keeping up with the times and new definitions.
waldron76 ยท 106 points ยท Posted at 02:07:05 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
while OD is about keeping up with the times and new definitions
I mean that is literally the point of a dictionary, to document language.
[deleted] ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 02:16:07 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I mean it as in, essentially, a SFW urban dictionary. This is the dictionary where you are likely to find words like "twerking" and "selfie", as opposed to OED which is basically the English essential word list.
[deleted] ยท 61 points ยท Posted at 02:53:39 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Just because a word isn't intellectual doesn't make it any less a word.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:00:31 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
That's not my point. My point is that OED is the dictionary that should be used if you are writing an essay and that the OD is what should be used if you have to find a definition for your friend or grandma real quick.
Well, no? OD won't just drop definitions or alter them all willy-nilly. Either way, we still would like to know why the OD is "trash" as you called it, so far you only gave examples as to why it is superior to its counterparts.
Monarki ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:46:59 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Are you saying there are more technical terms in oed compared to od?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:19:02 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Huh, and here I thought it was to ary diction. Welp, guess I learned something new today.
I don't think that's quite right. There is no such thing as the "Oxford Dictionary." There is the Oxford University Press, and they publish many dictionaries, including the OED (which includes words like "selfie", but then again so does M-W).
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:18:41 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
The dictionary content in Oxford Dictionaries focuses on current English and includes modern meanings and uses of words. Where words have more than one meaning, the most important and common meanings in modern English are given first, and less common and more specialist or technical uses are listed below. The OED, on the other hand, is a historical dictionary and it forms a record of all the core words and meanings in English over more than 1,000 years, from Old English to the present day, and including many obsolete and historical terms. Meanings are ordered chronologically in the OED, according to when they were first recorded in English, so that senses with the earliest evidence of usage appear first and more recent senses appear further down the entry โ like a โfamily treeโ for each word.
Both the OED and Oxford Dictionaries contain a wealth of evidence from real English to show how words are used in context. In the OED each word meaning is illustrated by a set of quotations, spanning perhaps many centuries, from the earliest recorded appearance to the most recent recorded usages. In Oxford Dictionaries, the evidence is derived from the 2.3 billion word Oxford English Corpus, a huge databank of 21st century English, and each word sense in the dictionary is linked to a set of sentences so you can see how people are using the language today.
Ah, I thought it was just OED trying to be relevant in a world where fewer and fewer people actually know the definitions of the words they use and how to spell them without spell check.
Why do dictionaries apparently need to nominate "word of the year" now anyway? This is the first I've heard of this. It seems like an absurd, pointless concept in and of itself, let alone if this sort of thing is the outcome.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:08:29 on December 8, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Not much better than this to be honest. How bland.
[deleted] ยท 62 points ยท Posted at 02:02:56 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Vape and Selfie are fine. At least those are pronounceable words.
Reddit might hate them but they describe very specific and new things to our culture, and thus language must evolve to keep up.
I think their decision may have been intended to sort of cut to the chase on the "text-speak" snowball and just throw up their hands and say "this is what your language is now, and still we will catalog it."
I couldn't say what year it was but sometime in the 90's, doh was the word of the year and I'm fairly certain this was the begining of a long downward trend. At least we didnt get yolo or bae this year. ..
REAL NIGGA HOURS MAKE SURE TO SMASH DAT MF LIKE BUTTON IF YOU UP ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐
If I had a job candidate who put this on their resume, this would 100% help their cause. Not like "get the job" help their cause, but get noticed vs. someone with equal credentials. It'd be a pretty clever thing to claim and shows a sense of humor.
Now with that said, if anyone has this on their resume moving forward then I know they're from Reddit and their resume is going in the trash.
LegoGuy23 ยท 40 points ยท Posted at 19:57:11 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Devil's Advocate:
Well, with the Time PotY, it was a time when the Internet was changing as to give the everyman a platform and a venue to speak his mind and garner interest. I mean, think just a few years before: No Youtube, no Facebook, no Twitter; just simple forum sites.
Gobae ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 03:38:47 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It's also cheesy as shit, which is what annoys people.
Hayarotle ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:44:13 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
I'd argue that the everyman would be able to better speak his mind in his own plataform in pre-facebook internet than in today internet, which is saturated with meaningless content and owned by monopolies.
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ good shit goเฑฆิ sHit๐ thats โ some good๐๐shit right๐๐there๐๐๐ rightโthere โโif i do ฦฝaาฏ so my self ๐ฏ i say so ๐ฏ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ฏ ๐๐ ๐ะO0ะเฌ OOOOOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ฏ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐๐Good shit
[deleted] ยท 359 points ยท Posted at 22:41:21 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
SekondaH ยท 50 points ยท Posted at 22:47:02 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Amazing
GoreFox ยท 94 points ยท Posted at 22:31:42 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
POTENTIALLY sign me the FUCK up ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ average shit moderaฬทฬถte sHit ๐ thats some ALright ๐๐shit right ๐๐ th ๐ ere ๐๐๐ right ๐ there ๐ if i doโฦฝaาฏ soโmy sel๏ฝ๐ i say so ๐ that could be what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ ๐ ๐ ๐๐ะO0ะเฌ ๏ผฏOO๏ผฏOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต ๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐๐Not outstanding shit
Grandy12 ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 00:31:11 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Where did this meme come from and could they have made it more annoying?
๐Daddy๐ be nimble๐ถ๐ป Daddy be quick๐๐ป๐จ Daddy has a rock๐ฟ hard dick ๐๐! 1โฃcummy๐ฆ 2โฃcummy๐ฆ๐ฆ 3โฃcummy๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ 4โฃ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ! Daddy cums๐ฆ so much he can't cum any more๐๐๐! Ghost cummy๐ป๐ฆ Ghost cummy๐ป๐ฆ don't be scaredโ๐โ! There's always more cummies๐ฆ๐ that can be shared๐ฌ! Daddy makes me โsquishyโ Daddy makes me ๐งwet๐งDaddy treats me like his little pet๐๐ฉ๐! Send this to 69 ๐ฏTRUE๐ฏ Daddy's or else you'll ๐ซnever๐ซ get any cummies๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ again ๐ฆ๐ณ๐
Grandy12 ยท 60 points ยท Posted at 01:12:04 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Oh look at that, it could be more annoying.
awall621 ยท 40 points ยท Posted at 01:30:56 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
hey you ๐ฆturkey๐ฆ lurkey slut๐ ๐ . itโs ๐HOEvember๐. you know what that meansโ ๐time๐ to gobble๐ gobble๐ gobble๐ on a big ol๐๐ dick๐๐. back in 1๏ธโฃ4๏ธโฃ9๏ธโฃ2๏ธโฃ, our main bitch๐๐ Christopher Columbus๐ฆ๐ป and those slutty๐๐ pilgrims๐๐ had to ๐ฆ๐ฆcum๐ฆ๐ฆ 2๏ธโฃ Americaโต๏ธโต๏ธโต๏ธโ๏ธ in search๐ต of new dicks to suck๐๐๐. send this to 1๏ธโฃ0๏ธโฃ of your sluttiest pilgrim ๐ฝ๐ฝ bitches or you wonโt get any ๐ฆgravy๐ฆ this year. Get 5๏ธโฃ back and youโre a mashed potato hoe๐๐. get 1๏ธโฃ0๏ธโฃ back and youโre a sexy stuffing slut๐ฝ๐ฝ. happy ๐ฆcock๐ gobbling๐ thursday and get ready for big โผ๏ธBLACKโผ๏ธ dick ๐ ๐ฟFRIDAY๐ ๐ฟ
Hl every1 im new๐๐๐๐!!!!!!! holds up spork thats โ some good๐๐shit๐๐ right๐๐there๐๐๐ my name is katy๐ฏ ๐ฏ but u can call me๐ง๐ง๐ง t3h PeNgU1N oF d00m๐ง๐ง๐ง๐ง ๐ฏ ๐๐ฏ๐ง๐ง๐ง๐ฏ !!!!!!!! lolโฆas u can see๐๐๐ im very randomโโif i do ฦฝaาฏ so my self๐๐๐ ๐ฏ!!!! thats why i came here, 2 meet random ppl like me ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐_โฆ im 13 years old (im mature 4 my age tho!!๐๐๐๐)thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) i like 2 watch invader zim w/ my girlfreind (im bi if u dont like it deal w/it) mMMMMแทะ๐ฏ ๐๐ ๐ะO0ะเฌ OOOOOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ its our favorite tv show!!๐๐๐๐๐! bcuz its SOOOO random!!!!๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ฏ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐๐ shes random 2 of course but i want 2 meet more random ppl =) like they say the more the merrier!!!! lolโฆneways i hope 2 make alot of freinds here so give me lots of commentses!!!! ๐ฏ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐๐Good shit DOOOOOMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <--- me bein random again _^ ๐๐ heheโฆtoodles!!!!! good shit goเฑฆิ sHit๐ thats โ some good๐๐shit right๐๐there๐๐๐
Grandy12 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:50:09 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Thanks
bivsu ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 00:14:36 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
you cnโt see it. but im flipping you off. i am flipping you off with both my hands. im typing this with my middle finger. i am flipping you off right now. flipping you off so hard right now. you canโt see it, which is a true pity, but take my word for it. i am. i am flipping you off right now. because you canโt see it, let me describe it for you. my pinkie and ring fingers are folded down on both hands, a little past the second crease in my hands. my middle fingers are extended. theyโre pointing to the sky. then my thumbs are crossed over my index fingers, also folded down on my hands, but to the freckle on my left hand. my thumb nail on my left hand has a black triangle on it. now, iโm waving my both my hands vigorously, still flipping you off.
My white guy understanding of what black people said before they said fam, mostly informed by the fact that Fresh Prince was on constantly during my childhood.
[deleted] ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 00:52:24 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It originally meant (and still means) โperfect test scoreโ. Most of these originated in Japan, and this was frequently used enough to make it into the Emoji standard.
njm_nick ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:07:59 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
"Keeping something 300" is used like "keep it real" now so whenever ๐ฏ๐ฏ๐ฏ is used, it basically means something is completely true and legitimate like what u/tvor said.
"Keep it 3 hundred" originally came from the Three C's which stand for "Cool, Calm, and Collected." CCC in Roman numerals is 300 hence the repeated emojis.
Edit: switched order of sentences
Edit2: i'm wrong, read the reply from u/noyourenottheonlyone
no thats just something someone on rap genius wrote and fuccbois perpetuate that dumb shit to this day. it was written to try and legitimize kanye west saying "I keep it 300, like the romans". but in actual fact he was just saying that he keeps it 300 (like the movie with the spartans) and nobody in the studio didnt want to be a fact checking choch. keeping it "3 hunna" came from chief keef, another chicago rapper who kanye put in the spotlight when he remixed "i dont like". the 300 block in south chicago is where keef is from.
njm_nick ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:57:23 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Makes complete sense and I have nothing solid to back up what I said. TIL.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:54:30 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ good shit goเฑฆิ sHit๐ thats โ some good๐๐shit right๐๐there๐๐๐ rightโthere โโif i do ฦฝaาฏ so my self ๐ฏ i say so ๐ฏ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ฏ ๐๐ ๐ะO0ะเฌ OOOOOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ฏ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐๐Good shitsauce me the FUCK up ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ cheesy shit cheesy sHit๐ thats โ some cheesy๐๐shit right๐๐th ๐ ere๐๐๐ rightโthere โโif i doโฦฝaาฏ soโmy sel๏ฝ ๐ด i say so ๐ด thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ด ๐๐ ๐ะO0ะเฌ ๏ผฏOO๏ผฏOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ด ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐๐Cheesy shit ๐๐ฉ๐๐ฉ๐๐ฉ๐๐ฉ๐๐ฉ euphoric logic !euphoric loGic๐ thats โ some euphoric๐๐ป logic right๐๐ปthere๐๐๐ Carl ๐ญ Sagan๐๐ซif i do ฦฝaาฏ so gentlemen ๐ฏ i say so ๐ฏ thats euPhoric logic right there Richard ๐ Dawkins๐ฉ (chorus: socrates died for this shit) mMMMMแทะ๐ฏ ๐๐๐ะO0ะเฌ OOOOOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ ๐๐ฉ ๐ ๐ฏ ๐ ๐๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ฉ ๐๐euphoric logic slam me the FUCK uP ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ john cena JOhN cEna๐ john โ cena john๐๐cena john๐๐cena๐๐๐ johnโcena โโu can't see me if I do ฦฝaาฏ so my self ๐ฏ i say so ๐ฏ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ฏ ๐๐ ๐ะO0ะเฌ OOOOOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ฏ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐๐John ceNa POTENTIALLY sign me the FUCK up ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ average shit moderaฬทฬถte sHit ๐ thats some ALright ๐๐shit right ๐๐ th ๐ ere ๐๐๐ right ๐ there ๐ if i doโฦฝaาฏ soโmy sel๏ฝ๐ i say so ๐ that could be what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ ๐ ๐ ๐๐ะO0ะเฌ ๏ผฏOO๏ผฏOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต ๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐๐Not outstanding shit ๐๐ฝ๐๐ฝ๐๐ฝ ayy lmao ayyy lmao good lmao๐ thats โ some ayyy๐๐lamayo right๐๐there๐๐๐ rightโthere โโif i do LMAO so my self ๐ฏ i ayyy so ๐ฏ thats what im probing about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ฏ ๐๐ ๐AAAYYYYyyyyYYYYYyyyyyyสธสธสธสธสธสธสธสธ๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ฏ ๐ ๐ฝ๐ฝ๐ฝ๐๐ayy lmao ๐ธโ๏ธ๐ธโ๏ธ๐ธโ๏ธ๐ธโ๏ธ๐ธโ๏ธ good memes goเฑฆิ mEmes๐ธ thats ๐ซ๐ซsome good๐ธ๐ธmemes right๐ธ๐ธth ๐ธ ere๐ธ๐ธ๐ธ right๐ซthere ๐ซ๐ซif i do ฦฝaาฏ so my sel๏ฝ โโ๏ธ๐๐โโ๏ธ i say so โโ๏ธ๐๐โโ๏ธ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะโโ๏ธ๐๐โโ๏ธ ๐ธ๐ธ ๐ธะO0ะเฌ ๏ผฏOO๏ผฏOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ธ ๐ธ๐ธ ๐ธ โโ๏ธ๐๐โโ๏ธ ๐ธ โ๏ธ โ๏ธ โ๏ธ๐ธ๐ธGood memes ๐ฉ๐๐ฉ๐๐ฉ๐๐ฉ๐๐ฉ๐ bull shit bull sHit๐ฉ thats โ๏ธ some bull๐ฉ๐ฉshit right๐ฉ๐ฉth ๐ฉ ere๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ฉ rightโ๏ธthere โ๏ธโ๏ธif i do ฦฝaาฏ so my sel๏ฝ โผ๏ธ i say so โผ๏ธ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะโผ๏ธ ๐ฉ๐ฉ ๐ฉHO0ะเฌ ๏ผฏOO๏ผฏOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ฉ ๐ฉ๐ฉ ๐ฉ โผ๏ธ ๐ฉ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ฉ๐ฉBull shit do NOT sign me the FUCK up ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ bad shit baฬทฬถ ิ sHit ๐ thats โ some bad ๐๐shit right ๐๐ th ๐ ere ๐๐๐ right โ there โ โ if i do ฦฝaาฏ so my sel๏ฝ๐ซ i say so ๐ซ thats not what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ ๐ซ ๐ ๐๐ะO0ะเฌ ๏ผฏOO๏ผฏOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต ๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ซ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐๐Bad shit ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ good shitposting goเฑฆิ sHitpOsting๐ thats โ some good๐๐shitposting right๐๐there๐๐๐ rightโthere โโif i do ฦฝaาฏ so my self ๐ฏ i say so ๐ฏ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ฏ ๐๐ ๐ะO0ะเฌ OOOOOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ฏ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐๐Good shitposting wife me the FUCK up ๐ญ๐๐ญ๐๐ญ๐๐ญ๐๐ญ๐ gay shit gโy sHit๐ญ thats ๐ some gay๐ญ๐ญshit right๐ญ๐ญth ๐ญ ere๐ญ๐ญ๐ญ right๐there ๐๐if i doโฦฝaาฏ soโmy sel๏ฝ ๐ i say so ๐ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ ๐ญ๐ญ ๐ญะO0ะเฌ ๏ผฏOO๏ผฏOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ญ ๐ญ๐ญ ๐ญ ๐ ๐ญ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ญ๐ญGay shit ๐๐ป๐๐ป๐๐ป๐ป๐ป๐๐ป spooky shit spooky sHit๐ thats โ some spooky๐๐shit right๐๐th ๐ ere๐๐๐ rightโthere โโif i do ฦฝaาฏ so my sel๏ฝ ๐ฏ i say so ๐ฏ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ฏ ๐๐ ๐ะO0ะเฌ ๏ผฏOO๏ผฏOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ฏ ๐ ๐ป๐ป ๐ป ๐๐spooky shit ๐๐ป๐๐ป๐๐ป๐ป๐ป๐๐ป spooky shit spooky sHit๐ thats โ some spooky๐๐shit right๐๐th ๐ ere๐๐๐ rightโthere โโif i do ฦฝaาฏ so my sel๏ฝ ๐ฏ i say so ๐ฏ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ฏ ๐๐ ๐ะO0ะเฌ ๏ผฏOO๏ผฏOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ฏ ๐ ๐ป๐ป ๐ป ๐๐spooky shit ๐๐ป๐๐ป๐๐ป๐ป๐ป๐๐ป spooky shit spooky sHit๐ thats โ some spooky๐๐shit right๐๐th ๐ ere๐๐๐ rightโthere โโif i do ฦฝaาฏ so my sel๏ฝ ๐ฏ i say so ๐ฏ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ฏ ๐๐ ๐ะO0ะเฌ ๏ผฏOO๏ผฏOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ฏ ๐ ๐ป๐ป ๐ป ๐๐spooky shit ๐๐ป๐๐ป๐๐ป๐ป๐ป๐๐ป spooky shit spooky sHit๐ thats โ some spooky๐๐shit right๐๐th ๐ ere๐๐๐ rightโthere โโif i do ฦฝaาฏ so my sel๏ฝ ๐ฏ i say so ๐ฏ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ฏ ๐๐ ๐ะO0ะเฌ ๏ผฏOO๏ผฏOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ฏ ๐ ๐ป๐ป ๐ป ๐๐spooky shit ๐ฆ๐๐ฆ๐๐ฆ๐๐ฆ๐๐ฆ๐ good cummies goเฑฆิ cUmmIes๐ฆ thats โ some good๐ฆ๐ฆcummies right๐ฆ๐ฆthere๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ rightโthere โโif my ๐ชdaddy๐ช say so him self ๐ฝ i say so ๐ฏ thats what hes talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMะ๐ฏ ๐ฆ๐ฆ ๐ฆะO0ะเฌ OOOOOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐ฆ ๐ฆ ๐ฏ ๐ฆ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ฆ๐ฆGood cummies~ friendzone me the FUCK up โค๏ธ๐โค๏ธ๐โค๏ธ๐โค๏ธ๐โค๏ธ m'lady shit m'lady sHitโค๏ธ thats โ some m'lady ๐๐shit rightโค๏ธโค๏ธthere๐๐๐ rightโthere โโif i do ฦฝaาฏ so my self ๐ i say so ๐ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ ๐๐๐ะO0ะเฌ OOOOOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐ โค๏ธ โค๏ธ โค๏ธ ๐ โค๏ธ M'lady shit friendzone me the FUCK up โค๏ธ๐โค๏ธ๐โค๏ธ๐โค๏ธ๐โค๏ธ m'lady shit m'lady sHitโค๏ธ thats โ some m'lady ๐๐shit rightโค๏ธโค๏ธthere๐๐๐ rightโthere โโif i do ฦฝaาฏ so my self ๐ i say so ๐ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ ๐๐๐ะO0ะเฌ OOOOOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐ โค๏ธ โค๏ธ โค๏ธ ๐ โค๏ธ M'lady shit friendzone me the FUCK up โค๏ธ๐โค๏ธ๐โค๏ธ๐โค๏ธ๐โค๏ธ m'lady shit m'lady sHitโค๏ธ thats โ some m'lady ๐๐shit rightโค๏ธโค๏ธthere๐๐๐ rightโthere โโif i do ฦฝaาฏ so my self ๐ i say so ๐ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ ๐๐๐ะO0ะเฌ OOOOOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐ โค๏ธ โค๏ธ โค๏ธ ๐ โค๏ธ M'lady shit ๐ด๐ ๐ด๐ ๐ด๐ ๐ด๐ ๐ด๐ old shit 0ld sHit๐ด thats ๐พ some old๐ด๐ดshit right๐ด๐ดth ๐ด ere๐ด๐ด๐ด right๐พthere ๐พ๐พif i do ฦฝaาฏ so my sel๏ฝ ๐ i say so ๐ฅ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ ๐ด๐ด ๐ดะO0ะเฌ ๏ผฏOO๏ผฏOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ด ๐ด๐ด ๐ด ๐ฃ ๐ด ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ด๐ดOld shit ๐๐ฟ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐๐ฟ๐ good dick goเฑฆิ dIck๐๐ฟ thats โ some good๐๐ฟ๐๐ฟdick right๐๐ฟ๐๐ฟthere๐๐ฟ๐๐ฟ๐๐ฟ rightโthere โโif i do ฦฝaาฏ so my self ๐ฏ i say so ๐ฏ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ฏ ๐๐ฟ๐๐ฟ ๐๐ฟะO0ะเฌ OOOOOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐๐ฟ๐๐ฟ๐๐ฟ๐๐ฟ ๐ฏ ๐๐ฟ ๐๐๐ ๐๐ฟ๐๐ฟGood dick ๐๐ช ๐๐ช๐๐ชedgy shit edgY sHit ๐ชthats ๐ซsome edgy๐๐ shit right ๐ชth๐ช ere๐๐๐ right there ๐ฌ๐ฌif i doโฦฝaาฏ soโmy sel๏ฝ ๐ซi say so ๐ซ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ซ ๐ช๐ช๐ชะO0ะเฌ ๏ผฏOO๏ผฏOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ช๐ช๐ช ๐ซ ๐๐ ๐ช๐ช Edgy shit ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ cool pic coเฑฆl pIC๐ ๐๐๐thats โ some cool๐๐๐๐pic right๐๐๐there๐๐๐๐๐ rightโthere โ๐โif i do ฦฝaาฏ so ๐๐my self ๐ฏ i say so ๐ฏ thats what im talking about right ๐there right there (chorus:cool pic ) mMMMMแทะ๐ฏ ๐๐ ๐ ๐๐ะO0ะเฌ OOOOOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐ฏ ๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐Cool pic ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ neato stuff neatเฑฆ stuff๐ thats โ some neato๐๐stuff right๐๐there๐๐๐ rightโthere โโif i do ฦฝaาฏ so my self ๐ฏ i say so ๐ฏ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ฏ ๐๐ ๐ะO0ะเฌ OOOOOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ฏ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐๐neato stuff ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ up votes uP voTes ๐thats โ some up ๐๐ votes front ๐๐page ๐๐๐rightโthere โโif i do vote so my self ๐ I vote so ๐ thats what im talking about front page front page (chorus: แถ สณแตแถฐแต แตแตแตแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ ๐๐๐ ะO0ะเฌ OOOOOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐๐ Up vote
007meow ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:53:00 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Needs more fam.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:38:38 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Yup. Darkman. Sam Raimi wanted to do a comic book movie, but he couldn't secure the rights to one, so he made up his own.
dumb_ ยท 2643 points ยท Posted at 18:36:37 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
aka Oxford Dictionary Struggles Desperately to Remain Relevant
arkhony ยท 474 points ยท Posted at 21:10:44 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
OED is relevant exactly for this reason. Dictionaries are not about documenting how well-bred and well-educated people talk when they want to sound smarter than the pleb, they're about listing the words that are being used by English-speaking people, no matter the context.
Edit: many people replied saying it's not a word, and that's honestly a very interesting question. Saying it's an image is not enough โ people at OED acknowledge that it's a pictograph, and those aren't uncommon in natural languages (think Egyptian hieroglyphs, Chinese pictogramsโฆ). It's weird cause English is usually written with an alphabet, but when you think about it that emoji is not very different from a hieroglyph, it's an image that conveys a meaning. Then again, lots of symbols are already used that way โ are they words too? Or just signs/symbols/whatever? What's the difference? And where's the limit between the two? I really don't have the answers, I'm not a specialist, all I know is that those are complicated questions that involve lots of grey areas.
[deleted] ยท 77 points ยท Posted at 22:46:41 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
However, it's hard to call this a word. Unless OED are planning on appending the Unicode description strings for every character, including an emoji in the dictionary seems a bit odd
One could argue it's a particle like "ne" or "da" in Japanese. It doesn't have any meaning of itself, but it modifies the meaning of other text and with enough context it can substitute entire chunks of dialogue.
Technically, there isn't a universal definition on what constitutes a word. ๐ญ is used by itself to convey a meaning, and can be used in spoken conversation by making that face, so under some definitions it has the same validity as kanji.
How are emoji different from kanji? They're a somewhat abstract representation of a material concept to convey a meaning that is universally accepted by the culture of its users. What makes ๐ different from ้ญ?
an emoji is actually heaps more communicative, anyone, in the whole world, looking at ๐ knows it's a fish, no matter their language, unless somehow they've managed to avoid ever seeing or hearing about fish lol
And that's exactly my point! Everyone understands emoji; that's literally what they were designed for. Why see them as lesser words when they actually break the language barrier?
First, everyone understands 1 emoji on its own. Once you start to combine them together to make a sentence that becomes very debateable, especially when people will take their own language's grammatical sentence structure to try and build up the picture, which won't make sense in another language.
Second, it's not accessible, you can't just bring up a fish on any device without knowing thousands of altcodes and even then you don't know if it can be parsed by whatever you're reading it in.
Third, if you aren't using an electronic device, it becomes a game of pictionary and entirely depends on your ability to draw. Sometimes when I'm abroad I try to draw things, but it's really hard in drawing to convey an idea like "Can I eat this food raw or do I need to cook it?" Pictionary only exists in the first place because we all know drawing stuff is an inefficient method of conveying a meaning.
Fourth, you can't read that symbol. You can say "it's a fish", but in French you'd say "c'est un poisson". A great deal of our communication is done orally, these are useless and time wasting for things like that.
Fifth, it doesn't work for any words with any level of abstractism or basic complexity. You can't do a symbol that shows you mean a carp, salmon, tuna or trout. And you can't make an emoji that obviously means something like pride, feelings. You especially can't describe niche things like scientific terms.
They aren't lesser words, they aren't words. They don't fit into grammar, they aren't defined in our alphabet, they don't belong to specific languages. They're pictures. There's nothing wrong with them serving a purpose as a picture, but to conflate them with words is ridiculous.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:32:03 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Written Chinese is pictographic, but that doesn't mean Chinese characters are akin to smiley faces. The characters are symbols standing for concepts that can be agreed upon. Smiley faces don't convey the same category of information.
This: "ๅฅฝ" is derived from a picture, whereas this "โบ" is a picture.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 03:19:10 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
There is no line of demarcation, why is the Chinese characters appropriately abstract and the smiley not?
Alex_Rose ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 03:24:21 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
Because the left one isn't a picture of a girl, it's a combination of the radical for a woman and the radical for a child, neither of which look like their original subject, but the right one is just a picture of a face that doesn't have stroke order or standardisation.
You can use the left one to make hybrid words, and it can take on a whole other meaning. The right one will only ever convey one meaning.
You can read the left one out loud as a word made of syllables. You can only describe the right one.
The left one belongs to a language. The right one doesn't. Even if you were to describe the right one, you would describe it using completely different sounds in another language.
Hudston ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:25:47 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
If anything, wouldn't an emoji be more like a form of punctuation than a word? The meaning of an emoji in a sentence feels a little closer to that of an exclaimation or question mark than a single word or phrase.
garboooo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:06:45 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I don't see how a picture of a smiley face is punctuation.
Hudston ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 08:08:02 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
I didn't say it was. I said it was "more like" punctuation than a word.
garboooo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:52:41 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It's not even similar to punctuation, it readily takes the place of words
Hudston ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 09:29:51 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
So an emoji that implies a sentence is meant angrily or excitedly isn't even slightly similar to how "!" implies a strong feeling behind a sentence? I mean, they're most often used at the end of a sentence to inform an intention or emotion behind it that we don't currently have a symbol for. For example, some of the most common uses I see is the use of ๐ to indicate light hearted sarcasm or ๐ to indicate that a sentence is meant less seriously than it could seem.
garboooo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:53:04 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
They can be used like that, but so can lol or haha or stuff like that.
Alex_Rose ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 03:40:12 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It isn't part of any language, it isn't made up of the symbols that the language is made up of, it doesn't have a set pronunciation, you can't use it with the grammar of a language, you can't reliably use it to make compound words, you can't conjugate it, you can't decline it, you can't tell tense from it, or plurality, you can't write it if you can't draw, there's no standardised form of it, it can't convey anything particularly abstract or complex, it's open to interpretation, when you add multiple together it no longer clearly conveys a message (and you'll probably try to express ideas in the grammar of your own language which won't translate to other languages), you can't guarantee any particular program or device can parse it, and you can't type it on all devices of your language.
It's not a word.
garboooo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:02:03 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
All of that was, it's not part of a traditional language. So what?
Right, but hiragana, katakana and kanji aren't words. Combinations of them are words. A kanji on its own is not a piece of vocabulary, it's just a symbol that can make up words. A lot of words are only one kanji, but that's analogous us having "I" and "a" are words but they're still letters.
Kanji are all made of radicals that all have a stroke order, and aren't just drawings of the object like a smiley face is. You can combine kanji to make words that aren't to do with the original meaning of the base word, like in English.
Each kanji has an on-yomi and kun-yomi reading, and every hiragana and katakana has a set reading. You can read them out loud and convey their meaning to a deaf person and you can use them with grammar to build sentences. When you put them together, there is no ambiguation, they form words. When you put multiple smileys together, it means whatever you might be trying to say, which is massively open to interpretation.
garboooo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:01:30 on November 19, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
A lot of combinations of words are open to interpretation. Just because it's an abstract form of meaning and symbolism doesn't mean it isn't a word. I mean, obviously the OED, which basically controls the English language, agrees with me.
Alex_Rose ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:32:08 on November 19, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
The OED's definition of a word:
A single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed
You can't form a sentence with emoji, isn't distinct and isn't an element of speech or handwriting.
1.1 A single distinct conceptual unit of language, comprising inflected and variant forms.
Emoji don't have variant forms, can't be declined, can't be conjugated and aren't a constitutent part of any language or uniform.
The OED definition of "word" doesn't agree with you.
Also in the OED:
Emoji
A small digital image or icon used to express an idea or emotion in electronic communication
The OED calls an emoji an image or icon, not a word.
Letter
A character representing one or more of the sounds used in speech; any of the symbols of an alphabet:
Whereas it calls letters a symbol or a character.
Kanji
A system of Japanese writing using Chinese characters, used primarily for content words. Compare with kana.
And it calls kanji words. Meanwhile:
Kana
The system of syllabic writing used for Japanese, having two forms, hiragana and katakana. Compare with kanji.
It calls the kana syllabic writing.
Hiragana
The more cursive form of kana (syllabic writing) used in Japanese, primarily used for function words and inflections.
Hiragana, used for words.
Katakana
The more angular form of kana (syllabic writing) used in Japanese, primarily used for words of foreign origin. Compare with hiragana.
Katakana, used for words.
None of these are comparible to their definition of emoji.
Even hieroglyphs:
A stylized picture of an object representing a word, syllable, or sound, as found in ancient Egyptian and certain other writing systems
Talk about them in terms of syllables and words and the language they belong to, which emoji are not.
garboooo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:39:33 on November 19, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
This post is OED making an emoji their word of the year, did you forget that?
Yes, but the whole point of this argument is clearly some of us think that it's a contradiction.
You don't have to blindly accept every press statement they issue when it goes in very obvious direct contradiction to their own definition of the word "word". It wouldn't be in this subreddit in the first place if there wasn't a problem with that.
This is just a statement from the OED saying "Hey, emoji are becoming a bigger part of our culture and will continue to grow".
If they were actually behind this, they would also add :) :( ;) :D xD :3 etc. etc. to the dictionary. But clearly they aren't doing that, because this is nothing more than a gesture on their behalf.
On top of that, even though some social media team at OED decided to do this meaningless statement, I doubt they will even add this to any of their future dictionaries, how are they even going to print that? See if there are emoji in your dictionary next year, I'll bet you a tenner there aren't.
garboooo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:14:33 on November 19, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Except those emoticons aren't part of the English language, they have no dictionary to belong to. Same with emojis, they're universal words
Not according to the OED's definitions of the word "word" or "emoji".
I accept their dictionary definitions over the whims of their social media team, sorry. It's their dictionary that's a high quality source and world renowned, not their blog.
garboooo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:23:39 on November 19, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Name an emoji that's a distinct element of speech or writing, and is used with others to form a sentence.
In fact, even the very smallest criteria at the end "typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed" isn't even true, because A. They aren't written, and B. when you put multiple emoji after each other you don't use spaces.
So you could say "I am very very very happy", but you'd say "[:D][:D][:D]" (where those are emoji), not with spaces.
Literally none of the conditions match, and their definition of the word emoji doesn't state it to be a word or anything similar.
But there's no point even discussing this with you anymore, you've obviously already made up your mind and you aren't going to convince me that the dictionary is wrong.
garboooo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:46:01 on November 19, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
First, typing is a form of writing. Second, it says "typically," not always. Third, not all words have to be formed with other words. "Okay." is a grammatically correct sentence. Fourth, every emoji is a distinct element of writing, read:typing.
Nobody is saying the dictionary is wrong. I'm saying your interpretation of the dictionary is wrong.
Alex_Rose ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:58:13 on November 19, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
Another question before I carry on correcting you. Do you think any of these are words?
โซxยฒdx = xยณ/3+c
I used symbols to convey meaning. They're all distinct elements. I can even write those physically, hell I can pronounce them too, and I can combine them to create more meaning. Does that mean these are words?
Point 2:
Yes, it does say typically, but I was just pointing out it doesn't even fill the optional criteria so you're reaching.
Point 3:
The definition of word here includes that:
A single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed
It can be used "alone" to form a sentence..
":D" is not a sentence. Literally in the definition of the word "word" it specifies it has to be able to form a sentence. Emoji can't.
Point 1 & 4:
Writing in the OED:
A sequence of letters, words, or symbols marked on a surface.
"Mark" in the OED as a verb:
Make a visible impression or stain on
"Impression" in the OED:
A mark impressed on a surface:
"Impress" in the OED:
Apply (a mark) to something with pressure:
"Stain" in the OED:
A coloured patch or dirty mark that is difficult to remove
A penetrative dye or chemical used in colouring a material or object.
I think you'll agree that you don't impress an emoji with pressure, dye or use a dirty mark.
Typing (the noun) isn't a form of writing (the noun, which we're talking about).
Typing
Writing produced by typing
five pages of typing
^ Note, physical pages of typing.
unless you print it off with a printer. Emoji are sent digitally and isn't a uniform specification, it isn't writing, according to the OED's definition of writing in any possible interpretation using the other definitions of the words in the sentence.
And it isn't a member of speech either.
Again, it fails all the criteria.
garboooo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:04:53 on November 20, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
":D," though not an emoji, can absolutely be a sentence. It's more abstract than English sentences, sure, but it's not invalid in common use.
So an emoji is a word if you print it out. That distinction is pretty pedantic
Alex_Rose ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:11:24 on November 20, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
":D" is not a sentence.
A set of words that is complete in itself, typically containing a subject and predicate, conveying a statement, question, exclamation, or command, and consisting of a main clause and sometimes one or more subordinate clauses.
It doesn't convey a command, question, doesn't have a clause, isn't a set of words, doesn't have a subject, doesn't have a predicate, and is completely ambiguous as to whether it's supposed to be interpreted as a statement or an exclamation.
You can't "write" an emoji, that's why it's not "writing". If I print a photograph of a horse, that isn't writing, it's an image. If you print a png, that isn't writing.
Again, it isn't a member of speech, it isn't writing, it can't form sentences.
Also I edited my thing but you haven't seen it yet:
Do you think any of these are words?
โซex +x4 dx > ex +x5 /5+c+i2, x=โ.
I used symbols to convey meaning. They're all distinct elements. I can even write those physically, hell I can pronounce them too, and I can combine them to create more meaning. Hell I can even read that out loud as a sentence and any other English person who knows maths will say the same thing, unlike emoji which are open to interpretation. Does that mean these are words?
Or this:
int x = y%36?f(y):0;
Are those now words?
garboooo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:17:57 on November 20, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It's like you don't know what 'typically' means. It conveys a statement or exclamation. The difference between those two is fairly vague even in English, and really is just solved with punctuation (":D" is a statement, ":D!" is an exclamation).
You're backpedaling on your own arguments. You brought up definitions of writing, those applied to printing words, then you re claiming it's not a word and therefore printing isn't writing, in order to argue that an emoji isn't a word. It's a cyclical argument. "It's not a word because it's not written because it's not a word."
Math is called a language for a reason, yes I do believe those a words, in the language of mathematics. It's abstract, yes. It's not in English, obviously. But it fits the definition
Alex_Rose ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:26:39 on November 20, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
Nonsense, ":D" can be interpreted as "I am happy" or "Hooray!" without any punctuation.
ONE of my arguments is that neither the definition of sentence nor word allow emoji unless you're making a positive assumption. ONE of the arguments, and the only one you have even a slight argument on, but the other 3 arguments you're avoiding still defy it.
No, fam, an integral sign is not a fucking word, neither is a fourth exponent, neither is e, neither is a division symbol, neither is a real symbol, neither is an imaginary number symbol, they are symbols, not words, only a disingenuous moron would try and convince themselves of that because it would invalidate their dumb emoji argument.
Likewise, I added some code up there. Code makes up a programming language. However, the components aren't words because they don't make sentences.
Maths isn't a language. Maths has a language that we use to express it, it isn't a language in itself. It's a language because it's a vocabulary of symbols with grammar, syntax and discourse. It isn't made of words.
And your "typically" evasion doesn't work because this:
A set of words that is complete in itself, typically containing a subject and predicate, conveying a statement, question, exclamation, or command, and consisting of a main clause and sometimes one or more subordinate clauses.
lies outside that clause.
A sentence includes a main clause.
A clause is a group of words that contains a verb
Emoji aren't verbs fam. Sorry to disappoint you, but emoji can't make sentences because they can't make clauses because they aren't verbs.
garboooo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:36:42 on November 20, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
By that argument, "Okay." is not a sentence, even though you said it was. So either I'm right and you're wrong, or we're both wrong.
Alex_Rose ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:48:55 on November 20, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
I actually didn't think "Okay" was fair to be interpreted as a sentence in the first place but I didn't pull you up on it because I thought that was being overly pedantic.
"Okay" can just about get away with being interpreted as a colloquial sentence because saying "Okay" implies a verb (as in "[That is] okay"), but grammatically it isn't a valid sentence.
I wasn't sure if my primary school teachers who said a sentence required a clause were being overzealous like with "i before e except after c", but yeah, I'll happily admit that that I was wrong to accept what you said without looking it up first, but that's neither here nor there. That was an aside to appease you, it's a complete red herring and a detraction from the actual discussion we've been having for the last 20 posts. I have absolutely no investment in the argument "'Okay' is a sentence", in fact I'm glad it's not, it makes my actual point a lot easier.
My point is that emojis aren't words according to the OED's own rules and every other dictionary. And unless you disagree with:
The OED definition of sentence.
The OED definition of word.
The OED definition of writing.
Then you're definitely wrong. And I'd like to remind you that in your effort to string together an argument here you suggested maths symbols are words, which I think is just a intellectually dishonest grasp at a straw to try and hold onto a bad point you're too heavily invested in.
Cheers, bye.
garboooo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:52:36 on November 20, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Your entire argument is based in logical fallacies and pedantism
Point out the logical fallacies. "Pedantry" as a counter argument is an ad hominem, there's yours. You just made no arguments pertaining to the actual point and cited no examples, that's another red herring fallacy.
Besides that, you're arguing I'm being too pedantic in an argument about dictionary definitions. The definitions are the entire crux of the discussion we're having.
The argument, "An emoji is a word because it can't be used to build a sentence (among other things) and a word by definition must be able to build a sentence" is not pedantic. If you can refute that go ahead, but considering your entire argument rests upon the idea "the OED put out a blog post so it must be true" (which is an appeal to authority anyway, a logical fallacy) meanwhile their actual dictionary which is a reputable, referenceable source contradicts that, it's a pretty weak argument.
garboooo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:56:56 on November 20, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I'm too tired to sift through your bullshit anymore, you clearly know nothing about language.
Your interpretation of the definitions is wrong. There is an interpretation where an emoji is a word, and the OED clearly agrees with that interpretation, since they have said an emoji is a word. End of discussion.
Alex_Rose ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:23:39 on November 20, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
I'm too tired
"I can't be bothered to read this but I'll downvote it" is not an argument, it's completely facile. 3 comments in a row I've tried to get any points out of you now and you've only been able to defer, you haven't been able to give anything.
You haven't got a single interpretation that manages to prove it's a word from the dictionary definitions, all you have is a blog post.
As for my knowledge of language, I speak conversational Japanese and French and do business in Japan semi regularly, I know Lithuanian grammar but my vocabulary is weak, I studied 5 years of Latin and Ancient Greek, and although I took Physics over English for higher education I still got 23 marks above an A* in English Language. I can't claim to have a degree or anything but to say I'm clueless when we're literally arguing just dictionary definitions is pretty facile.
Also I would never claim programming languages or knowing maths are anything relevant to linguistics or language at all, but since a minute ago you were claiming mathematical symbols were words and programming languages and maths were "languages", if you're going to call me unqualified to speak on this, I'm at least demonstrably qualified in physics, maths and code so if you're considering them languages as you did before I by your definition know 9 extra languages. I also call bullshit on that and I believe I'm allowed to if we're judging each other on credentials.
Again, a second ago you called out a logical fallacy, now you're just arguing ad hominems because you have no more points to make. Also what exactly are your credentials? You read a blog? Again, argument from authority is a logical fallacy, this information is not too obfuscated for either of us to understand.
"Your interpretation is wrong". I interpreted everything using their own definitions.
If you can unravel the logic of:
Word
A single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others to form a sentence.
Sentence
A set of words that is complete in itself, typically containing a subject and predicate, conveying a statement, question, exclamation, or command, and consisting of a main clause and sometimes one or more subordinate clauses.
Clause
A clause is a group of words that contains a verb.
An emoji cannot form a group of words or be a verb, so it cannot becoming a set of words that has a clause, i.e. a sentence, therefore it can't be described as a word.
And, again, I'll point out that that was the last thread of your argument remaining, as every "optional" part of the definition it also failed to qualify for, e.g. it's not a part of speech, it's not part of writing according to the OED definition though I don't mind dropping that point, and we already established they don't fulfil any of the "typical" criteria even though I'm well aware they aren't obligatory.
The point is, you haven't made a single point that indicates they're words other than "that blog post said so". The blog post that contradicts their actual dictionary. You couldn't provide a good reason why code and mathematical symbols aren't considered words but an emoji is.
You forced me to use the OED definitions as the crux of your argument. Using other dictionary definitions I could completely destroy its ability to be considered a word, but I used that since your whole argument is "OED is the authority".
You refuse to acknowledge that emoji don't belong to a languages, unlike every other word that isn't a proper noun that exists, that they can't be used in speech, that they can't be conjugated or declined, that they don't have case, tense, form or gender, that they are completely open to interpretation, that they can't make compound words, that they can't express complex or abtract meanings, that they can't be reliably parsed or that they can't be reliably written without being an artist (a feature of pictures not words).
Those are all arguments for why it isn't a word, and you won't let me use them because your whole argument is "but.. but the OED blog!". Meanwhile I just used the god damn OED to extensively show you have no leg to stand on and you're still trying to argue? There is no interpretation in there that agrees with you. You haven't been able to demonstrate one at all, and you haven't been able to disprove most of my points, the nearest you can get is to say that one point is impossible to make because it's circular and another is pedantic. The rest of your arguments rely on "but those things aren't NECESSARY to be a word", but every one of them has stacked up, none of the "optional things that make a word" count for emoji. You've made zero counter arguments and now you physically can't show that an emoji can make a sentence because it can't be a verb and it can't form a clause. You have no leg left to stand on.
Your argument "OED say so, so it's true" (which is a terrible argument from authority, again, a logical fallacy, which is fun because you told me I was arguing fallacies and yet haven't managed to point out a single one where I've pointed out 5 of yours without even trying) is demonstrably false, because the OED definition of the word "word" requires that it can be combined to form a sentence, which requires that it can form a clause. Which it can't.
QED, your hypothesis is disproven. I've supplied all the evidence and it isn't open to interpretation, there's no rebuttal.
Feel free to stop replying now so I can get on with my life instead of arguing with someone who can't make any arguments but still wants to participate.
garboooo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:53:54 on November 20, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
"Your interpretation of the definitions are wrong, and here's confirmation from the writers of the definitions."
"No it isn't, I used the definitions."
"But your interpretations of the definitions are wrong, and here's confirmation from the writers of those definitions."
"No, here are the definitions, therefore you're wrong."
"I'm not putting up with this anymore, I've already proven my argument."
Addressing your points below, because my point was that I chose to restrict myself to the OED because you fallaciously say no other dictionary counts. I was showing you that the OED definition 1 doesn't even allow the word "word", but now I'll include for you definition 1.1 and definitions from all reputable dictionaries. Like, I've been being nice to you and playing by your stupid imposed rules just to show you that even with your ridiculous restrictions your argument doesn't make sense, but now let's just bring out everything.
Then I'll address your shitty argument here.
So first:
OED Definition 1.1
A single distinct conceptual unit of language, comprising inflected and variant forms.
It doesn't have inflected or variant forms.
Dictionary.com
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 blackยทbirdยท from blackยท birdยท. Words are usually separated by spaces in writing, and are distinguished phonologically, as by accent, in many languages.
Emoji don't belong to a language, don't consist of a spoken sound or its written representation, aren't a principal carrier of meaning. They aren't composed of morphemes, can't consist of multiples. They can't be distinguished phonologically. (And, again, aren't separated by spaces but that's "usually").
Merriam-Webster
a sound or combination of sounds that has a meaning and is spoken or written
something that is said
speech sound or series of speech sounds that symbolizes and communicates a meaning usually without being divisible into smaller units capable of independent use
a written or printed character or combination of characters representing a spoken word
Emoji aren't spoken so they clearly breach all of these definitions.
Collins
one of the units of speech or writing that native speakers of a language usually regard as the smallest isolable meaningful element of the language, although linguists would analyse these further into morphemes
They don't belong to a language and aren't units of speech or made of morphemes.
Websters
The definition of a word is a letter or group of letters that has meaning when spoken or written.
It isn't made of letters.
a speech sound, or series of such sounds, serving to communicate meaning and consisting of at least one base morpheme with or without prefixes or suffixes; unit of language between the morpheme and the sentence
It isn't a speech sound, it isn't made of morphemes, it's not a unit of language.
Etymology Online
Old English word "speech, talk, utterance, sentence, statement, news, report, word," from Proto-Germanic *wurdan (cognates: Old Saxon, Old Frisian word, Dutch woord, Old High German, German wort, Old Norse orรฐ, Gothic waurd), from PIE *were- (3) "speak, say"
Very clearly derives from it being spoken. Which an emoji isn't.
Cambridge
a โsingle โunit of โlanguage that has โmeaning and can be โspoken or written
It isn't a unit of language, it can't be spoken. We can fight on interpretation there but "or" implies "can be [either] spoken or written"
And now back to your argument.
Your interpretation of the definitions are wrong, and here's confirmation from the writers of the definitions
Writers of the organisation's blog.
No it isn't, I used the definitions from your chosen source.
Which I did
But your interpretations of the definitions are wrong
There's no such thing as an interpretation of a statement. If I say "Dogs are mammals", you can't misinterpret that. There's no element of interpretation to "words have to build up sentences", which emoji can't.
The writers of the blog didn't address the problem of their definition.
No, here are the definitions, therefore you're wrong
Yes, statement, proof that you can't refute.
I'm not putting up with this anymore, I've already proven my argument."
But you haven't because as you literally just pointed out, I gave you the definitions as proof and you can't refute it.
See that proves you're wrong."
Which it does, unless you can refute it. Also refute every other dictionary please.
garboooo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:14:42 on November 20, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
There's no such thing as an interpretation of a statement
Ah, I didn't realise you were retarded, my apologies
I meant an unambiguous, factual statement. There's no way to way to misinterpret, "Unit that makes up a sentence".
And way to avoid the maths symbol argument, the fact that the OED's two definitions disagree with you and the fact that every other dictionary disagrees with you.
I can't tell if you've realised you're wrong yet but you have too much pride/dislike for me to admit it or whether you're actually that delusional that even with a massively overwhelming argument against your point you still hold to it.
garboooo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:53:07 on November 21, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Your entire argument has been backpedaling, misinterpreting, and ignoring. There's no point trying to prove my argument anymore, I mean, I already have and you just ignore it became it doesn't agree woth you. So I'm done. If you're egotistical enough to consider that a win for you I couldn't care less.
Alex_Rose ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:59:08 on November 21, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
entire argument
One argument was what you argued to be circular logic, I omitted that from my argument. Misinterpretation, you could argue the idea that typing is not writing was misinterpretation, I also omit that argument.
Ignoring, I'm not ignoring, I've addressed every single line you've made in every post. Each one of my posts has responded to everything you've brought up, meanwhile you just reply little 2 sentence snipes instead of making an actual point. I don't think you even tried to make an argument in the last maybe 6-7 posts. You meanwhile just ignored 6 dictionary definitions and in several posts literally stated you're ignoring.
I already have
Your entire point has been "the OED blog says it's right and they must know what they're talking about". Every other dictionary and the OED itself demonstrably disagrees with this. I've shown that their two definitions unquestionably disagree, you are completely unable to show that Emoji don't defy the definition of "word" in the context of them building sentences, and you can't refute the other dictionaries.
If your argument is so great, why can't you address any of my points? Why are you sidestepping and ignoring them? If you really believe you're right and if you can make the mental gymnastic in your head of believing you're right, actually step up to it and provide some counter arguments or (realistically) just admit that you're wrong. Not to me, but to yourself. It's like, actually pathetic, and I mean it in the "evoking sympathy" way, not the critical way, that you seriously can't bear to lose an argument that you've clearly lost.
I don't know how unfathomably terrible you must be to have around if you can be this shitty about an argument where you have no leg to stand on, what must you be like in every other situation? I can't imagine having to know your unreasonable ass in real life, I pity your coworkers and friends.
I don't consider it a win for me, I consider it delusion for you that you still think you're right.
garboooo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:01:18 on November 21, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
They don't disagree, at all. You claim to have replied to every line but you never bothered to actually challenge my argument, you just spewed the same demonstrably incorrect interpretation of a definition. If anyone is delusional it's you
Alex_Rose ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:07:47 on November 21, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
Demonstrate it's incorrect then.
You just said demonstrably, that's a positive statement, you need proof for a positive statement.
Demonstrate that this logic is flawed:
Word
A single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others to form a sentence
Sentence
A set of words that is complete in itself, consisting of a main clause and sometimes one or more subordinate clauses.
Clause
A clause that can form a complete sentence standing alone, having a **subject* and a predicate.
An emoji can't be a subject or a predicate or be combined to make a clause, so it can't make a sentence, so it isn't a word.
Definition 1.1:
A single distinct conceptual unit of language, comprising inflected and variant forms.
It's not a part of any language and doesn't comprise inflected and variant forms.
So go on, demonstrate I'm wrong. Your argument "the OED blog said so" is an argument from authority which is a logical fallacy. It's clear the people running the social media account were just trying to be progressive and didn't actually look to check if it matched their own definition of the word "word", and if you're going to argue that the OED's blog is the only source you accept (even above the fucking DICTIONARY) then I therefore proceed to accept the other 6 dictionaries as sources, all of which definitely say you're completely wrong.
That is my challenge to your argument which I've repeated. The OED blog is not a reliable source when their dictionary disagrees with them. For you to reestablish them as a reliable source, the crux of your argument, you have to demonstrate that their dictionary doesn't contradict their blog.
And even after you do that I'm going to counter with "I'm going to agree with the other 6 dictionaries over the OED". I mean, this is just the fucking warmup lol. This is breaking down your argument on your own terms. As soon as you actually make your argument valid on your own terms I'm going to start arguing that your whole argument relying on OED as "the only source of info" is fucking stupid. But I don't think you actually WILL manage to make your argument valid because I don't see how it's physically possible unless you can pull some great magic other interpretation out of the air since you say my interpretation's wrong. What's your counter interpretation?
Like, you're still here, you're still fucking arguing. If you're still going to waste both of our time replying to my comments, actually fucking respond to my points instead of just making disparaging remarks and avoiding the argument, because I'm not going away until you make a counter argument, admit you're wrong or stop replying entirely.
garboooo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:20:02 on November 21, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Ignoring every time I already have shown that I'm right, exactly like I said. There's no point doing it again because you'll reply with basically the same comment and completely ignore what I said, just like you've already done several times.
If your interpretation exists, it's easier for you to just restate it clearly here instead of saying "oh but u ignored my interpretation" 8 comments in a row, and it'll save us a lot of time.
If your "interpretation" is, "The OED blog said it's a word", that isn't an interpretation of the text we're talking about. That's a statement that I'm already aware of and I have already discussed (fallacy by appeal to authority, an authority who contradicts themselves in their own definition).
I'm asking you to actually interpret the words in the dictionary differently to how I am. I'm not asking you to quote the OED's offshoot blog post where they don't talk about the dictionary definition at all, I'm asking you to look at those OED definitions and tell me how an emoji can be interpreted as forming a sentence with a subject/predicate clause.
And once you do that, I'll happily accept it as a valid argument.
But until then, repeating, "MY ARGUMENT EXISTS I'M JUST NOT GOING TO SAY IT AGAIN" is a complete non-point. You've had plenty of opportunity to state it and I'm directly giving you another opportunity. State it. But, again, remember, saying "Look at this OED blog" is not an interpretation of a statement, I want you to look at the text and tell me how it possibly doesn't say what I'm saying it says. I want you to show me the ambiguity. Because it's impossible to minsinterpret something unambiguous, so I want you to show me where the ambiguity lies.
Cheers. I'm even going to bed now, I hope to see in the morning you've either made a real, valid point where you've interpreted that text in a different way demonstrably (Mr. "you are demonstrably wrong but I can't demonstrate it") and show me what part is ambiguous, or just fucked off entirely.
garboooo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:17:26 on November 21, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
And ignoring what I said, again. Talking to nothing.
I've already stated my interpretation, many times. I have already made the counterargument you seek, and you ignored it. I'm not doing it again, because after so many times being ignored, you're just going to ignore it again
Well I sure didn't know what the fuck it is or means or how to use it in a sentence, and now I do. I hate that icon, with it's tiny indecipherable details.
Agree. You can say vape and selfie casually in a spoken conversation. You can't use that emoji without considerable conviction and a working human face complete with tear ducts.
Althonse ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:53:04 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I'm glad you made this point. Dictionaries are descriptive not perscriptive.
mt_xing ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:34:56 on December 6, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐๐ก๐ฌ๐๐ก๐๐ฏ๐ฏ๐ก๐ค๐๐๐ก you
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:31:25 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I'd define it as affective punctuation. It's clearly not a word as it doesn't have a part of speech like an adjective or verb does, but it does change the tone of the sentence like punctuation can.
Cryzgnik ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 23:08:51 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Dictionaries are... about listing the words that are being used by English-speaking people, no matter the context.
This is exactly why this is a bad "word of the year".
Of the billions of people who speak English, only a proportion of those are going to be familiar with this pictograph. It's very much only used by the elite: those with easy access to electronic devices, the Internet and an understanding of Internet culture.
What if word of the year was an obscure medical term that very few people had heard of? That would be bad. You and I might be familiar with this emoji but there are a huge number of English speakers for whom this is just meaningless. It probably shouldn't be word of the year.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 00:47:21 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
What you've said doesn't invalidate "dictionaries are. . .about listing the words that are being used by English-speaking people." Obscure medical terms are often in the dictionary, because they're used by English-speaking people. The dictionary doesn't list only words that everyone ever would use, it lists all the words that are written or spoken enough to be considered part of the language.
However, you're definitely pointing out a major flaw in the whole "Word of the Year" thing. It's a popularity contest for a word, nothing more.
Cryzgnik ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:38:00 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I only meant to attack the word of the year concept, not dictionaries. Of course all manner of obscure words are in the dictionary, but the word of the year shouldn't be something like this.
Used as an intensive before a figurative expression: When I saw the scarecrow, my bones exactly, literally, completely accurately, without exaggeration or hyperbole, jumped out of my body!
Well, if cats and dogs fell from the sky, it sounds odd to say it was "exactly raining cats and dogs." Of course this example wouldn't happen, but it can be frustrating if you're trying to say that something, well, literally literally happened.
Are you also upset about the change where "really" became sarcastic / hyperbolical instead of its original meaning of "in truth" or "not jokingly"? That's a really healthy viewpoint on language.
Besides, if you cannot infer whether a person is joking or serious when they say "literally" from the context of the speech, I'd say you need to work on reading social cues.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 10:54:34 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Using sarcasm isn't changing the meaning of a word, the point of sarcasm is to say a phrase with undertones of what is often its opposite
Ebotchl ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:48:01 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I dunno... Fag is a pretty bad one
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 22:43:50 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Indeed, and now I'm sure the hyper-descriptivists from /r/badlinguistics will arrive here soon and claim that nothing can ever be wrong, even when it causes genuine confusion
that's an interesting way of spelling "people who know more than me about language"
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 10:41:27 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
Oh, the circlejerk has arrived
It's a way to refer to the people who claim that any error made by more than 5 people should be considered just as valid as standard English, hence the 'hyper-', I'm not decrying all descriptivism
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 02:14:11 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I don't do very much in the realm of linguistics, but isn't it true that some people do not grow up in environments which encourage reading or learning? You seem to base your arguments on everyone being able to gain a full education in "proper English", but disregard that some people are not raised in an environment where proper English is preferred. The people who ARE raised in that environment are, by and large, more middle class or wealthier people.
By all means, everyone CAN get a good grasp of "proper English" if they really seek it out, but by virtue of how some people have been raised, this may not be something they even want.
I'm going to ignore issues of class and race. While linguistics can be used to support those theoretical discussions, that is besides the point.
Linguistics, in and of itself, does not make judgment calls on the language people use. It does not tell people who use a standard that they are classist/racist/whateverist. It merely tells them that there is a standard and there is a reason for it (often because that is the group in the majority power). All linguists believe this. If you don't, you are, by definition, not a (good) linguist.
Objectively, you are wrong. There is no such thing as "fantastic grasp of language" when talking about native speakers. They all have equally fantastic grasps of their language. That is the point of linguistics. And we justify "language changes" so easily. Proof? You don't speak the way people spoke a thousand years ago and yet you think it is still 'good English.'
Also:
My skills with the written word are a testament to the copious reading I did as a child, not as a by-product of our broken, ineffective education system.
PS: Plenty of linguists are good at math. I also do not see what that has to do with it being a science. You're a stupid troll. And I don't mean that as in a troll who is stupid. I mean that as in a troll who isn't even effective at being a troll.
Babill ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:32:45 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I'm curious, have you ever been confused by someone's use of "literally"? Cos I think you'd have to be literally retarded.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 10:42:52 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, I've often been confused by people I know using it for emphasis, eg. "I literally spent hundreds of pounds last night", when they mean ยฃ20 (if they insert 'like' before the 'hundreds', it's a bit easier to see that they're exaggerating)
Grandy12 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:49:50 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I literally cannot think of a sentence that uses the word 'literally' that would be literally confusing to anyone who spends literally a second to think about it.
The word can be used in a figurative manner, as an intensifier. For that use, the dictionary does not define it as "figuratively," instead stating that it's informally "used for emphasis while not being literally true." That's not the same as meaning figuratively. If you were to replace "literally" with "figuratively" in such a sentence, it would substantially change what the sentence conveys.
I really hate this misconception, because it's not particularly different from claiming that the phrase "a hundred feet tall" means "figuratively," because you might say "the man I bumped into was a hundred feet tall" in a figurative manner.
exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
RedAero ยท 45 points ยท Posted at 23:05:41 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Finally someone gets it...
Literally is only ever used to "mean" figuratively when used in hyperbole. And sarcastic use doesn't really equate to a bona fide dictionary definition.
[deleted] ยท 35 points ยท Posted at 00:18:43 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
This is just a big circlejerk of /r/lewronggeneration wannabe linguists to be honest. The English language has gone through changes like this before and now we consider it normal. Words change definition because words gain their definition from how we use them. Dictionaries aren't enforcers of language, they are recorders of language. And thus, they will be updated to reflect such usages. Literally being used in hyperbole makes perfect sense. You are exaggerating your claim as if it were being taken literally. Not that it isn't overused, but it's being used... so it's a dictionary's job to reflect that.
Hudston ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 02:16:35 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Dictionaries aren't enforcers of language, they are recorders of language.
I wish more people knew this. This argument is literally driving me insane.
idwthis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:00:31 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I just had the thought that there were probably people who argued over what words like "villain," "nimrod," and "prude" meant when those words started having their definions and usage changed by society/the masses.
Just imagine men and women arguing over whether prude really meant an honorable woman or a person uncomfortable with sex and its related issues/topics.
lenaro ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:55:10 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Dictionaries aren't enforcers of language, they are recorders of language.
Well, unless you're Noah Webster, who created his dictionary in an attempt to force his spellings.
"After the booze arrived the party really blew up!"
Is the use of "really" hyperbole? Or is it an accepted and figurative
use of the word "really", which would normally mean "actually" or "in reality".
RedAero ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:07:59 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It's an accepted use, but it doesn't parallel "literally" very well. "Really" does not normally only mean "actually" or "truthfully", it is also a generic term of emphasis, often a synonym of "very", i.e. "really tall" or "really interesting". It has completely "calm", non-hyperbolic usages even when used as emphasis, which is what your example is showcasing: "really blew up" is simple, generic emphasis, not hyperbole.
Literally does not have "calm" usages (other than what it actually means), nor is it a generic term of emphasis. It is very specifically a term of emphasis if and only if its use is hyperbolic, in other words humorously contradictory or exaggerated (which, it should be pointed out, only works if the word primarily means figuratively, otherwise there is no humor). You might say "the party literally blew up", but it sounds off, because it's not exaggerated enough. You would rather say "the party was literally out of this world", since the exaggeration is more extreme, hence humorous. And you would never say "that man is literally tall": literally is not a simple term of emphasis.
"Really" does not normally only mean "actually" or "truthfully", it is also a generic term of emphasis
Absolutely. It can mean both "actually/truthfully" and also be a superlative (used for emphasis). However, what if it was 50, or 100, or 500 years ago. Would people say "really" and not mean "actually"?
"really blew up" is simple, generic emphasis, not hyperbole
Do note that "blowing up" could easily mean exploding. It is this figurative explosion (symbolising intensity, I imagine) that is meant. "Really blew up" is not simply me emphasizing how blown up the party was, it is me stating that it figuratively blew up, or at least that it blew up further.
Perhaps a better example will use a man named Bob at a party. Here are two possible comments you might hear:
After Bob arrived at the party, it really blew up!
After Bob arrived at the party, it actually blew up!
Do they contradict each other? Are they ambiguous? Is Bob a cool guy that makes parties awesome, or is he a terrorist bomber?
If Bob is a cool guy, then the party didn't really blow up, it figuratively blew up. I am using the word really to mean figuratively, as in not really.
literally is not a simple term of emphasis.
I'm not saying it is. I'm also not claiming that literally and really and perfect synonyms for each other.
How about this:
I was so scared I literally shit my pants!
People sometimes use the word in this manner without (in reality) doing the thing in question (shitting their pant in this case).
Someone might say this and be using the world literally to mean figuratively, as in not literally.
In conclusion, it shouldn't be a problem that the dictionary includes a definition of "literally" that is "figuratively".
We have plenty of auto-antonyms in the English language, like "really", "fast", "dust", and "bolt". Those 4 words (and dozens, if not hundreds more) have at least 2 meanings which mean the opposites of each other.
RedAero ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:20:09 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
If Bob is a cool guy, then the party didn't really blow up, it figuratively blew up. I am using the word really to mean figuratively, as in not really.
The problem is the word that is changing meaning here is "blew up", not "really". "To blow up" has a genuine meaning, with or without any prefixes, meaning "to escalate". "Really" is simply a generic term of emphasis in that context, not "figuratively", though depending on nuances of spoken tone it can certainly mean "actually". In writing, without context, it is indeed ambiguous.
Simply because a word which can also mean "in actuality" is being used for emphasis does not mean it therefore means "figuratively". That's not how you parse the sentence, since if you parse the sentence with that meaning in mind the word loses its meaning of emphasis, and becomes redundant. You don't need to specify that the party "figuratively" blew up, since "to blow up" already has non-literal meaning without any prefixes. The only reason you would add "literally" is for hyperbole, and the only reason you would add "really" is generic emphasis. You can't have the word simultaneously meaning "figuratively" and be a term of emphasis in the same sentence. The figurative nature is implied by the emphasis.
Someone might say this and be using the world literally to mean figuratively, as in not literally.
And like I said before, that makes no sense. Substitute in "figuratively" into that sentence, does it read the same? No. You've lost all the hyperbole. That's the whole point.
In conclusion, it shouldn't be a problem that the dictionary includes a definition of "literally" that is "figuratively".
The problem is the dictionary is included sarcastic, hyperbolic usages which make no sense outside of a sarcastic, hyperbolic context. Should they list every single conceivable sarcastic sentence as well? In a sarcastic context, any word can be its own antonym, because the entire point of sarcasm is to say one thing and mean the opposite. That's be a great idea!
Simply because a word which can also mean "in actuality" is being used for emphasis does not mean it therefore means "figuratively". That's not how you parse the sentence
Ok, I see your point. I don't say "The party figuratively blew up" or "That guitar solo figuratively melted my face", in order to emphasize my figure of speech.
Do we agree, then, that there are some words that are usually ok for emphasising a figurative phrase, and some that are not; and that words can change from one category to the other?
For example, out of this list of words:
Really
Absolutely
Honestly
Actually
Truly
Genuinely
Really
Some (all?) of those words would be appropriate for emphasising the figurative nature of "That guitar solo melted by face".
The word "literally" is now one such word, agreed?
The problem is the dictionary is included sarcastic, hyperbolic usages which make no sense outside of a sarcastic, hyperbolic context.
Well that is interesting, since some words have actually drifted in a similar sense.
For example, the word "stench" originally wasn't just for bad smells, but for all smells in general prior to the year ~1200.
Then people used it as a euphemism for "bad smell", and 800 years later that is simply the definition of the word. I can no longer sensibly speak of a "pleasant stench" like people would a thousand years ago.
A bit similar with "smelly", "smells", and "smelled" (and may soon happen to "pungent").
In principle, if I note that something "smells" then I'm merely stating that it isn't odourless. However you normally expect that I mean it "smells bad" unless I qualify it otherwise.
Now, euphemisms are not the same as sarcasm, but language can indeed change in this kind of way. (However perhaps you are right that the word "literally" has not changed in this way.
RedAero ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:17:25 on November 19, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
The word "literally" is now one such word, agreed?
Of course. It's a word, like many others, which can be used for emphasis, and in this specific case sarcastic, hyperbolic emphasis, rendering it, at face value, to be its own antonym. All I've ever said is that this does not add a genuine dictionary definition to it.
Now, euphemisms are not the same as sarcasm, but language can indeed change in this kind of way.
It's certainly possible, but not when the word is still being used sarcastically. If people start using "literally" to mean "figuratively" outside of a sarcastic, hyperbolic context, then it belongs in the dictionary.
When I eat all the hot pockets and my roommate says he's going to kill me I get really frustrated because I literally can't tell if he is going to follow through with it or not...
Literally is only ever used to "mean" figuratively when used in hyperbole.
Yeah, nah. People literally use it in perfectly normal statements with no sense of hyperbowl whatsoever. People are idiots.
Babill ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 23:34:09 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
But the hyperbole meaning isn't in the dictionary so it must not exist! Wait, what is a figure of speech? You mean I had to listen in English class because dictionaries can't alone adequately describe words?
(that's sarcasm, by the way, a figure of speech. None of what I said was meant literally, some of it was even contrary to its dictionary definition)
The usage of literally to add emphasis is in the OED. /u/3kool5you is correct.
Literally
1. c. colloq. Used to indicate that some (freq. conventional) metaphorical or hyperbolical expression is to be taken in the strongest admissible sense: โvirtually, as good asโ; (also) โcompletely, utterly, absolutelyโ.
[deleted] ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 00:07:24 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
[deleted]
Uexie ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 00:16:26 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Can't you argue everyone in the world understands what that icon means? Even if you have never seen a smartphone before. The expression is quite clear.
Vancha ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:07:29 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Sure, but an icon isn't a word, in the same way a picture of a cat isn't a word. Most people would recognize the cat is a cat, but that doesn't qualify it as a word.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:11:17 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Because it's an illustration of a face displaying an emotion. People have been painting such illustrations for millennia. But that doesn't mean such symbols or illustrations should be considered "words". If it's a word, it should be associated with a rule of grammar. Is it a noun? Adjective? Verb? Gerund? Article? What part of speech does it fall under?
In what way is using 'literally' as an intensifier not understandable?
Or diminishes any depth or power?
I don't think you quite understand linguistics...
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 05:30:08 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
What word do you use if you are telling someone a story about something that happened to you, and what happened is extraordinary to the point that those being communicated to might assume that you're being hyperbolic, but it's actually what occurred, and you want to convey that in spite of that seeming hyperbole, it literally happened?
Besides, even if we accept its usage as an intensifier, there are so many great ways to intensify a sentence it seems like poor diction to use a contronym.
You could use literally. Its use as an intensifier would still be apparent based on the context of the situation and the user's intonation.
Besides, even if we accept its usage as an intensifier, there are so many great ways to intensify a sentence it seems like poor diction to use a contronym.
Eh, that's just your opinion. Literally has been used as an intensifier for centuries and in a colloquial register, "proper diction" would literally not be relevant.
Getting your panties in a bunch over its use is just pure misplaced pedantry.
It seems like the way they've defined this is different than simply "figuratively", (expressing one thing in terms normally denoting another with which it may be regarded as analogous). Literally means that you're exaggerating, but with an emphasis that your exaggeration is "as good as" the reality. It's definitely a mode of hyperbole.
Figuratively and literally still have shades of meaning here - figuratively means that you're intentionally speaking in "figures" of speech, which aren't intended to be precise. Literally means you're using these figures of speech in the strongest sense.
Cagi ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:15:17 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
While you're at it, look up hyperbole and poetic license.
All these other responses seem to be missing the point. Who are you to argue what a literal godsend is according to U/3kool5you ?
The definition of a godsend is subjective. Maybe he meant exactly what he said.
We use worlds like "really" (also "exactly", "very", and "totally") in a similar way.
Eg: "After the booze arrived the party really blew up!"
There are also plenty of other contronyms, like:
"fast" meaning either 'quickly' or 'without the slightest movement'
"dust" meaning 'to remove fine particles' or 'to cover in fine particles'
"bolt" meaning 'to flee' or 'to secure or fasten'
[deleted] ยท 48 points ยท Posted at 22:38:50 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Care to defend adding an emoji to the dictionary then? I really would like a explanation.
3kool5you ยท 105 points ยท Posted at 22:56:44 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I'm still a student, so I probably can't give you a perfect answer. I can ask my linguistics professor tomorrow and I'm sure she would have a good answer.
If I have to construct my own response off the top of my head, I'll argue that just because a word isn't a "word" and is in fact a symbol, doesn't disqualify it from word of the year. For example, a word of the year last year was "#blacklivesmatter". Not "blacklivesmatter" but "#blacklivesmatter". The argument was that it shows the power of the hashtag in this era.
Emojis are a little different, but they really are becoming a part of English language whether we like it or not. The thing about language is that there's no "right" or "wrong", it changes as is convenient for its speakers. Right now, emojis are becoming a part of the language and that's not necessarily a bad thing. So by using this, the most commonly used emoji(I'm presuming) as the word of the year, it just shows that emojis have taken a place in the English Language.
LazyOort ยท 60 points ยท Posted at 00:20:05 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
My linguistics textbook never stops emphasizing that language and words are nothing but symbols. Would anyone argue the hieroglyphs aren't communication?
[deleted] ยท 31 points ยท Posted at 00:38:54 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
They probably wouldn't, but not everyone is aware of their own language being a system of symbols. The average English-speaker just never stops to think that the English writing system is another system of symbols, for whatever reason.
LazyOort ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 00:53:18 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I think people downvoting you missed the point, "lol".
Brio_ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:44:12 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I would argue they aren't words.
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 02:49:50 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Is "I", as in the pronoun, a word? Yes.
It is also a symbol.
So where's the large difference between I and ๐?
Both use symbols to convey meaning.
In fact, over time symbols are usually drawn in more simple ways, as seen with โบ :-) :) and in the end become letters, or represented with letters.
Using emoji or emoticons for language is a trend, but it is still a trend of language.
Alex_Rose ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 04:00:33 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
โซxยฒdx = xยณ/3+c
I just used symbols to convey meaning, is the integral symbol a word now? What about the nabla symbol? Squared signs? deltas?
"I" is a word that just happens to be made up of one letter. That doesn't mean the abstract idea of "I" as a letter is a word, it's a letter that makes up a word, which has 1 constituent.
๐ isn't a one letter word, it's a standalone symbol that you can't combine to make new symbols.
:-) and :) is not a meaningful distinction with letters. The left one does not mean "A being with eyes, a nose and a smiling mouth" as opposed to the right one being "A being with eyes and a smiling mouth". Like, both of those would get parsed to a generic smiley face, and you wouldn't assume the right one is some hideous disfigured noseless person.
๐ doesn't belong to a language, it doesn't have a pronunciation. You show that to someone in France and they will say something completely different to me. Hell, the guy next door to me might say "Face crying with laughter" while I just say "smiley face". It doesn't have a fixed meaning.
It doesn't fit in with grammar. It can't convey anything particularly abstract or complex. You can't stack that symbol together with more to make a sentence, and if you do it probably won't be understandable, and it'll probably fit the sentence structure of your own language and not others, so it isn't even useful as a universal symbol in that respect.
"I" is one of a handful of letters we use that are each able to produce a handful of noises and we can read out loud and communicate with each other. It's something that can be made into a font and doesn't require someone to be talented at drawing to produce.
It can be combined with other letters to make words that mean things completely different to "I", and those words can be combined to make meanings that are different still. ๐ will never have any significance other than its very specific meaning. It's clumsy and inconvenient, not guaranteed to be parsed by whatever you're reading it in and hard to type.
It is an image. It's the same as pictionary. Pictures are inefficient and in the hands of someone who isn't a talented artist, an inferior method of communication, that's why pictionary works as a game. A dog emoji won't convey a breed of dog, just a dog. You can't use specific terminology etc.
You can't read it to a deaf person without resorting to interpreting it in your native language, which would be different depending on who's reading it.
If pictures were adequate, we never would've had written language in the first place, we'd all have some universal picture language we use instead.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 09:33:26 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Language developed out of picture languages, though โ we simplified the pictures to make them easier writeable.
Every single ancient writing system was based on pictures.
This is just another step.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:28:16 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
So where's the large difference between I and ๐?
"I" is a personal pronoun. What part of speech is ๐? An adjective? Can you use it as an adjective?
Brio_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:50:56 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I didn't say it wasn't language. Language is more than words.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:27:02 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Are the 200+ calls employed by crows a language?
What separates symbolic communication from language?
lenaro ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:07:24 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Why are you asking enormous philosophical gotcha questions instead of just looking this shit up in an article about linguistics? If you really care about the answer, and not about the argument, you're welcome to look it up. It is a very popular topic.
I'm gonna be a bit pedantic for a second and say that no, emojis aren't a form of language, really the dictionary primarily doesn't record language first hand. As far as I can tell, they take new entries from literary or written sources.
Writing is secondary to language, it's a tool for representing language. So in my own opinion I would be hesitant to call emojis a feature of language, at least not spoken language.
LazyOort ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 00:20:21 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
My linguistics textbook never stops emphasizing that language and words are nothing but symbols. Would anyone argue the hieroglyphs aren't communication?
Where should I place these pictographs on my resume?
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 00:21:46 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
How do you pronounce it?
I mean, most of this contention would be eased by calling it "symbol of the year". Symbols belong to cultures, but not necessarily languages. Otherwise it opens the floodgates for every emoticon and sign to become part of the language itself. Should a stop sign be considered a word? What about the color red as it is used to mean "stop" or "hot"? What about more abstract symbols like a clothing style? Should those be words in a language, or just symbols in a culture?
Plenty of languages have scripts that represent concepts rather than pronouncable words (Chinese). They still have dictionaries.
Brio_ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:46:09 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
But then they are not words.
MixT ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:37:17 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, but those symbols have pronunciations attached to them. The emoji has no pronunciation attached to it other than the phrase describing its image, and that phrase is rarely ever used in day to day communication. That's the line I draw between an image and a glyph.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 00:37:15 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
An image can represent a word. In this case, that emoji represents laughter. For example, Hieroglyphs are also a type of language, but they represent words in the form of images.
What is language if not to communicate? What is written language if not to represent that way in which we communicate? Emoticons add to this expression. No, we cannot pronounce ๐ but we can express it.
Brio_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:47:11 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Is someone smiling (literally the person smiling) a word?
The OED may be making a wider point about how communication is changing. Emojis, memes, gifs and many other images are becoming commonplace as alternatives to what would previously have been written messages. Just an idea...
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 04:29:59 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
If that's the contribution they were seeking to make, instead of a clickbait dumbed down article, they should have an editorial about the emergence of symbols as affective punctuation.
Similar to how Chinese characters originated as small illustrations of concepts, the emoji has the same function.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:52:05 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
And we can even see the evolution from pictures to characters live!
We see โบ develop over :-) to :) (or well, we saw).
In a German sociolect, we see a language that used to be very restrictive take over words from dozens of other languages and losing its restrictive grammar โ similar to how English developed, but live, right this moment.
Damadawf ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:15:41 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Language is evolving and emoji have become a way that we express ourselves, like a new form of punctuation. I'm sure that if you could bring someone from Shakespearean times to the 21st century, they'd find a lot of the language we use questionable and pointless.
Using emoji to communicate might be an informal thing to do, but the same can be said about using contractions, for example.
avaratzz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:52:42 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Not that I support the addition of it, but my logic would be:
Before written communication, we had no symbols to represent our language. The need arose for symbols which would represent our language, so they were created, and became our alphabet.
Currently, there is a need for written symbols which represent emotions in written communication. So emoticons/emojis were created. Why shouldn't they be added to our alphabet/language?
I would argue that we have adequate symbols to express emotions, and emojis are just lazy. But there are plenty of examples where laziness has dictated the development of a language.
I don't like it, but can't find a logical reason to argue against it.
GenBlase ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:18:56 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
A single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed.
What about that definition suggests that the 'Face With Tears of Joy' is not a word?
In reality, all words are just random symbols strung together or set out independently that humans have assigned an arbitrary meaning to.
I'm an English teacher. I frequently have students "make up" words during class and apologize. I always tell them, if someone understands what you're saying, then it's okay. That's language.
I think an easier way to tell apart English majors from others, is the fact that you refer to a book for information that could have more easily be found online...
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:44:43 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I must be English majoring wrong, I've never really felt like any dictionary was much of a "godsend" or even that much of a help.
...but I'm also avoiding linguistics like the plague, so there's that, too.
The reason why the OED is so awesome and cool for English majors, is that not only does it give you every definition for every word, but it also gives you the in depth etymology for all words. You can look up where words came from and what specific texts first used a certain word and that kind of stuff is good to know when analyzing past works or looking at the implications of words through history
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:56:00 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I seriously have never needed to do this for an English class. I've dicked around looking at etymology in my Latin courses, but never for English.
What rad courses are you in? Can we trade?
Kongo204 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:56:12 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I'm an English major too and I've never had to look up the etymologies. It sure as hell helps, though.
ponte92 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:52:22 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
As someone who has to do linguistics in their course I agree with you whole heartedly.
CJ090 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:35:30 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Oh you're an English major? If that's true, what's the proper way to prepare cappuccino?
CjsJibb ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:20:38 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Even without the colloquial definition of "literally", using that doesn't take a word back to its etymological origin. For example, you are literally a faggot; I'm not calling you a bundle of sticks.
Mazetron ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 23:03:53 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Or because they've become so widely used as to be part of the english language?
That's how english works. We don't have some council of elders, like the french do, who decide on which words are english or not.
If people use it, it's in english.
And all dictionaries do (or are supposed to do) is list words currently in use and their definition. (hell, the first dictionaries didn't even have the definitions)
So, am I allowed to use this in my college papers now?
arkhony ยท 113 points ยท Posted at 21:03:21 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
Is that your criterium criteria for separating words from non-words? Cause I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to use cunt eitherโฆ Academical English has some specific restrictions, but it's limited to a particular context.
Good point. Though I'm actually writing a paper right now where I can't avoid using the word nigger (it's part of a book title) so I guess anything could be used in a paper if you have the right context.
arkhony ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 21:23:50 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, it's always a matter of context. In your case it's a quote, which means you're writing it without being the one using it.
arkhony ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 01:59:21 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
As I said, it's always about context. And I'm not great with verbal (or written) cues, but in this context I have this feeling that you're not actually quoting someoneโฆ
Ten Little Niggers by Agatha Christie. I'm writing on the movie And Then There Were None, which is a spinoff of that book and is actually a pretty good film.
I guess that family guy episode must have been about this movie.
But how come it says niggers if the people are white? And there's also another movie called ten little Indians with the same plot?
Never seen the family guy episode, so I can't confirm. But the whole idea is that there's a nursery rhyme called Ten Little Injuns, and this book is about a murderer who kills each of ten victims in accordance with the deaths of the Indians in the poem. I'm not sure where Christie got "ten little niggers" other than the fact that the rhyme was originally written for a minstrel show. They changed it to Indians in the U.S. because we pick and choose who we're racist against here and apparently native Americans are fair game.
If you're going to be hyper-correct, you should get it right. It comes from a Greek root so the singular is "criterion".
In English you can just use "criteria" as both singular and plural.
arkhony ยท 38 points ยท Posted at 00:44:18 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Woops it appears you're right. Sorry, I'm not a native English speaker. Funny story: since it's Kriterium in German, I searched quickly in the Oxford Dictionary to see if it was the same in English, I saw that the word existed so I just went for it. Turns out, criterium exists in English but it's actually some kind ofโฆ bicycle race? Thanks for the info anyway.
Daniel15 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:55:40 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Your English is excellent :D
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:53:50 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It's always weird, English does the same with Visa vs Visa, while German uses Visum vs. Visa.
I'm also German and I do the same, I thought "that guy must be German" while reading your "criterium" before I read your second post ๐
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:20:34 on December 7, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
Every day I grow more convinced that the Internet is populated almost entirely by secret Germans.
That or you guys just love Reddit.
P.S. I hope my German will one day be as good as your English :)
Edit: Actually, reading through your post history, you seem to not be a native German speaker?
arkhony ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:26:37 on December 7, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Ha ha yeah I'm actually French, just living and studying in Berlin at the moment!
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:57:00 on December 8, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Wow, I must say I'm rather envious. I'm currently learning German but after German I am definitely going to learn French as well. I've always wanted to be fluent in the English-French-German triangle of languages. Good luck with your studies!
You should read more Women's Studies journals. Or, better yet, don't.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:42:16 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Words have grammar. Emojis do not. Therefore they aren't words; they are more like affective punctuation.
arkhony ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:27:39 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
see :) you tomorrow is usually perceived as incorrect, whereas see you tomorrow :) is perceived as correct. Emojis do have grammatical rules governing their position in the sentence. The thing is, they don't fit in the system that has been prevalent in English to this day. But if you have other languages in mind, like for instance Chinese, it's easier to see that emojis as such can't really be dismissed as words. I think the most interesting question this raises now is: can a word be only written and not spoken?
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:43:24 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I think the most interesting question this raises now is: can a word be only written and not spoken?
Indeed. Which is why I would argue that emojis are unique punctuation, not words. They perform more similarly to punctuation than words. They alter the tone of a sentence, can't be spoken aloud, and as you just pointed out, tend to occur more predominately at the end of a sentence.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 30 points ยท Posted at 19:00:53 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Well, if I'm grading the paper, it will be a point off and a note that says "Use Merriam Webster. This is not a word."
I don't disagree that using an emoji in a college paper would be ridiculous. but using a dictionary to define what is and isn't a word is silly. how did all those words get in there in the first place if not through being used while they were not in the dictionary and therefore 'not a word'?
Realtrain ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 22:00:40 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Personally I'd understand taking the point off for using informal language, rather than for using the wrong dictionary. The same way I can't say "it sucks" and have to say "it is undesirable".
Also where would this emoji even come up in a paper
precisely my thoughts. perhaps in five years, who knows?
3 years ago, saying 'selfie' in a college paper who be laughable. nowadays it's a pretty mainstream word, perhaps still a bit chatty. you could definitely write a paper about selfies and their effect on culture, not sure you could use selfie outside of that context though, i don't think it will be long though until 'selfie' is a perfectly normal word - look at all the 70s and 80s slang which is now mainstream language.
i could imagine a world in the not too distant future where an emoji appears in a college paper, somehow, and not just in a linguistics paper about the effect of emoji use on communication, which is already quite widespread.
RedAero ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 23:19:24 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
look at all the 70s and 80s slang which is now mainstream language
70s and 80s slang is still slang today. You won't find "bitchin'" in any serious publication.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 22:10:47 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Written English is not a pictographic language. We have an alphabet. Emojis aren't words. They are a symbolic medium to convey nonverbal cues in a verbal-only medium where other forms of emotional writing are limited due to other restraints (e.g, texting).
As a professor I feel it's more important to teach students to have a greater grasp on the English language than to rely solely on text speak to convey themselves.
Correct, not right now, no reason why that couldn't change though.
Emoji's aren't words
No, they aren't. But in many ways they behave very similarly to words. I'm not sure it's necessary to be so precise about categorising things as 'words' or 'not words'.
Is 'AAAAAARRRGGGHHH' a word? It's like a word. It's a string of letters which seems to be a criteria for you, but you won't find it in Merriam Webster - at least not without a billion different alternate spellings. It conveys an idea very clearly. You'll find it novels as much as you'll find it on WhatsApp. You wouldn't put it in a paper though. It seems to fall in a weird middle ground between 'word' and 'not word'. Just like emojis. Ultimately, I don't think it really matters.
I'm fine with academics insisting on a certain style of language in their own domain, but to say something 'isn't a word' is to try to define English to be what you think it is. English is used by millions of people who couldn't care less what academics want to write in their journals. It's their language as much as yours - that is, you both have zero claim to it.
Acceptable academic style is of course going to be 5-10 years behind 'street' language in terms of what is acceptable (dictionaries will fall somewhere in the middle) but it will always, inevitably, follow closely behind. If you're going to insist on saying something 'isn't a word', you could at least say 'that's not a word yet'. End rant.
RedAero ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 23:16:01 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Correct, not right now, no reason why that couldn't change though.
Except for the fact that these smilies don't mean anything. They convey tone. At best therefore, they are punctuation.
Written language and spoken language are not necessarily mirror images of one another.
That has literally never been how languages work, otherwise how would character based (logogrammatic) languages exist?
The combination of the two, as we see here, is taking on a new linguistic phenomenon, notably in how semantic meaning correlates with phonemic representation, or in this case does not. Calling it "wrong" is unnecessarily prescriptivist, and just stands in the way of progress.
Also: linguistically convey meaning โ being able to be read aloud
RedAero ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:18:19 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
That has literally never been how languages work, otherwise how would character based (logogrammatic) languages exist?
I'm fairly sure it's possible to read Chinese, because the pictograms represent actual words: nouns, verbs, adjectives, sometimes more than one. :-/ can not be read aloud, at least not unambiguously, since its meaning is carried through tone and nonverbal language outside of a written context. Just like a question mark.
Calling it "wrong" is unnecessarily prescriptivist, and just stands in the way of progress.
"Progress". And it is wrong by every single rule of grammar that has ever existed in the English language. You're trying to shoehorn a pictogram into an alphabet.
linguistically convey meaning โ being able to be read aloud
Exactly. Punctuation conveys meaning. Words can be read around. :-P is not a word.
Shoehorn a pictograms into an alphabet? No. That would be saying the emoji is a letter. That's not what is happening.
What is happening is that, words and language as a whole has become more than just compositions of letters reflecting meaning.
This is about more than something's "wordness," this is about the very essence of communication, and its evolution. Words can be spoken or not. They can be abstract or not. They can be so ambiguous that their essence is never truly agreed upon, or they can be fairly universal.
As for your understanding of grammar and meaning, you really need a refresher course on linguistics. Notably the debate between descriptivism and prescriptivism.
RedAero ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:50:02 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Words can be spoken or not.
Example that isn't an emoticon.
Notably the debate between descriptivism and prescriptivism.
I'm well aware, I fail to see why you feel the need to talk down to me.
The need comes from your gross misrepresentation of several linguistic concepts with such certainty.
Example that isn't an emoticon.
Any symbol ever really. We can attach them a description, and even near universally agree on that, but that is only an abstract representation of what it "means". The same follows for emojis. I could call that emoji happy crying from laughter face, yet the meaning exists still from it having been written.
That is a word. A distinct singular element of writing, used in a sentence. Syntactically how it is used will be varied from language to language.
RedAero ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:53:12 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Any symbol ever really.
Interesting that you called them symbols, and not words... It's almost as if one is not the other...
A 'face with tears of joy' emoticon, the most popular emoji this year, conveys an emotion and it conveys it much more clearly than the phrase 'I'm crying with laughter/happiness'. It's not about tone of voice/language at all.
Clearly this means 'I love that you're flying over to the UK for Christmas'. So the idea that emojis don't mean anything is completely ridiculous.
Of course, they can be punctuation as well. I sometimes end a sentence with a happy face or a love heart instead of a fullstop which just adds an extra layer of expression while still serving as a break in text.
RedAero ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 23:26:09 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
A 'face with tears of joy' emoticon, the most popular emoji this year, conveys an emotion and it conveys it much more clearly than the phrase 'I'm crying with laughter/happiness'. It's not about tone of voice/language at all.
Please, use it in a sentence as you would a word. A complete sentence, preferably compound.
Clearly this means 'I love that you're flying over to the UK for Christmas'.
I don't think "clearly" means what you think it means. Due to lacking proper syntax that string of pictures could mean a dozen things depending on how you parse it.
OK you must be a troll. Nobody can be this stupid/socially ignorant.
Do you honestly think a smiley face has no meaning? Have you never heard that a smiley face is associated with happiness? Do you think something has to be usable in a compound sentence (why compound?!) in order to convey meaning.
Moving an eyebrow can convey meaning in some contexts, would you fail to understand this unless the eyebrow were used in a sentence?!
As for the emoji sentence. It was completely clear. You've chosen to go on about syntax and parsing while completely neglecting context. Calling troll.
In the context of a British boyfriend talking to an Australian girlfriend who has already made plans to fly over at Christmas, it's pretty bloody clear what that series of emoji means. Go on, give me 'a dozen' ways in which my girlfriend might have realistically misconstrued that in that context.
RedAero ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 23:49:18 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Do you think something has to be usable in a compound sentence (why compound?!) in order to convey meaning.
Not necessarily, but we're primarily arguing about whether it's a word.
You've chosen to go on about syntax and parsing while completely neglecting context.
What context? The one you just pulled out of your ass post-hoc?
Here:
โค๏ธ ๐ฆ๐บ โ๏ธ ๐ฌ๐ง ๐ ๐ โค๏ธ
Translation:
Loving Australian planes, flying to Britain for Christmas.
Hell, at a stretch: Flying to Australia with British Airways for Christmas.
The entire personal nature of the communication is one you assumed. You can perhaps argue that between two, and only two people, this will be just about intelligible, but all manner of gobbledygook could be. It is not, however, unambiguous, nor is it generally understandable.
For the record if I saw that exact emoji sentence I wouldn't have a clue what it meant. Obviously it made sense to the original reader (GF) but to me it's gibberish.
Grandy12 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:09:46 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Please, use it in a sentence as you would a word.
I :D new york
miniflip ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:23:53 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I was gonna argue against that but I think you're right...
GenBlase ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 00:25:34 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Which is a part of our language now...
Think of it like this, we are witnessing a new form of English, like how it was from Ye old'e English to modern and now seems to be evolving again.
RedAero ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:27:47 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
So, how is :D pronounced?
GenBlase ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:30:59 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
As a professor I feel it's more important to teach students to have a greater grasp on the English language than to rely solely on text speak to convey themselves.
That's a false dichotomy. Grasping English language and text speak are not mutually exclusive.
This entire thread is the linguistic version of /r/lewronggeneration. You should probably just take a seat and realize that language evolves. Your rigorous adherence to the rules is about as arbitrary as possible.
Prescriptivism is ๐ฉ.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:40:24 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Grasping English language and text speak are not mutually exclusive.
True. But they have mutually exclusive genres and mediums. Besides, if someone relies solely upon what is essentially tiny clip art to convey emotion, they'll never get the skill to express it using the full depth that the English language provides.
You should probably just take a seat and realize that language evolves.
And you should realize that communication occurs through more than "words". The use of tiny illustrations of faces to convey emotion is definitely an evolution in how people communicate in new media, but that doesn't make it "a word". Emoticons emerged as a way to quickly digitize facial expressions. It's taking the non-verbal and bringing it into a verbal-only space. But a word is unique.
But they have mutually exclusive genres and mediums.
No they don't? Meaning can still be derived if you use emojis in a dissertation, and complex syntax in a text message.
Besides, if someone relies solely upon what is essentially tiny clip art to convey emotion, they'll never get the skill to express it using the full depth that the English language provides.
If someone relies solely? That's not happening though?
The use of tiny illustrations of faces to convey emotion is definitely an evolution in how people communicate in new media, but that doesn't make it "a word"
Except that it does.
Emoticons emerged as a way to quickly digitize facial expressions. It's taking the non-verbal and bringing it into a verbal-only space. But a word is unique.
A unique unit written to convey meaning. Which emojis do. Failing to see how it doesn't fit...
Yeah seriously, as a linguist (or, well, I guess I should rather say "as a person who took some courses in linguistics in Uni) I have no problem with this, on the contrary, I actually think it's pretty cool that they chose an emoji for the word of the year 2015. It does represent language in this year. It may not really be a word by most definitions, but it's definitely part of many languages. So why the hell not?
miasmic ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:05:23 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It may not really be a word by most definitions
You said it yourself - because the word of the year should be a word
swohio ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:42:04 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
As far as words go, you have an argument however THIS IS A FUCKING SMILEY FACE! It's not a series of letters forming a sound, also known as a "word."
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:57:43 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
In competitive debate a dictionary is used all the time to argue the definition of words, and whether the word used is usable in the context.
I used to mumble and fuss about 'correct' use of language. 17 year old me with his intellectual superiority complex would've been mortified to hear that 2015's word of the year was going to be an emoji. He would've taken great delight in complaining about it though. He would've asked 'what the world was coming to' and said that he had 'lost his faith in humanity' (ok maybe he wasn't that insufferable!).
Looking at language from a descriptivist perspective is so much more fun. You see new words and the changing ways in which people communicate (e.g. emoji, 'selfie') and it's interesting to think about where language comes from and where it goes. None of the descriptive complainers could ever follow a fun train of thought about what human communication will look like in ten years without moaning that the language will be 'ruined' by 'idiots'. Never mind that a descriptivist from the 16th Century would bemoan the fact that they had 'ruined' Shakespearean English with their 'you's' and 'have's' and 'does's'.
GenBlase ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:22:57 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
You would be a bad teacher then.
Think pictograph, how they were important in the past and seems to be making a come back now.
You would be like one of those teachers who punishes people for not using cursive.
How are emoji different from kanji? They're a somewhat abstract representation of a material concept to convey a meaning that is universally accepted by the culture of its users. What makes ๐ different from ้ญ?
While I'm not usually one to argue with a well-placed plural possessive apostrophe, it's actually correct without it. The Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year is a title given to something, they're not claiming it as their own. It is still grammatically correct with the apostrophe, but it's not incorrect without it.
Edit: found a grammar mistake. Appalled, but willing to appreciate the irony.
[deleted] ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 22:49:40 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It still sort of makes sense, since Oxford Dictionaries now produce more than one dictionary, and it's using 'Oxford Dictionaries' as a sort of adjective phrase maybe?
bandaloo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:08:49 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
Wait, why are our usernames so similar? How did you choose yours? Because a long time ago I made up the word... like... completely. It's meaningless to me.
Oxford Dictionaries is the name of the organisation, so I assume they're using it as a single noun. As in "the 'Oxford Dictionaries' Word of the Year".
Brosefiss ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 23:08:42 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I know, It's like knowing English got scrubbed of their minimum employee requirements.
Not really. They are one of the most well known and experienced lexicographers of the English language. But this pretty much highlights how people in 2015 used English language online. Even for the past few months, I noticed how frequently people used emojis online.
They use it as a symbol which represents an emotion. You can also send a GIF to show emotions, would a picture become a word then? You can't pronounce it. You can't type it on a typewriter, which contains all the letters used in English. This is not a word.
It's not really a word and it's not English. It's just dumb.
[deleted] ยท 338 points ยท Posted at 19:17:30 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Honestly, who cares? I hate when people blow these stupid awards out of proportion.
Like everybody panicking after Caitlyn Jenner was named "woman of the year"
She was named by a glamour tabloid....WHO FUCKING CARES.
The Oxford Dictionary is relatively irrelevant now. There are millions of variations of online dictionaries that make the Oxford no longer of use. They just want to catch some attention.
[deleted] ยท 27 points ยท Posted at 00:21:52 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
The Oxford Dictionary is relatively irrelevant now.
Oxford is the go-to academic dictionary. It was always largely irrelevant in most cases, but for the most accurate etymology, connotation, and denotation, every English professor knows which dictionaries are for the kids and which is for the big boys.
What they pick for word of the year I don't really give a fuck about, because that's not why I use them.
No, the Oxford English Dictionary is the go-to academic dictionary. The Oxford Dictionary is all about modern language and usage, while the OED is about etymology and use throughout time. They outline it quite well here.
[deleted] ยท 92 points ยท Posted at 23:12:38 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
The only issue that I have is that it is literally not a word.
GenBlase ยท 29 points ยท Posted at 00:21:46 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Pictographs bro.
Crossaix ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:30:52 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
..Fine, a bunch of letters put together that serves the purpose of conveying information phonetically.
An emoji is a form of communication, but it is not a word.
akcaye ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 07:25:53 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
a and I are just single letters that are words nonetheless.
And why do you even have such restrictive conditions anyway? Are you trying to come up with a definition that specifically avoids emojis? "phonetically"? What does that even mean? "nayshun" conveys information phonetically, while "nation" doesn't. Which of these is a word?
What about "[sic]"? Or something like "*laughs*" or "(pause)"? They're words and they convey information, and letters put together. But they aren't supposed to be phonetic, nor do they phonetically represent what they stand for.
What about hieroglyphs? They weren't phonetic or made of letters. Didn't they convey information? You're saying they didn't have words while they clearly did.
..I don't have restrictive conditions. But I also don't have the tendency to call things which they are not.
Nayshun and nation both follow the standard method of words, but nation is the widely accepted correct spelling of the word. But both could and have been used as words.
Hieroglyphs are pictures. Not words.
This is super simple stuff man. There isn't any groundbreaking evolution of language or anything going on. It's an emoji, a picture.
It's not only impossible to argue that it's a word, but pointless as well. What would be gained by abruptly and arbitrarily changing the simple elements of what makes a word to be able to include a cell phone emoji?
akcaye ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 11:14:47 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Hieroglyphs aren't words? Can't you just look things up before making statements like that? They're even phonetic a lot of times. I thought you like phonetics!
What about Asian languages? Do they not have words because they have a different character for an idea instead of a bunch of phonetic characters put together?
And who said things abruptly changed? Are you new to the internet? People have been using emojis for a long-ass time. They've just recently been recognized as an evolution of today's language and our ability to convey information.
I still use three words when I write "I โค U". You even read it as a three word sentence.
Finally there's no universal concept of what a word is. It's arbitrary. to is a "word" in English but can be a suffix or a prefix in other languages. So what makes the distinction between words and affixes? It's actually nothing. "to day" and "to morrow" used to be phrases. Then they became hyphenated. Now they're single words. So there are no "simple elements of what makes a word" to begin with. It's just based on what people call a word. That's it.
..To day and today both share something significant in common. Can you see what that is? โค๏ธ Shares nothing in common.
akcaye ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 12:00:56 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
To day and today both share something significant in common
Except for the state of being a word. The point was not about their meaning, it was about how being a word or not is just an arbitrary thing. "today" is a word, "to day" isn't.
..a single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed.
Nope, both qualify as words. One isn't the correct spelling, but there is a different school of thought governing spelling.
akcaye ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 12:33:45 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
isn't the correct spelling
It's not spelling. I'm saying that they were separate words, and that has nothing to do with spelling. A space on either side means that "to" was a word, and "day" was a word, but "today" wasn't because "to" and "day" were separated as two distinct words.
And while you say "both qualify as words" by your definition, โค also does, as it is a single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed.
I can tell you are passionate about this but no matter which way you want to spin it or the lengths you want to take it, emotes are not words.
They are a form of communication, but they are not words.
akcaye ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:29:13 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It's not writing. It's drawing.
What's your distinction there? What's the definition of writing that separates it from drawing?
You must know that what we call writing now is literally simplified drawing. The letter A was an ox head. Like it or not, hieroglyphs are a form of writing, not drawing.
ndstumme ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:45:21 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
I'm gonna jump in here.
What separates writing from drawing? I'd say that writing is a visual recording of meaningful sounds. 'Writing', and by extension 'words', have to have a meaningful sound associated with it.
Punctuation are not words. Punctuation are drawings commonly used with writing to help clarify, but '?' by itself is not a word, nor can it be part of one unless we grant it a sound.
Until this emoji has a meaningful sound, it's just a pretty drawing not a word.
akcaye ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:50:37 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Punctuation isn't words, but isn't it writing? It surely isn't a drawing, or part of speech.
ndstumme ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:19:44 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Punctuation aren't words.
akcaye ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:59:09 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
..You'll note that the gif had to use actual words to convey the message.
And that being fine by you proves my point about not accepting emojis as words.
Letters strung together to make words is universal. Once you learn how to read and write, you can convey anything that's inside your head to anyone who also knows how to read and write.
That is beautiful, and emojis don't follow that same suit.
akcaye ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:42:55 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
that being fine by you proves my point about not accepting emojis as words
How does me being fine with having reaction gifs as words prove your point? I don't understand what you mean. Maybe emojis would help.
Language isn't about what's beautiful or specific methods in which you can convey what's in your head. It's about how you do it. And that changes.
Letters strung together to make words is universal.
But language evolves. And the purpose of lexicographers is not to be the arbiters of English language. Nobody owns it. Their primary purpose is to document how people use English language and the new words that are created.
When a majority of people use an emoji as a replacement for a word, it becomes one. Maybe not all emojis will become replacement for words but this single emoji is used by majority of people for this to become word of the year.
a single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed.
It didn't say words should only contain alphabets.
Language evolves. People use emojis, a pictogram as a word replacement so therefore it gets a mention.
I think you are overestimating exactly how many people use this or any emoji.
So why did it suddenly got the word of the year award?
What makes you, and others, so adamant on making this non word a word?
I am not adamant. I am just pointing out the already existing phenomena. But it seems like you, on the other hand, is the one who is adamant about the definitions of words as if they are set on stone. English, like any other language has formal and informal aspects to it.
ndstumme ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:58:53 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
'Words' serve to be spoken. Writing was an afterthought to allow us to record our vocal sounds that have meaning.
How do you pronounce a word in sign language? By translating the sign actions to English.
You can pronounce that emoji by translating it back to english(which is "face with tears of joy")
ndstumme ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:58:47 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
So you're saying it's a word, just not an English word. Then why is it the word of the year for an English dictionary?
By your definition, a word is a meaningful element of writing (or speech), but what separates writing from other forms of drawing? I posit that writing is a visual recording of sounds. What sound does an emoji make? If it doesn't have one, then it's simply a drawing that has meaning, but it is not a word.
..Element of speech or writing. You can't WRITE that emoji or SPEAK it. You can only draw or explains it, coincidently , with actual words.
People did not use emojis or pictograms as words, they used them as the main element of that language. Language, not words.
It suddenly got the word or the year award, I suspect, to get people talking and visiting and thinking about the Oxford Dictionary. It worked too, as this stunt has brought more attention to it then an actual word would have.
There isn't a phenomena, there isn't strange and wonderful unexplainable metamorphosis of words. It's the same criteria that hasn't changed since the introduction of the alphabet and spoken utterance.
It's an emoji, a picture, a standardized drawing, not a word.
Tashre ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:19:14 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
By OP's terms, the definition of a word is directly dependant of the definition of a letter, since it starts with "a bunch of letters". If there is no clear definition for what a letter is, then a word can be anything I imagine.
I know another guy already used this definition but:
Word: a single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed.
So yeah, it is technically a word.
ndstumme ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:00:33 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Nowhere in the definition does it say you have to be able to say it for it to be a word. If you really wanted to "say" it, you would do ๐ <-----that
I guess you could also say "Tears of joy emoji".
ndstumme ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 05:31:36 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Then what separates a 'writing' from 'drawing'? Your definition says it's a meaningful element of writing.
I will put forth that writing is a recorded form of spoken sound. Drawing is unspoken images.
That is a very good question. I'm not very sure where you would draw the line between drawing and words. Maybe there isn't really a difference. I mean, they are both just some strokes of a pen that have meaning to us.
You definitely have a point there. I guess Oxford Dictionary had a very loose definition of "word". By their standards, it fits, but to everybody else it does not. By the way, if Oxford made Retarded Horse word of the year, I would be the happiest person in the universe.
Ozqo ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 02:10:34 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
How are emoji different from kanji? They're a somewhat abstract representation of a material concept to convey a meaning that is universally accepted by the culture of its users. What makes ๐ different from ้ญ?
ndstumme ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 05:00:53 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
someone, somewhere, is pissed off about red starbucks cups too. I'm pretty close to just deactivating my facebook because people talking about all of this inane shit is driving me crazy.
Someone has to care, because it's most likely their job to care or the result will make it more difficult to do their job.
The Oxford Dictionary is relatively irrelevant now.
Doubt it, there's a reason there are still name brands for almost every commodity.
ponte92 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:59:10 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
As someone who does linguistics in their I can tell you the Oxford dictionary is not irrelevant. My language teachers will only allow the Oxford English/ Italian or German (depending on the class) in our classes. The last few years people have made fun the Word of the Year but the truth is language evolves and Oxford evolves with it. Yes an emoji is a stretch but how many text messages and comments online now use them there is a fair argument that they have become part of our language. Not all language uses Latin alphabet look at the Asia region and their use of characters of hieroglyphics of older languages its the same thing.
No. No no no no no. No fucking way guys. First of all, that's clearly not a fucking word so it can't be the fucking "word" of the year. And second of all, no.
Well based on the example I provided we're looking at at least 6 orders of magnitude. I'd say that a regular ~ offers less than 1 order of magnitude of leeway. So I'd say ใฐ7,000 means ~-7,000,000 - ~7,000,000,000.
euthlogo ยท 70 points ยท Posted at 23:06:30 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Definition of "word" from OED:
A single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed.
well that's more than a bit abstract isn't it. If I were to draw a cow right in the middle of this sentence, would it be considered a word? If you're going by the dictionary you could certainly argue for it, but no one would look at it and understand except maybe me. it would have meaning like a painting has meaning. and you can use an emoji without one space on each side. ifyourunwordstogether the word doesn't quite read right and could be misinterpreted. Now if I were to put an emoji right hereยง you can still read it, even if you're barely thinking. And I don't think anyone has made a official way to use the emoji. If anything emojis are closer to periods and other syntactical elements.
Thing is that that has a concrete definition. Emoji's meanings can change depending on context. Edit: I want to somehow recognize that this statement is false with out being downvoted to hell. So there. Any further comment about how normal words can change definition depending on context is unneeded and redundant. /u/broncosandwrestling said it best.
How are emoji different from kanji? They're a somewhat abstract representation of a material concept to convey a meaning that is universally accepted by the culture of its users. What makes ๐ different from ้ญ?
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 04:39:13 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
้ญ is a noun. ๐ is a digital illustration.
What linguistic morphology does ๐ have? Is it a noun? Adjective? Does it follow grammatical rules? Is it an English word? German word? Spanish word? Can it be transliterated? Translated? Does it exist outside of electronic forms of communication? If I drew ๐ in a sentence on a piece of paper, would the reader think it was a word or just a cartoon of a fish in the middle of my paragraph?
Those symbols were standardized and simplified over years of use and being written to make them more understandable, yes, but most people now use a standard set of emojis too, so clearly it's headed in the same direction, and developing the same way.
We are watching history repeat itself, it's pretty fascinating.
Emojis follow rules. It can actually be kind of hard to text someone without using some sort of connotative "lol" or "haha" or emoji. So they're obviously symbols of communication. And different emoji convey different emotions.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:34:19 on December 14, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It's an older thread, but I commented elsewhere arguing that emojis are more akin to punctuation - sort of affective punctuation. Because you're right they have a place in informal text-based communication. Still not words though :-p
So does your ignorance of its definition mean that ้ญ is not a word until someone explains it to you? Emoji are like universal pictographs, and they are a part of language now, for better or worse. Most of them are used like words, so why not accept them as that?
I was told that the character was a rough drawing of a cow. I had no clue that it actually meant cow. I was perfectly aware of the word, I was not aware of it's function though
squngy ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 10:26:04 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
If you take ๐ out from a sentence, the meaning is exactly the same. It has no impact in the structure of the sentence. The only thing that I can think it actually, grammatically signifies, is sarcasm. But sarcasm doesn't translate to written language anyway. I would have to disagree with you here.
How are emoji different from kanji? They're a somewhat abstract representation of a material concept to convey a meaning that is universally accepted by the culture of its users. What makes ๐ different from ้ญ?
Fair point. I'm not sure what makes the two symbols different exactly, I suppose it's partly because I feel symbols like ้ญ are already the basis of those languages and have been for so long. Admittedly I am being kind of unfair towards emojis, but I don't care. If anyone ever texted me "hey want to go to the lake and ๐ this weekend?" I would agree only so that I could drown them in the lake.
Well, they weren't always like that. When China introduced kanji to Japan, they were a novelty. But now it's been about a thousand years and people seem to have managed to work them out. Now, Japan is introducing us to ideographs in our languages. They're not what we're used to use, but they work in some level. Why not accept them? What's the worse that could happen?
If anyone ever texted me "hey want to go to the lake and ๐ this weekend?" I would agree only so that I could drown them in the lake.
That's also a valid point. However, I doubt most people use emoji as a word-per-word substitution system. Maybe that wouldn't work, but texting "๐ณ๐โ" conveys the same meaning as "wanna go bowling at 3?" whilst being much more casual. Maybe you wouldn't speak like that, just like you wouldn't, like, talk like a valley girl, y'know, byotch? But there is no doubt some people do, and that is as valid language as what we use. It's just a different linguistic turn fit for different social contexts.
Yeah, my use of fish emoji was a bit of a stretch. I can see how some could be used for convenience (like your bowling example), I just can't stand it when people abuse the shit out of them to the point of it being absolute nonsense.
Nobody does. It's like "like" in valley girl speech or "nigga" in AAVE. Sometimes it's just empty noise. But that doesn't mean it's not relevant in certain contexts, so we gotta consider those too.
When China introduced kanji to Japan, they were a novelty.
When kanji were brought to Japan, writing was a novelty. The Japanese never developed a writing system before then. Kana were developed from kanji to simplify things.
jaytaicho ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 21:49:13 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
You're reply is an appropriate use of ๐. What mildly infuriates me is when people on FB use it after EVERY. FUCKING. COMMENT. YOU'RE COMMENT WASN'T EVEN FUNNY! AND DEFINITELY NOT FUNNY ENOUGH TO CRY OF LAUGHTER! Did I say mildly? I meant majorly.
idlephase ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 22:49:18 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
"I'm sorry for your loss ๐"
SuperCho ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 22:12:15 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
So truuuuu!!!!!!๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:24:36 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
*YOUR
The poor spelling and grammar from FB must be contaigious.
LvS ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:37:32 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Gobae ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:36:01 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
mildlyinfuriating
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 23:16:59 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
[deleted]
miniflip ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:26:16 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
So what if it is? It means that they actually sat down and came to a justified conclusion. Why does OED's decision affect you so badly?
somegetit ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 21:42:58 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, people pretend like they're not using or understanding it. It's a graphic symbol, it expresses something, it's wildly used across multiple cultures, so it's a word. What's the big deal.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:48:13 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It's a graphic symbol, it expresses something, it's wildly used across multiple cultures, so it's a word.
"?"
Is that a word? It's a graphic symbol, it expresses something, it's widely used across multiple cultures.
You know, that's a good example. 10 years ago I would say no, it's clearly just a punctuation sign. But in the past years, people started using '?' all by itself, in text messages. And in that context (replying to someone with just '?'), it's a word.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:13:03 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
Don't know, doesn't matter really. It's like asking what letters form this word. None. It's a new type of word. (According to Oxford. I don't care one way or the other, but I can see the reasoning pretty easily)
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:17:56 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 04:49:52 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Yes. Pronounced silently but modifying the preceding word with an upward infection when part of a sentence, pronounced "huh" or "eh" or similar with an upward infection on its own.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:34:45 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
That's what punctuation does. It doesn't make it a word.
In ASL, you greet someone by saluting them with your index and middle fingers of the right hand. What are the phonemes represented by that? If you can't pronounce it it's not a word? Does that mean ASL is not an actual language?
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:51:50 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Does that mean ASL is not an actual language?
That's a good point. But are the 200 calls used by crows to communicate also a language? Are the grunts and cries of gorillas a language?
Linguists don't tend to count every single symbol as a word belonging to a language. The color red conveys many things (anger, stop, hot) but that doesn't mean the color red is a word in a language.
What separates communication from language? A symbol from a word?
But are the 200 calls used by crows to communicate also a language? Are the grunts and cries of gorillas a language?
Depends on who you ask. Most linguists argue that sentience is required for a language. Others say dolphins and computers qualify. There is no one answer at the moment.
Jeanpuetz ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 22:40:40 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
There are multiple definitions for a "word", and they constantly change. Language evolves, just like everything else in the world. Just go with it and don't get upset about it!
One the other hand we could also acknowledge that emojis are a virtually universally understood version of the extra punctuation for irony etc, often proposed like this, and even more than that.
You can say that the true art of writing is to describe what you mean with words alone rather than gestures, imagery, sound, and smileys - but these things make communication terribly much easier and more universal.
Denotation may be the core message, but without the right connotation it is more often ineffective or counterproductive than effective. Emojis deliver the full range of connotation with unparalleled ease.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:57:05 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Denotation may be the core message, but without the right connotation it is more often ineffective or counterproductive than effective. Emojis deliver the full range of connotation with unparalleled ease.
Aye. You're completely right. But that doesn't make it a word within a language. Is a smile from a person across the room a word? Or something different?
Nonverbal communication is an important part of understanding someone. An emoji is a method to translate the nonverbal in a different medium, but it's still something different than a word just as a smile is something different than a spoken word.
bhare418 ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 20:38:20 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I see no problem with that. Words are meant to transmit meaning but also feelings. The Chinese have their multitude of symbols also and I'm pretty sure they have a symbol for happiness. Language evolves.
I agree, I love it. I think it's awesome and I'm lucky to get to experience such a shift in something that hasn't changed in a long time. I don't think emojis are going to be a part of proper grammar anytime soon but I'm amazed how global they've become.
Lexicography is divided into two separate but equally important groups:
Practical lexicography is the art or craft of compiling, writing and editing dictionaries.
Theoretical lexicography is the scholarly discipline of analyzing and describing the semantic, syntagmatic and paradigmatic relationships within the lexicon (vocabulary) of a language, developing theories of dictionary components and structures linking the data in dictionaries, the needs for information by users in specific types of situations, and how users may best access the data incorporated in printed and electronic dictionaries. This is sometimes referred to as 'metalexicography'.
Theres a quiz at the bottom asking you to name the emojis. I and 5,000 others got the lowest mark, which was the majority of people who had taken the test.
GenBlase ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:27:48 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
You would do the same thing? Laugh out Loud and shit like that.
dicยทtionยทarยทy n.: a book or electronic resource that lists the words of a language (typically in alphabetical order) and gives their meaning
exadrid ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:17:46 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
word :
1) A single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed.
2) A single distinct conceptual unit of language, comprising inflected and variant forms.
ad blocker,ย noun: Aย piece of software designed to prevent advertisements from appearing on a web page.
Brexit,ย noun: A term for the potential or hypothetical departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union, fromBritishย +ย exit.
Dark Web,ย noun:ย The part of the World Wide Web that is only accessible by means of special software, allowing users and website operators to remain anonymous or untraceable.
on fleek,ย adjectival phrase:ย Extremely good, attractive, or stylish.
lumbersexual,ย noun: Aย young urban man who cultivates an appearance and style of dress (typified by a beard and check shirt) suggestive of a rugged outdoor lifestyle.
refugee,ย noun:ย A person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.
sharing economy,ย noun:ย An economic system in which assets or services are shared between private individuals, either for free or for a fee, typically by means of the Internet.
they (singular),ย pronoun: Used to refer to a person of unspecified sex.
How are emoji different from kanji? They're a somewhat abstract representation of a material concept to convey a meaning that is universally accepted by the culture of its users. What makes ๐ different from ้ญ?
Says who? Languages evolve. Japanese is not an ideographic language (it has a phonetic writing that is perfectly exchangeable with kanji), but it uses ideographs. Why couldn't English? We are using them right now, so why not just accept it?
There is a universal meaning for most of them. ๐ means the same in every western culture, and it's perfectly understandable for anyone who's ever seen American TV (AKA most people in the world). And every person in the world knows what ๐ฑ is. The name might change from language to language, but the meaning is the same. As for the consistent representation, there are about six standards, and you could argue that they have the same relevance as fonts do in traditional text. Times New Roman is quite different from Comic Sans, but an A is an A in both, and you can recognise it as the same symbol.
I'm not
Any particular reason why? Because you seem to be in the minority here.
No, I'm completely serious. I can't distinguish that emoji. I can see the other one is a broken heart, but the yellow one is impossible for me to make out unless I zoom in to about 250%. My best guess was a downcast face looking down at its feet.
By copy/pasting it into Textedit and changing the font size to 288 I see it's some sort of cat/bear face, but as a method of communication it is totally useless to me.
bvr5 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:13:40 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I wouldn't have been mad if they chose any of these, even on fleek.
slicedpi ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:39:40 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐๐๐=๐๐
markh110 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:35:49 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Surely this is fake? It's "Dictionary's". Where's this from?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:59:39 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I don't have a problem with this, lots of languages use pictographs to convey meaning which is what an emoji is at the end of the day. So if its something that conveys meaning when written down or typed I think it should conceivably count as a word or at least a kind of punctuation if its use becomes universal. Though I may have started with something like :) first.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:20:46 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I'd agree that it's a unique form of punctuation, and would love to read an academic paper by an linguist exploring what that means, but I'd still never call it a word simply because it doesn't follow any standards for word usage in language.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:03:09 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I don't really see that much of a problem with this. If Oxford's goal is to select which word is relevant for the year, then I think it's appropriate. Like when selfie got it in 2013 and vape got it in 2014.
Similarly how Times has their "person of the year" its not the most "inspirational" its genrerally someone that best defines the year from a historical perspective and/or may pocess much relevance in the years to come. Like Putin getting it in 2007, or Hitler in 1936.
Sawybean ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:44:16 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
This thread is one half people saying "THIS WAS A HUGE MISTAKE" and one half "WHAT A TIME TO BE ALIVE"
It's not a word, but it actually does capture a new cultural attitude. I think its tied to the rise of black humor on twitter, and the sort of mocking/roasting type of humor that's taken over social networking sites.
I mean, it's not a word, and it's objectively dumb, but it's also kind of interesting if you think about it, so why get so bothered?
TheDaug ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:23:56 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It sucks to see the OED give in to this shit.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:53:40 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Someone thought this was a good idea. Someone else didn't stop that idea from running up the ladder. Someone else gave the final green light.
All those someones make me question my stance on capital punishment.
Of course it's the emoji I hate the most. For some reason that one emoji that's laughing with tears coming out of its eyes pissed me the hell off. People use it all the time, and it's so disingenuous.
How does "face with tears of joy" reflect the "ethos, mood, and preoccupations" of a year where we've witnessed the most lethal terrorist attack in the western world in the last decade?
I get the whole "it's a picture, not a word" thing, but there's a lot else that's wrong with this.
What sucks about this is that it's an emoji that's been designed by some graphic designer for a media company. It's not like an emoticon which was invented and spread by users for the purpose of expression, it's something that was packaged with every smartphone and picked from a drop-down list to use when you're too lazy to type or think of something to type or be accountable for something you typed. I'd be loath to even define this as language; it's a word that is only used this often because it's available on everybody's phone.
It may not exclude it from technically being a word but why does no one care that it can't be spoken? I'd think that would be a big part of how useful a word is.
potatan ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:14:46 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It needs pointing out after reading a lot of comments in this thread, that the OED and Oxford Dictionaries are two separate entities. This emoji is not the OED's word of the year, it is a marketing wheeze from Oxford Dictionaries.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:10:51 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Thanks for that.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:30:32 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐๐๐๐ so dumb...
BCSteve ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:41:12 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I mean, yes, it's not a "word" in the conventional sense... but in a way, emoji have definitely become a part of how we communicate nowadays. Now that a lot of our writing is text-based, we lose the wealth of nonverbal communication that comes with a face-to-face conversation, and emoji can be seen as a way of restoring tone and inflection to an otherwise deadpan sentence. So I'm not entirely opposed to a dictionary cataloging emoji, since they are a part of our modern language.
However, I'd liken emoji more to inflection or punctuation, rather than "words". While they can represent elements of speech themselves, more commonly they inform the reader with what tone they should read the surrounding text. They're meta-textual, not text themselves.
Whether it's the creation of a new word that enters our lexicon, the mutation of meaning (e.g., literally now means figuratively in casual slang), or a new iconography to convey meaning in written electronic text, it's all significant.
Props to OED for recognizing shifts in our language and recognizing them as relevant. And I'm surprised that Reddit looks down on change and thinks of these evolutions as beneath them. It's an odd "get off my lawn" mentality that we'd complain about if our parents did it.
ChaGz ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:49:01 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
But its not a word, IT CONTAINS NO LETTERS
I hate modern society sometimes
[deleted] ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 19:17:43 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Modern societies like Ancient Egypt!
Gobae ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 03:44:48 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
English words are made of letters. It's how our language works.
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 04:51:55 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I'm just saying there's historical precedence for this type of language bro
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 01:18:48 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
You can pronounce a hieroglyph. You can't pronounce an emoji. The reason is because they aren't words, but symbols attempting to represent the nonverbal.
It's funny because they actually have a thread up right now about exactly this topic.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:51:19 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
What definition of word are you referring to? Because I'm pretty sure the definition of what counts as a word or not isn't as narrow or simplistic as "must contain letters."
Google gives us:
a single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed.
I actually think that of all the 'word of the year's Oxford could have chosen, this is absolutely brilliant. As stupid as it may sound, it says so much about our time and the development of our language.
Right? I really like this. And it fits. So what if it's not "technically a word", blah, blah, who cares? It's clearly part of our language, and I think it's great that they chose an emoji.
All these downers here apparently don't know how language works.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:04:48 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
All these downers here apparently don't know how language works.
Is a smile from a person across the room a word? Or something different? Does a smile have grammar? Linguistic morphology?
Nonverbal communication is an important part of understanding someone. An emoji is a method to translate the nonverbal in a different medium, but it's still something different than a written word - just as a smile is something different than a spoken word.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:02:36 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Word
noun
A single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed:
I donโt like the word โunofficialโ
why so many words for so few ideas?'
Apparently oxford english dictionary has forgotten their definition of the word "word".
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:31:09 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
That's an odd differentiation though considering hyphen and other punctuation use. Words at times have spaces, at times do not. IfITypeLikeThis can you understand it? Then is it one word, or many? What-about-phrases-like-this where there clearly aren't spaces separating the words? And if that's all it takes for an emoji to be a "word", what happens when you put two or more of them side-by-side without spaces? Are they then one word?
Really the definition for "word" they give sounds like it didn't come from a linguist scholar, but from a committee.
I believe the key word in their definition is "usually". NowMostOfThePopulationDoesntTypeLikeThis, and though I occasionally create words-that-aren't-words by hyphonizing them together or addificating parts that don't actually make-sensify them, the base words within these are still words by virtue of them USUALLY being separated by spaces. If something is used often enough, it too enters the dictionary, much like you used "side-by-side" above.
No, but it's also not a single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing. A "?" on itself usually doesn't express anything distinct. An emoji does.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:52:20 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
An
Does that express something distinct all by itself? Is it a word?
I don't think the ability to express is adequate for defining a word. Of course emojis express something, so does the color red and a million other symbols. I don't see how a picture of a face, a piece of clipart, somehow becomes a word just because it's inserted at the end of a sentence anymore than a block of red color is a word if it's inserted into a sentence.
Can written sentences contain more than words? I'd say yes. An emoji is one of these things: a symbol. But not a "word" anymore than the color red is a word or a heart drawn before a name at the end of a letter is a word or a question mark is a word.
I mean, I don't even really disagree with you. I just found it a bit stupid to use a literal dictionary definition of "word" to make a point.
Okay, an emoji isn't technically a word. But it is, without a doubt, part of a language. Of many language, actually, internationally. So while the title "Word of the year" may seem a bit off, I still think it's pretty cool, because it still fits, kind of. Not as an award for a "word", but an award for something that is meaningful for our language in 2015.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:41:22 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
something that is meaningful for our language in 2015
I see what you're saying, yeah. I'd specify the distinction even more, which could make it even more important than if it were a word. Instead of "word of the year", what if the feature highlighted the most prominent communication element in new media?
If we look at emojis from semiotics, the pictograph can be understood as the signifier for an emotion referent. This is very new and very powerful in terms of communication. I'd say calling it a word oversimplifies it's significance from a communications context (while still seems silly as a dictionary "word of the year"). Perhaps our concept of dictionaries should change to archives of communicative elements instead of just trying to fit new elements into the old model.
Yeah. Grammar is already so fucking complicated. There are a gazillion different rulesets, and it's hard to call any of them the right or the wrong one, because linguists over the world are always revamping stuff, putting their own spin on things, emphasizing certain aspects while ignoring others, etc.
I just like that they chose something unconventional because it challenges our ideas of what communication is, and what it means. But yeah, I guess calling it the "word of the year" is a bit problematic. I just don't see it that "strict" about that, it may not be a word, but I appreciate the message they were trying to send with the "award".
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:04:35 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
fuck this shit.
jefriboy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:04:41 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Well according to their own site "refugee" and "on fleek" made the short list as well which is just great.
Gogohax ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:23:55 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
What rhymes with spastic but actually doesn't, and is just a good word to describe the Oxford dictionary using a similar logic it uses. You sloppy flatulent book.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:45:05 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Apparently they teamed up with swiftkey to determine the most popular emoji people use. Rather interesting, although I would like to know what kind of person would need to look up an emoji in the dictionary. The entire point is that they are 'self explanatory'.
oditogre ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:54:24 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I've always thought of emoji / emoticons / ascii smilies as more of a punctuation than a word. They're like accent marks that change or clarify tone.
I want to see the list of words that didn't make it
euthlogo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:05:29 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Definition of "Word" from OED:
A single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed.
I think they are making a point about the definition of the word "word"
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:42:41 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
By that definition punctuation marks could be "words." I think it's more beneficial to differentiate symbols and words. All words are symbols. Not all symbols are words. If emojis are words, how do you pronounce them aloud? It's an interesting precedent to claim languages can contain words that aren't pronouncable.
zumx ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:15:27 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
This totally sounds like an onion post
sarge21 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:33:27 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
You should probably stop caring about "word of the year"
I'm okay with things like selfie and YOLO becoming words of the year, but this literally isn't a word.
CUDesu ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:36:03 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
My word of the year is 'Oxford Dictionary', noun: a language resource that struggles to stay relevant, resorting to adding emojis and whatever terms the kids are using these days. Was once a good source of English words and definitions but has now lost all reputability.
I'm totally okay with this. Good luck putting emoticons in alphabetical order, though!
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:53:27 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Should have been lumbersexual.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:55:54 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
[deleted]
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:09:39 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Let's get away from prescriptivsim then. What part of speech is ๐? Is there a linguistic morphology associated with it? Is it a new word in English, or German, or French? What grammatical rules are associated with it? Does the dialect that contains it place it in a sentence structure in proper accord with its grammar?
Or is it merely a pictographic representation of nonverbal cues traditionally lost in the text medium?
I hate that there is a tears of joy emoji but no sobbing emoji. Just take tears of joy and put a frown where the smile is. Do the emoji people not cry worse than ๐๐ซ๐ฉ๐ญ๐ช? I mean yeah ๐ญ could be seen as sobbing but it also looks like laughing so hard you're crying because of the teeth in its mouth. I have always hated that.
Definition of word in English:
noun
1A single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed:
Yeah for a sub about mild infuriation people are way more pissed off than they should be
mattreyu ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:28:56 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
C'mon Oxford Dictionary, that's not a word. How would you arrange that in a dictionary? By the name of the emoji? What next, cuneiform?
euthlogo ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 23:07:47 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Definition of Word from OED:
A single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed.
LvS ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:43:41 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Shouldnโt it say: โOxford Dictionaryโsโ instead of: โOxford Dictionariesโ which is the plural, not the possessive. Jusus-fuck, they canโt even English anymore...
no joking here. open writing is one of my favorite forms of communication. it's not a complete system, of course, because i don't believe that emojii utility requires particular rules of grammar and syntax. still, this is pretty cool stuff.
I commonly judge the purpose of common household items by whether or not my ancestors would be proud of their present use. Would my ancestors be proud that I can clean my toilet with a toilet brush? They did toil for thousands of years so that I could make these scrambled eggs. I wonder if they're proud of me when I check the time on my Mickey Mouse clock from Disney!
I wonder if my ancestors wanted my family to have an automatic bin, a wifi connected washing machine, or a fridge that emits a horrible loud beep when it's been open for more than 15 seconds.
Okay then it's through your own ignorance that you can't type it on a keyboard ๐๐๐ that's like saying capitals aren't letters because you don't know what the shift key does.
Not at all. I'm saying i don't think it should be a word because you would have to go to some website that tells you which code to write on your numpad while holding down ALT, just to type it. Or you could just try to remember all 255 codes. But let's be real. This is bullshit, and it's definitely not a word.
Cuz remembering the alt-codes you use frequently is so damn hard ๐ข๐ข๐ข๐ข๐ข I mean the average Chinese person knows 8000 different characters but remembering the 50 or so useful alt-codes is way too much to ask. I don't really feel one way or the other regarding whether it's a word or not, but your reasoning for why it isn't is really stupid.
You do realize that letter representations on a screen are in fact code, right? I mean every letter you type has a binary value that a processor interprets and puts on your screen that shows the representation of a letter. It is no different than an alt code. An alt-code is a unicode value that can be broken down into binary that a processor interprets to put a symbol on your screen.
I mean I could bind my keyboard so that when I pressed 'a' a smiley face would be output instead of an 'a'. So at the end of the day your argument falls short. We could make keyboards that had emoji keys with very little effort. Would that make emojis more of a word? You wouldn't have to use alt-codes then. You would just hit the key like typing in a letter.
The fact you're ignorant and stupid isn't a really compelling reason for an emoji not to be a word.
How does it fall short? I press 'A' and out comes 'a'. All the binary value shit you just spewed out mr. /r/iamverysmart, has nothing to do with what i'm saying. It's like you saw the most relevant thing i mentioned and made it as irrelevant as you could.
And if you have to go through all the trouble of recoding your keyboard to makes smileys instead of letters, it shouldn't be classified as a word.
I don't think we're getting anywhere since you really can't see my reasoning for why it shouldn't be a word.
What you basically keep saying is "You're stupid, i'm smart, your arguments are invalid".
You can reply and whatever, but this is becoming a waste of time, and i'm not gonna respond.
I mean reassigning registry values for a keyboard isn't hard. I'm not very smart, but the people who make software like SharpKeys are, and that's all you need.
What I'm saying is if we were to create a larger key board with emoji buttons, would that make emojis more of a word because you could type it on your keyboard? Because like I said, that would be very, very easy to do.
Honestly I see your reasoning, it's just idiotic. I've shown you that you can type an emoji on a keyboard and you can bind it to one key like a letter. Your only comeback to the amounting evidence is "that's too hard". Which really shows what a stupid lazy sack of shit you are.
The fact you are lazy and stupid should not be a justification for an emoji not being a word. You are more than welcome to say it's not a word for other reasons, but saying "I can't type it on a keyboard", or "remembering alt-codes is too hard" or "binary value shit doesn't make sense to me" is asinine, and stupid argument.
Akiba89 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 22:26:20 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
are....are you serious? If you're serious I'll never buy an Oxford dictionary every again
Rombombim ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 21:05:05 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I think everybody on oxford dictionary should take a taste of some delicious bleach
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 21:09:02 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
What the fuck?
elaearae ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 22:35:26 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not insulting trans people. Bruce Jenner is getting away with murder because he decided to get a sex change and keeps changing his mind and doing ridiculous things to get attention. There are so many more deserving women, trans or not.
Yes - I'm sure aliens are staying away because we have incorporated pictographs into our lexicon. That's probably why they didn't talk to ancient Egypt either.
Saved comment
no-internet ยท 1702 points ยท Posted at 18:47:28 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Last year it was "vape". In 2013 it was selfie.
Daktush ยท 483 points ยท Posted at 00:45:15 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I hope in 2016 it is Kappa
ANAL_IMPALER_ ยท 143 points ยท Posted at 01:10:26 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Come on, it's 2015, people! It has to be KappaPride
FrozenSmok3 ยท 107 points ยท Posted at 01:44:42 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
KappaRoss
VanWesley ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 04:42:55 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Keepo
Thedudewithum ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:01:20 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
KeepoPride
maggotbrownie ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:15:26 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Kupo!
Nebresto ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:37:48 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I tell you hwhat
Jmoshua14 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:35:24 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
sneakyGasm
LuthAlex ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 02:52:29 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It should have been Kappa this year. Maybe MingLee next year.
AEKDEEZNUTSB ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:41:47 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
When in doubt, trikappa
ydnab2 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:54:30 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
RUINED
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:51:10 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I would expect it to already be in the dictionary.
AllThatAndAChipsBag ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 01:11:21 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Nah it's gonna be Nae Nae, a year late
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 831 points ยท Posted at 18:51:08 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Apparently MW 2013 was "Science", and 2014 was "Culture".
From this I'd assume OED is a dictionary for preteens and MW is the dictionary for everyone else.
phantuba ยท 912 points ยท Posted at 20:22:28 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
Alright, Merriam Webster words of the year for the next three years are confirmed to be "production," "faith," and "gold."
Jailbyte ยท 255 points ยท Posted at 20:43:54 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
And tourism
NoobyDBL ยท 159 points ยท Posted at 21:50:49 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
You forgot Iron, Uranium, Coal, Oil, Horses, and Aluminum
FresnoChunk ยท 103 points ยท Posted at 22:52:16 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I have crabs.
l0ve2h8urbs ยท 153 points ยท Posted at 23:26:09 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
+4โบ
Znuff ยท 82 points ยท Posted at 00:17:12 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
You meant ๐
Sokonit ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 02:50:18 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐๐๐๐๐
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 06:10:31 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
TRUUUUU LMAO ๐๐๐๐๐
StigDoesntFart ยท 30 points ยท Posted at 01:52:43 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
What do you want for that?
200 Gold + Horses + Whales + Pearls + Open Borders? Are you nuts Dandolo??
Fuck it. I'll just take your city.
ThePickleAvenger ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:12:40 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
"I'd like a research agreement."
"Sure, under the conditions of 350 gold, 3 gpt, your one source of Marble, and you need to go to war with Hiawatha."
because_im_boring ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:58:29 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
with +1 production from fishing boats
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 08:09:07 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I personally prefer Aluminium. It rolls off of the tounge better
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:20:41 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
NoobyDBL ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:26:25 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
The joke is about a video game called Civ 5 where all of those things are recourses.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:37:56 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
AndydaAlpaca ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 22:43:43 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I don't think you're getting the joke...
Zandrick ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:26:28 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
what did it say?
AndydaAlpaca ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 23:29:52 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Something along the lines of:
"Also Uranium, Yttrium, Magnesium, Uranium, Cobalt, Copper, Silver, and Uranium again."
Ardgarius ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:37:04 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
What about potassium ?
NoobyDBL ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:26:32 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
The joke is about a video game called Civ 5 where all of those things are recourses.
Ardgarius ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:02:05 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Tfw just wanted to make a borat joke
Raymanic ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:53:28 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
/r/civ is leaking again
quitealongusername ยท 32 points ยท Posted at 00:30:47 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Surely "domination" and "diplomatic" seeing as science and culture are both victory conditions?
phantuba ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 01:56:45 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Interesting point actually, I was thinking of it in terms of output-per-turn items.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:02:43 on November 19, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
They're also both yields so you're both correct! Hurrah!
LtLabcoat ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:57:03 on December 14, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
Only in Civ5 though.
Code for the previous two games suggest that a Diplomatic Victory was also going to be a possible way to win, but it seems that they were cut from the games for unknown reasons.
ChinuaAyybb ยท 358 points ยท Posted at 20:44:20 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
the Dutch Language Society's word of the year 2008 was "swaffelen", which means hitting your penis repeatedly against a person, animal, or object.
Emoji's would be a step up for us.
torankusu ยท 336 points ยท Posted at 22:21:06 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Every day I'm swaffelen.
dontknowmeatall ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 01:59:24 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I like this version more.
inthedrink ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:07:03 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It's like Rick Ross made the song with exactly this in mind.
superpowersam ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 21:51:21 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
TIL it's 'swaffelen' instead of 'zwaffelen'. I guess it's the act that counts
zweilinkehaende ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 22:08:14 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Well, it was so widely used, that we said this on a day to day basis in middleschool and that was in Germany.
green_speak ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 21:00:06 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Well then, I know what I'll be googling tonight.
ChinuaAyybb ยท 47 points ยท Posted at 22:14:37 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
If you're interested, the word became well-known after a video surfaced of an idiot student who swaffelde the Taj Mahal.
NSFW (contains footage of Dutch student hitting his dick against the Taj Mahal)
green_speak ยท 22 points ยท Posted at 22:22:31 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Eh, there's dick pics and then there's pics of dicks.
Amunium ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 10:28:57 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
The Danish word of the year 2014 is "MobilePay". That's not even a word, it's the name of a specific mobile app developed by Denmark's largest bank. I don't even…
fidelitypdx ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:16:02 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Now I have something to say to my girlfriend instead of giggling like a boy as I swaffelen her.
MistarGrimm ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:55:31 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
To verb it up.
MaNiFeX ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:42:01 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
OK, time to go back.
cauldron_bubble ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:52:06 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐๐ Laughing because my partner is Dutch.... I hope he feels like "swafflin" tonight. ๐๐ ๐๐๐
Grandy12 ยท 109 points ยท Posted at 00:30:02 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Honestly those two words make it sound like MW is the dictionary for /r/iamverysmart
arahman81 ยท 41 points ยท Posted at 00:47:34 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Or /r/civ
zgrove ยท -8 points ยท Posted at 01:59:09 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Science and culture are complicated words for you?
Grandy12 ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 02:15:10 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Nah, just too on-the-nose.
me1505 ยท 105 points ยท Posted at 00:00:14 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Because "science" and "culture" didn't exist before the last few years? The OED is documenting the language as it evolves, and using new words each year that have achieved widespread popularity, such as "vape", "muggle", "selfie" and, in this case, that emoji. Emoji have massively taken off recently with the widespread social media support and smart phones.
Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they aren't becoming widely used and understood.
BiDo_Boss ยท 38 points ยท Posted at 00:21:27 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I agree, but they could have at least used the fucking word "emoji" instead of an actual emoji -_-
me1505 ยท 35 points ยท Posted at 00:22:51 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
More people use emoji than say "emoji"
Remember- ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:27:55 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
That doesn't make it a word. ;') isn't a word you cretin - "emoji" is
dontknowmeatall ยท 26 points ยท Posted at 02:10:31 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Well... from a linguistic point of view, it's complicated. There is no universal definition on what a word is, though what most tend to agree on is that it's a spoken, written or signed symbol that conveys meaning. Emoji are part of Unicode, which makes them characters, not pictures. ๐ has a meaning that's stable across cultures with little variation, and it can be used in written or spoken conversation (one could argue that it represents laughter or the depicted facial expression during a conversation). Although ๐ is not what we traditionally think of as a word, it has a stronger connection with signed words. Denying ๐'s word-like characteristics is like denying the word-like characteristics of saluting with the index and middle fingers (a greeting in ASL). Sure, it's not the same as writing down "cheers!" in the Latin alphabet, but it has the same purpose and results.
This is actually a very interesting and somewhat controversial topic that linguists across the world have been discussing over the last few years, and I'm sure /r/linguistics would have something cool to say about it.
Captain_Alaska ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:26:36 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
And just like with words, different
peoplephones interpret the meanings differently.Shanman150 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:58:18 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Was it really necessary to insult someone over this?
BiDo_Boss ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 00:32:10 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
More people use Scumbag Steve and other memes than they actally say "Scumbag Steve" or even "meme". So, they should make word of the year 2016 a picture of Scumbag Steve...?
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 04:19:08 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Being widely used and understood still doesn't make it a word.
What part of speech is it? A noun? verb? article? adjective?
Languages have specific structures that make them languages. This is why many linguists do not consider the communications employed by great apes and corvids to be "language."
An emoji is a symbol used to represent a nonverbal emotional cue in a verbal-only medium such as texts. It's inferior to poetics and advanced diction in depth, but superior in its immediacy. But it's still a symbol - an illustration of a face - not a word.
Expandedcelt ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 07:17:28 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Are hieroglyphics not a valid linguistic form of communications either since they are just pictures?
greg19735 ยท 22 points ยท Posted at 00:31:33 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
How can the word science be word of the year though? And culture? They're so boring and I don't see how those words are more important than any other.
[deleted] ยท 80 points ยท Posted at 20:48:18 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
No no no. OED is a perfectly reputable dictionary. The Oxford Dictionary, on the other hand, (notice the word "English" has been omitted) has turned to trash. OED is academic, while OD is about keeping up with the times and new definitions.
waldron76 ยท 106 points ยท Posted at 02:07:05 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I mean that is literally the point of a dictionary, to document language.
[deleted] ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 02:16:07 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I mean it as in, essentially, a SFW urban dictionary. This is the dictionary where you are likely to find words like "twerking" and "selfie", as opposed to OED which is basically the English essential word list.
[deleted] ยท 61 points ยท Posted at 02:53:39 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Just because a word isn't intellectual doesn't make it any less a word.
Wurmingham ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 05:45:02 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, but being a picture kinda disqualifies it as a word.
TheFatMistake ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 10:47:45 on December 14, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Not true actually.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:00:31 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
That's not my point. My point is that OED is the dictionary that should be used if you are writing an essay and that the OD is what should be used if you have to find a definition for your friend or grandma real quick.
bob000000005555 ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 05:13:18 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
The rest of us use "define: word" in Google.
Dongslinger420 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 05:44:26 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Well, no? OD won't just drop definitions or alter them all willy-nilly. Either way, we still would like to know why the OD is "trash" as you called it, so far you only gave examples as to why it is superior to its counterparts.
Monarki ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:46:59 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Are you saying there are more technical terms in oed compared to od?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:19:02 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Huh, and here I thought it was to ary diction. Welp, guess I learned something new today.
throwaiiay ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 02:01:50 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I don't think that's quite right. There is no such thing as the "Oxford Dictionary." There is the Oxford University Press, and they publish many dictionaries, including the OED (which includes words like "selfie", but then again so does M-W).
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:18:41 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Source.
Mechakoopa ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 23:06:17 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Ah, I thought it was just OED trying to be relevant in a world where fewer and fewer people actually know the definitions of the words they use and how to spell them without spell check.
eagerzeepzee ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:00:31 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
No. Oxford Dictionaries is more of a social commentary and documentation of things people are doing with language.
lune_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:12:26 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
if you think preteens are the biggest emoji users i beg you to get back in touch with teens and early 20s people
Jimmypickles ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:16:52 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Nah, Merriam-Webster is still playing Civ 5
BeefPieSoup ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:04:45 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Why do dictionaries apparently need to nominate "word of the year" now anyway? This is the first I've heard of this. It seems like an absurd, pointless concept in and of itself, let alone if this sort of thing is the outcome.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:08:29 on December 8, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Not much better than this to be honest. How bland.
[deleted] ยท 62 points ยท Posted at 02:02:56 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Vape and Selfie are fine. At least those are pronounceable words.
Reddit might hate them but they describe very specific and new things to our culture, and thus language must evolve to keep up.
But this? This is madness.
eating15pancakes ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 04:03:07 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I think their decision may have been intended to sort of cut to the chase on the "text-speak" snowball and just throw up their hands and say "this is what your language is now, and still we will catalog it."
Winkelkater ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:14:27 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
this is the dialectic of enlightenment.
CJ_Jones ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 02:39:41 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
A voice of reason, buried at the bottom.
Gotta love Reddit sometimes...
Edit: This was at -5 when I saw it. You can stop downvoting me just for going against the hive mind.
Shanman150 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 19:53:33 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Tagichatn ยท 82 points ยท Posted at 22:22:14 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, I can't believe they're adding popular new words to the dictionary.
[deleted] ยท 52 points ยท Posted at 00:25:11 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
[deleted]
swimatm ยท 40 points ยท Posted at 01:13:11 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Easy: ๐
tehreal ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:10:32 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐ข
Hardin_of_Akaneia ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 15:52:00 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐
Tagichatn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:39:39 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
My reply was for vape and selfie, not the emoji.
TheFatMistake ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:49:55 on December 14, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Will it's pretty connotative, I'll give you that much.
dontknowmeatall ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:11:55 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
There isn't a clear universal definition on what a word is. ๐ can technically be considered its own word by some definitions.
ponte92 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:54:35 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Because language definitely isn't something that evolves or something.
Tagichatn ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:22:39 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Forgot my /s, sorry.
ponte92 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:26:34 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Oh I figured I was justing adding on :)
familyguyisntfunny ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 08:24:05 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Seriously, nigger is a better candidate. At least its a fucking word.
AdmiralSkippy ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:20:46 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Damn. Missed opportunity for yolo.
Honestly vape makes sense to me. Vaping is here to stay, and a lot of people do it.
Hopefully we come up with a better word than "selfie".
ellimist ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:32:01 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
...
rreighe2 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:02:30 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I think there's a theme here.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:09:48 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
เฒ _เฒ
fluffnubs ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:17:06 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I audibly growled reading this comment.
imanevildr ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:44:55 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I couldn't say what year it was but sometime in the 90's, doh was the word of the year and I'm fairly certain this was the begining of a long downward trend. At least we didnt get yolo or bae this year. ..
LimesInHell ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:50:24 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Well this year it has significance due to emojis being an official standard of UTF format
theresamouseinmyhous ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:48:35 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
So it's really the marketing plan to get kids to acknowledge Oxford dictionary of the year.
no-internet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:14:27 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Today I found out the word of the year is not "emoji", but THAT PARTICULAR emoji.
MaxNanasy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:45:25 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It's apparently the most frequently used emoji
ChuanFaFist ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:23:03 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Those are words.
MikoSqz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:58:52 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Well, those are commonly used words for things that are commonly talked about. They're as cromulent as it gets.
On the other hand, I may be old-fashioned but I think the word of the year should always be a word. Not a color, a smell, a type of soup, or an emoji.
mcampo84 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:49:28 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
remember when it was w007 ?
Dwight-Beats-Schrute ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:58:30 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I mean.. new words should probably be the words of the year.
Even dumb ones
BJ22CS ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 21:37:04 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Never heard of it, sounds made up. But I believe you.
DamnedestWagonWheel ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 23:13:20 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
All words are made up.
no-internet ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:52:32 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
And I'm not entirely sure what it covers, so it's ok.
Dylan7225 ยท 320 points ยท Posted at 18:31:54 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Could you spell that word for me?
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 534 points ยท Posted at 18:52:52 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It's spelled, "๐."
Pnspi2 ยท 172 points ยท Posted at 20:06:09 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Could you use it in a sentence?
[deleted] ยท 518 points ยท Posted at 20:07:32 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐๐๐๐ you.
the-postminimalist ยท 80 points ยท Posted at 20:36:51 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Thanks
The_Rolling_Stone ยท 63 points ยท Posted at 21:09:05 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
GenBlase ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 00:20:47 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Not saying, the act of it.
pinkyabuse ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 01:33:39 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
So zen.
maggymooo ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 23:01:24 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Could you use it in a dirty sentence?
potatoesarenotcool ยท 39 points ยท Posted at 03:44:47 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐๐ฆ๐
Magnum40oz ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 01:42:05 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐
_AI_ ยท 123 points ยท Posted at 03:38:25 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
( อก๐ อส ๐อก)
_spoderman_ ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 12:14:58 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
This just blew my mind
ShokoFlow ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 06:39:34 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐ฉ๐
MaxNanasy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:46:34 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
This is the best sentence I've read all day
digduged ยท 73 points ยท Posted at 22:10:36 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I ๐ my family
torankusu ยท 122 points ยท Posted at 22:25:28 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I squanch my family.
digduged ยท 37 points ยท Posted at 22:30:01 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Ew gross
faketourettes ยท 22 points ยท Posted at 22:39:03 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
What? She REALLY squanches her family.
Icandigsushi ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 23:37:03 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Stop saying it.
Guardian432 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:11:22 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Fucking quit saying it before I squanch you.
FPSXpert ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:46:09 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
What? I ๐ my family?
Howie_The_Lord ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 23:51:48 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Look at your dick. ๐๐๐
[deleted] ยท 42 points ยท Posted at 23:07:55 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
RedGiant925 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:43:59 on November 20, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
DOS NIGGA TRYNA GRAB THE BOOTY IN THE MIDDLE OF A FIGHT
SUBstep2k ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 12:00:43 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
REAL NIGGA HOURS MAKE SURE TO SMASH DAT MF LIKE BUTTON IF YOU UP ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐
goodguydick ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 23:18:19 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Real nigga hours ๐
CookieTheSlayer ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:44:15 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:09:33 on April 18, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Good morning, that's a nice ๐.
ColinOnReddit ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:03:17 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
You have beautiful penmanship.
SuperCho ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 22:10:37 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, where can I find that in Oxford Dictionary?
IQuoteRelevantSongs ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 00:00:37 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐ฝ
DickMcMuffin ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 04:34:51 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
ORDER CORN
cawclot ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:08:55 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐
Hardin_of_Akaneia ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:52:25 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐
Brosefiss ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:03:30 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Dammit, we're going to start having emoji bees now huh? I don't want to live on this planet anymore...
PM_ME_1_MILLION_USD ยท 116 points ยท Posted at 19:09:42 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Almost as bad/good as Time's person of the year in 2006.
Omegaman2010 ยท 138 points ยท Posted at 20:06:35 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Well, that's going on my resume.
mrangeloff ยท 28 points ยท Posted at 08:11:54 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
That went on my resume. I started at this new place this month.
Here's a screenshot of my resume
Omegaman2010 ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 08:21:04 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I'd hire anyone that was fluent in Russian just so they could scare off muggers.
LoneCookie ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 17:06:47 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I'm russian and 5'4" and a girl
Omegaman2010 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 18:09:54 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
When can you start?
inthedrink ยท 28 points ยท Posted at 04:14:22 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
If I had a job candidate who put this on their resume, this would 100% help their cause. Not like "get the job" help their cause, but get noticed vs. someone with equal credentials. It'd be a pretty clever thing to claim and shows a sense of humor.
Now with that said, if anyone has this on their resume moving forward then I know they're from Reddit and their resume is going in the trash.
LegoGuy23 ยท 40 points ยท Posted at 19:57:11 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Devil's Advocate:
Well, with the Time PotY, it was a time when the Internet was changing as to give the everyman a platform and a venue to speak his mind and garner interest. I mean, think just a few years before: No Youtube, no Facebook, no Twitter; just simple forum sites.
Gobae ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 03:38:47 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It's also cheesy as shit, which is what annoys people.
Hayarotle ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:44:13 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
I'd argue that the everyman would be able to better speak his mind in his own plataform in pre-facebook internet than in today internet, which is saturated with meaningless content and owned by monopolies.
LegoGuy23 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 20:46:41 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, there's defiantly an argument to be made there.
Though from Time's perspective, it brought the social aspect to the layman, end-user.
Sawybean ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 01:39:39 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
What a copout. It's genius.
netflixandchili ยท 27 points ยท Posted at 19:47:04 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
This is much much worse
RabbitSeesSTARS ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:53:49 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I remember the cover having a mirror on it
Kerrby ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:45:24 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Not as bad as giving it to Mark Zuckerberg.
Little_Ticket ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:39:56 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
That's the least creative thing I've ever seen.
schammy ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 09:54:58 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Christ how was that already 9 years ago.
ehsteve23 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 10:15:49 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It wasn't "you" as in anyone who reads it, it's the people who contributed to online collaborative media like Wikipedia, YouTube etc.
EPOSZ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:06:49 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
To be fair, not even that is their biggest mistake. Stalin won twice, 1939 and 1942, and Hitler won once, 1938.
s0bmarine ยท 354 points ยท Posted at 20:33:21 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Your cat is dead ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐
-mom
Ruzihm ยท 71 points ยท Posted at 21:09:08 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
/r/oldpeoplefacebook WHERE DID THIS COME FROM. MUST HAVE HACKED MY FACE BOOK!!
DickMcMuffin ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 04:36:07 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
HI RUZIHM ARE YOU DOING WELL PAP PAP ISN'T GETTING MUCH BETTER HE WILL PROBABLY BE WITH THE LORD SOON LOL LOVE GRandmaster Flash.
DickMcMuffin ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 04:36:19 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
WHO ARE YOU HOW DID YOU GET ON MY PAGE
DickMcMuffin ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 04:36:25 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
DELETE.
scy1192 ยท 77 points ยท Posted at 01:56:37 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
https://i.imgur.com/U27IH.jpg
JamesR624 ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 03:26:24 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Wasn't it our own parents that taught us not to use phrases or words without knowing what they mean?
evilcheesypoof ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 12:02:49 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Well she thought she knew what it meant.
UselessCommentThief ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 22:35:24 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I thought he was crying.
coffeebean-induced ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:53:51 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Cat is with the Lord now
Destati ยท 804 points ยท Posted at 18:28:09 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
http://i.imgur.com/DuemCtl.gif
Jonny-Sniper ยท 569 points ยท Posted at 21:09:47 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ good shit goเฑฆิ sHit๐ thats โ some good๐๐shit right๐๐there๐๐๐ rightโthere โโif i do ฦฝaาฏ so my self ๐ฏ i say so ๐ฏ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ฏ ๐๐ ๐ะO0ะเฌ OOOOOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ฏ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐๐Good shit
[deleted] ยท 359 points ยท Posted at 22:41:21 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
http://i.imgur.com/3R7p3QB.jpg
SekondaH ยท 50 points ยท Posted at 22:47:02 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Amazing
GoreFox ยท 94 points ยท Posted at 22:31:42 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
POTENTIALLY sign me the FUCK up ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ average shit moderaฬทฬถte sHit ๐ thats some ALright ๐๐shit right ๐๐ th ๐ ere ๐๐๐ right ๐ there ๐ if i doโฦฝaาฏ soโmy sel๏ฝ๐ i say so ๐ that could be what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ ๐ ๐ ๐๐ะO0ะเฌ ๏ผฏOO๏ผฏOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต ๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐๐Not outstanding shit
Grandy12 ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 00:31:11 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Where did this meme come from and could they have made it more annoying?
Luxanna_Crownguard ยท 72 points ยท Posted at 01:02:52 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐Daddy๐ be nimble๐ถ๐ป Daddy be quick๐๐ป๐จ Daddy has a rock๐ฟ hard dick ๐๐! 1โฃcummy๐ฆ 2โฃcummy๐ฆ๐ฆ 3โฃcummy๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ 4โฃ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ! Daddy cums๐ฆ so much he can't cum any more๐๐๐! Ghost cummy๐ป๐ฆ Ghost cummy๐ป๐ฆ don't be scaredโ๐โ! There's always more cummies๐ฆ๐ that can be shared๐ฌ! Daddy makes me โsquishyโ Daddy makes me ๐งwet๐งDaddy treats me like his little pet๐๐ฉ๐! Send this to 69 ๐ฏTRUE๐ฏ Daddy's or else you'll ๐ซnever๐ซ get any cummies๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ again ๐ฆ๐ณ๐
Grandy12 ยท 60 points ยท Posted at 01:12:04 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Oh look at that, it could be more annoying.
awall621 ยท 40 points ยท Posted at 01:30:56 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
deleted What is this?
Waguann ยท 49 points ยท Posted at 02:44:00 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
what the actual fuck is this meme
8BitHedgehog ยท 21 points ยท Posted at 01:57:05 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Pls stop it's getting worse
lune_ ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 02:13:22 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
youre only bringing this upon yourself friend
8BitHedgehog ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 02:21:46 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
FUCK
Thepancakeman1k ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 12:10:41 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
hey you ๐ฆturkey๐ฆ lurkey slut๐ ๐ . itโs ๐HOEvember๐. you know what that meansโ ๐time๐ to gobble๐ gobble๐ gobble๐ on a big ol๐๐ dick๐๐. back in 1๏ธโฃ4๏ธโฃ9๏ธโฃ2๏ธโฃ, our main bitch๐๐ Christopher Columbus๐ฆ๐ป and those slutty๐๐ pilgrims๐๐ had to ๐ฆ๐ฆcum๐ฆ๐ฆ 2๏ธโฃ Americaโต๏ธโต๏ธโต๏ธโ๏ธ in search๐ต of new dicks to suck๐๐๐. send this to 1๏ธโฃ0๏ธโฃ of your sluttiest pilgrim ๐ฝ๐ฝ bitches or you wonโt get any ๐ฆgravy๐ฆ this year. Get 5๏ธโฃ back and youโre a mashed potato hoe๐๐. get 1๏ธโฃ0๏ธโฃ back and youโre a sexy stuffing slut๐ฝ๐ฝ. happy ๐ฆcock๐ gobbling๐ thursday and get ready for big โผ๏ธBLACKโผ๏ธ dick ๐ ๐ฟFRIDAY๐ ๐ฟ
wtfamireadingdotjpg ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 17:39:24 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Hl every1 im new๐๐๐๐!!!!!!! holds up spork thats โ some good๐๐shit๐๐ right๐๐there๐๐๐ my name is katy๐ฏ ๐ฏ but u can call me๐ง๐ง๐ง t3h PeNgU1N oF d00m๐ง๐ง๐ง๐ง ๐ฏ ๐๐ฏ๐ง๐ง๐ง๐ฏ !!!!!!!! lolโฆas u can see๐๐๐ im very randomโโif i do ฦฝaาฏ so my self๐๐๐ ๐ฏ!!!! thats why i came here, 2 meet random ppl like me ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐_โฆ im 13 years old (im mature 4 my age tho!!๐๐๐๐)thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) i like 2 watch invader zim w/ my girlfreind (im bi if u dont like it deal w/it) mMMMMแทะ๐ฏ ๐๐ ๐ะO0ะเฌ OOOOOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ its our favorite tv show!!๐๐๐๐๐! bcuz its SOOOO random!!!!๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ฏ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐๐ shes random 2 of course but i want 2 meet more random ppl =) like they say the more the merrier!!!! lolโฆneways i hope 2 make alot of freinds here so give me lots of commentses!!!! ๐ฏ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐๐Good shit DOOOOOMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <--- me bein random again _^ ๐๐ heheโฆtoodles!!!!! good shit goเฑฆิ sHit๐ thats โ some good๐๐shit right๐๐there๐๐๐
love and waffles,
t3h PeNgU1N oF d00m ๐ง๐ง๐ง๐ง๐๐ ๐ ๐ฏ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐๐Good shit
8BitHedgehog ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:05:17 on November 19, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
That was probably the dankest thing I've ever read.
j6sh ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 06:18:34 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Everyday we stray further from God's light.
MaxNanasy ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:49:43 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/good-shit
/r/goodshitpasta
Grandy12 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 14:50:09 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Thanks
bivsu ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 00:14:36 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
you cnโt see it. but im flipping you off. i am flipping you off with both my hands. im typing this with my middle finger. i am flipping you off right now. flipping you off so hard right now. you canโt see it, which is a true pity, but take my word for it. i am. i am flipping you off right now. because you canโt see it, let me describe it for you. my pinkie and ring fingers are folded down on both hands, a little past the second crease in my hands. my middle fingers are extended. theyโre pointing to the sky. then my thumbs are crossed over my index fingers, also folded down on my hands, but to the freckle on my left hand. my thumb nail on my left hand has a black triangle on it. now, iโm waving my both my hands vigorously, still flipping you off.
jackjones2014 ยท 75 points ยท Posted at 21:44:21 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฏ๐ฏSIGN ME THE FUCK UP ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฏ๐ฏ
kalitarios ยท 55 points ยท Posted at 21:55:00 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
what does the damn 100 mean? I constantly see this in triplicate on IG and Facebook.
tvor ยท 148 points ยท Posted at 21:57:58 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
100% true. Legit AF fam
[deleted] ยท 32 points ยท Posted at 23:16:48 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
-OMGZOMBIES- ยท 57 points ยท Posted at 23:18:29 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Peeps / homies / crew. It's short for family.
[deleted] ยท 31 points ยท Posted at 23:22:00 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
thegeneraldisarray ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:49:43 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Just telling you the honest truth my friend.
JacElli ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:55:37 on November 21, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Ah but the confusion has us in disarray.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:33:11 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
*fam
SmoothNicka32 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:13:16 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
The fuck are peeps and homies?
Teajaytea7 ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 01:49:56 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Grandma get off Reddit
-OMGZOMBIES- ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:38:46 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
My white guy understanding of what black people said before they said fam, mostly informed by the fact that Fresh Prince was on constantly during my childhood.
[deleted] ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 00:52:24 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
one hunna
rubberbandage ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 23:25:09 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It originally meant (and still means) โperfect test scoreโ. Most of these originated in Japan, and this was frequently used enough to make it into the Emoji standard.
njm_nick ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 01:07:59 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
"Keeping something 300" is used like "keep it real" now so whenever ๐ฏ๐ฏ๐ฏ is used, it basically means something is completely true and legitimate like what u/tvor said.
"Keep it 3 hundred" originally came from the Three C's which stand for "Cool, Calm, and Collected." CCC in Roman numerals is 300 hence the repeated emojis.
Edit: switched order of sentences Edit2: i'm wrong, read the reply from u/noyourenottheonlyone
noyourenottheonlyone ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 03:22:10 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
no thats just something someone on rap genius wrote and fuccbois perpetuate that dumb shit to this day. it was written to try and legitimize kanye west saying "I keep it 300, like the romans". but in actual fact he was just saying that he keeps it 300 (like the movie with the spartans) and nobody in the studio didnt want to be a fact checking choch. keeping it "3 hunna" came from chief keef, another chicago rapper who kanye put in the spotlight when he remixed "i dont like". the 300 block in south chicago is where keef is from.
njm_nick ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:57:23 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Makes complete sense and I have nothing solid to back up what I said. TIL.
Guardian432 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:10:07 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Rip PC users.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:54:30 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ good shit goเฑฆิ sHit๐ thats โ some good๐๐shit right๐๐there๐๐๐ rightโthere โโif i do ฦฝaาฏ so my self ๐ฏ i say so ๐ฏ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ฏ ๐๐ ๐ะO0ะเฌ OOOOOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ฏ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐๐Good shitsauce me the FUCK up ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ cheesy shit cheesy sHit๐ thats โ some cheesy๐๐shit right๐๐th ๐ ere๐๐๐ rightโthere โโif i doโฦฝaาฏ soโmy sel๏ฝ ๐ด i say so ๐ด thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ด ๐๐ ๐ะO0ะเฌ ๏ผฏOO๏ผฏOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ด ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐๐Cheesy shit ๐๐ฉ๐๐ฉ๐๐ฉ๐๐ฉ๐๐ฉ euphoric logic !euphoric loGic๐ thats โ some euphoric๐๐ป logic right๐๐ปthere๐๐๐ Carl ๐ญ Sagan๐๐ซif i do ฦฝaาฏ so gentlemen ๐ฏ i say so ๐ฏ thats euPhoric logic right there Richard ๐ Dawkins๐ฉ (chorus: socrates died for this shit) mMMMMแทะ๐ฏ ๐๐๐ะO0ะเฌ OOOOOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ ๐๐ฉ ๐ ๐ฏ ๐ ๐๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ฉ ๐๐euphoric logic slam me the FUCK uP ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ john cena JOhN cEna๐ john โ cena john๐๐cena john๐๐cena๐๐๐ johnโcena โโu can't see me if I do ฦฝaาฏ so my self ๐ฏ i say so ๐ฏ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ฏ ๐๐ ๐ะO0ะเฌ OOOOOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ฏ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐๐John ceNa POTENTIALLY sign me the FUCK up ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ average shit moderaฬทฬถte sHit ๐ thats some ALright ๐๐shit right ๐๐ th ๐ ere ๐๐๐ right ๐ there ๐ if i doโฦฝaาฏ soโmy sel๏ฝ๐ i say so ๐ that could be what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ ๐ ๐ ๐๐ะO0ะเฌ ๏ผฏOO๏ผฏOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต ๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐๐Not outstanding shit ๐๐ฝ๐๐ฝ๐๐ฝ ayy lmao ayyy lmao good lmao๐ thats โ some ayyy๐๐lamayo right๐๐there๐๐๐ rightโthere โโif i do LMAO so my self ๐ฏ i ayyy so ๐ฏ thats what im probing about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ฏ ๐๐ ๐AAAYYYYyyyyYYYYYyyyyyyสธสธสธสธสธสธสธสธ๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ฏ ๐ ๐ฝ๐ฝ๐ฝ๐๐ayy lmao ๐ธโ๏ธ๐ธโ๏ธ๐ธโ๏ธ๐ธโ๏ธ๐ธโ๏ธ good memes goเฑฆิ mEmes๐ธ thats ๐ซ๐ซsome good๐ธ๐ธmemes right๐ธ๐ธth ๐ธ ere๐ธ๐ธ๐ธ right๐ซthere ๐ซ๐ซif i do ฦฝaาฏ so my sel๏ฝ โโ๏ธ๐๐โโ๏ธ i say so โโ๏ธ๐๐โโ๏ธ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะโโ๏ธ๐๐โโ๏ธ ๐ธ๐ธ ๐ธะO0ะเฌ ๏ผฏOO๏ผฏOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ธ ๐ธ๐ธ ๐ธ โโ๏ธ๐๐โโ๏ธ ๐ธ โ๏ธ โ๏ธ โ๏ธ๐ธ๐ธGood memes ๐ฉ๐๐ฉ๐๐ฉ๐๐ฉ๐๐ฉ๐ bull shit bull sHit๐ฉ thats โ๏ธ some bull๐ฉ๐ฉshit right๐ฉ๐ฉth ๐ฉ ere๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ฉ rightโ๏ธthere โ๏ธโ๏ธif i do ฦฝaาฏ so my sel๏ฝ โผ๏ธ i say so โผ๏ธ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะโผ๏ธ ๐ฉ๐ฉ ๐ฉHO0ะเฌ ๏ผฏOO๏ผฏOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ฉ ๐ฉ๐ฉ ๐ฉ โผ๏ธ ๐ฉ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ฉ๐ฉBull shit do NOT sign me the FUCK up ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ bad shit baฬทฬถ ิ sHit ๐ thats โ some bad ๐๐shit right ๐๐ th ๐ ere ๐๐๐ right โ there โ โ if i do ฦฝaาฏ so my sel๏ฝ๐ซ i say so ๐ซ thats not what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ ๐ซ ๐ ๐๐ะO0ะเฌ ๏ผฏOO๏ผฏOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต ๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ซ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐๐Bad shit ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ good shitposting goเฑฆิ sHitpOsting๐ thats โ some good๐๐shitposting right๐๐there๐๐๐ rightโthere โโif i do ฦฝaาฏ so my self ๐ฏ i say so ๐ฏ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ฏ ๐๐ ๐ะO0ะเฌ OOOOOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ฏ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐๐Good shitposting wife me the FUCK up ๐ญ๐๐ญ๐๐ญ๐๐ญ๐๐ญ๐ gay shit gโy sHit๐ญ thats ๐ some gay๐ญ๐ญshit right๐ญ๐ญth ๐ญ ere๐ญ๐ญ๐ญ right๐there ๐๐if i doโฦฝaาฏ soโmy sel๏ฝ ๐ i say so ๐ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ ๐ญ๐ญ ๐ญะO0ะเฌ ๏ผฏOO๏ผฏOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ญ ๐ญ๐ญ ๐ญ ๐ ๐ญ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ญ๐ญGay shit ๐๐ป๐๐ป๐๐ป๐ป๐ป๐๐ป spooky shit spooky sHit๐ thats โ some spooky๐๐shit right๐๐th ๐ ere๐๐๐ rightโthere โโif i do ฦฝaาฏ so my sel๏ฝ ๐ฏ i say so ๐ฏ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ฏ ๐๐ ๐ะO0ะเฌ ๏ผฏOO๏ผฏOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ฏ ๐ ๐ป๐ป ๐ป ๐๐spooky shit ๐๐ป๐๐ป๐๐ป๐ป๐ป๐๐ป spooky shit spooky sHit๐ thats โ some spooky๐๐shit right๐๐th ๐ ere๐๐๐ rightโthere โโif i do ฦฝaาฏ so my sel๏ฝ ๐ฏ i say so ๐ฏ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ฏ ๐๐ ๐ะO0ะเฌ ๏ผฏOO๏ผฏOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ฏ ๐ ๐ป๐ป ๐ป ๐๐spooky shit ๐๐ป๐๐ป๐๐ป๐ป๐ป๐๐ป spooky shit spooky sHit๐ thats โ some spooky๐๐shit right๐๐th ๐ ere๐๐๐ rightโthere โโif i do ฦฝaาฏ so my sel๏ฝ ๐ฏ i say so ๐ฏ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ฏ ๐๐ ๐ะO0ะเฌ ๏ผฏOO๏ผฏOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ฏ ๐ ๐ป๐ป ๐ป ๐๐spooky shit ๐๐ป๐๐ป๐๐ป๐ป๐ป๐๐ป spooky shit spooky sHit๐ thats โ some spooky๐๐shit right๐๐th ๐ ere๐๐๐ rightโthere โโif i do ฦฝaาฏ so my sel๏ฝ ๐ฏ i say so ๐ฏ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ฏ ๐๐ ๐ะO0ะเฌ ๏ผฏOO๏ผฏOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ฏ ๐ ๐ป๐ป ๐ป ๐๐spooky shit ๐ฆ๐๐ฆ๐๐ฆ๐๐ฆ๐๐ฆ๐ good cummies goเฑฆิ cUmmIes๐ฆ thats โ some good๐ฆ๐ฆcummies right๐ฆ๐ฆthere๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฆ rightโthere โโif my ๐ชdaddy๐ช say so him self ๐ฝ i say so ๐ฏ thats what hes talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMะ๐ฏ ๐ฆ๐ฆ ๐ฆะO0ะเฌ OOOOOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐ฆ ๐ฆ ๐ฏ ๐ฆ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ฆ๐ฆGood cummies~ friendzone me the FUCK up โค๏ธ๐โค๏ธ๐โค๏ธ๐โค๏ธ๐โค๏ธ m'lady shit m'lady sHitโค๏ธ thats โ some m'lady ๐๐shit rightโค๏ธโค๏ธthere๐๐๐ rightโthere โโif i do ฦฝaาฏ so my self ๐ i say so ๐ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ ๐๐๐ะO0ะเฌ OOOOOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐ โค๏ธ โค๏ธ โค๏ธ ๐ โค๏ธ M'lady shit friendzone me the FUCK up โค๏ธ๐โค๏ธ๐โค๏ธ๐โค๏ธ๐โค๏ธ m'lady shit m'lady sHitโค๏ธ thats โ some m'lady ๐๐shit rightโค๏ธโค๏ธthere๐๐๐ rightโthere โโif i do ฦฝaาฏ so my self ๐ i say so ๐ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ ๐๐๐ะO0ะเฌ OOOOOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐ โค๏ธ โค๏ธ โค๏ธ ๐ โค๏ธ M'lady shit friendzone me the FUCK up โค๏ธ๐โค๏ธ๐โค๏ธ๐โค๏ธ๐โค๏ธ m'lady shit m'lady sHitโค๏ธ thats โ some m'lady ๐๐shit rightโค๏ธโค๏ธthere๐๐๐ rightโthere โโif i do ฦฝaาฏ so my self ๐ i say so ๐ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ ๐๐๐ะO0ะเฌ OOOOOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐ โค๏ธ โค๏ธ โค๏ธ ๐ โค๏ธ M'lady shit ๐ด๐ ๐ด๐ ๐ด๐ ๐ด๐ ๐ด๐ old shit 0ld sHit๐ด thats ๐พ some old๐ด๐ดshit right๐ด๐ดth ๐ด ere๐ด๐ด๐ด right๐พthere ๐พ๐พif i do ฦฝaาฏ so my sel๏ฝ ๐ i say so ๐ฅ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ ๐ด๐ด ๐ดะO0ะเฌ ๏ผฏOO๏ผฏOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ด ๐ด๐ด ๐ด ๐ฃ ๐ด ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ด๐ดOld shit ๐๐ฟ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐๐ฟ๐ good dick goเฑฆิ dIck๐๐ฟ thats โ some good๐๐ฟ๐๐ฟdick right๐๐ฟ๐๐ฟthere๐๐ฟ๐๐ฟ๐๐ฟ rightโthere โโif i do ฦฝaาฏ so my self ๐ฏ i say so ๐ฏ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ฏ ๐๐ฟ๐๐ฟ ๐๐ฟะO0ะเฌ OOOOOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐๐ฟ๐๐ฟ๐๐ฟ๐๐ฟ ๐ฏ ๐๐ฟ ๐๐๐ ๐๐ฟ๐๐ฟGood dick ๐๐ช ๐๐ช๐๐ชedgy shit edgY sHit ๐ชthats ๐ซsome edgy๐๐ shit right ๐ชth๐ช ere๐๐๐ right there ๐ฌ๐ฌif i doโฦฝaาฏ soโmy sel๏ฝ ๐ซi say so ๐ซ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ซ ๐ช๐ช๐ชะO0ะเฌ ๏ผฏOO๏ผฏOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ช๐ช๐ช ๐ซ ๐๐ ๐ช๐ช Edgy shit ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ cool pic coเฑฆl pIC๐ ๐๐๐thats โ some cool๐๐๐๐pic right๐๐๐there๐๐๐๐๐ rightโthere โ๐โif i do ฦฝaาฏ so ๐๐my self ๐ฏ i say so ๐ฏ thats what im talking about right ๐there right there (chorus:cool pic ) mMMMMแทะ๐ฏ ๐๐ ๐ ๐๐ะO0ะเฌ OOOOOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐ฏ ๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐Cool pic ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ neato stuff neatเฑฆ stuff๐ thats โ some neato๐๐stuff right๐๐there๐๐๐ rightโthere โโif i do ฦฝaาฏ so my self ๐ฏ i say so ๐ฏ thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: สณแถฆแตสฐแต แตสฐแตสณแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ฏ ๐๐ ๐ะO0ะเฌ OOOOOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ฏ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐๐neato stuff ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ up votes uP voTes ๐thats โ some up ๐๐ votes front ๐๐page ๐๐๐rightโthere โโif i do vote so my self ๐ I vote so ๐ thats what im talking about front page front page (chorus: แถ สณแตแถฐแต แตแตแตแต) mMMMMแทะ๐ ๐๐๐ ะO0ะเฌ OOOOOะเฌ เฌ Ooooแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแตแต๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐ ๐๐ Up vote
007meow ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:53:00 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Needs more fam.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:38:38 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
What is this from? I see it quite a bit posted
Get_Da_Water_Nigguh_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:53:16 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Copypasta. Came from tumblr I think
8BitHedgehog ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:55:24 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Wow, that's a pretty dank meme ya got there.
MojoLester ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:13:57 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I.. kinda want to see this pop up as the caption instead of "why". It's looking hilarious in my mind.
Hope someone answers me out there.
Chief_Fuckass ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:28:10 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏCreamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏCreamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏCreamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏCreamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏCreamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏCreamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏCreamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏCreamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ Creamy meme dude ๐ฏ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme dude ๐๐๐๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐ Creamy meme
MillionDollarBuddy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:06:58 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Am I the only one who sees weird boxes with numbers all over the above comment? What am I missing here? How do I fix it?
press_A_to_skip ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:13:01 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
These are emojis, use a smartphone.
downingp ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:08:25 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Seriously, what the fuck is with this comment? I see people copying and pasting it all over reddit but it never makes any sense.
Fr4t ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 20:29:39 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Fantastic
AnEpiphanyTooLate ยท 41 points ยท Posted at 21:22:53 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Is that Liam Neeson? Damn, he was good looking. And I'm a straight guy.
Kimano ยท 23 points ยท Posted at 01:31:13 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
'was'?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Liam_Neeson_Deauville_2012.jpg
dpekkle ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 04:01:32 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
He looks like Mufasa.
zackogenic ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:32:54 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Well, sure he is, but he was too.
Kimano ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:03:24 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to too.
Bob_Droll ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 21:30:14 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I was hoping somebody would comment with the source...
wowshan ยท 32 points ยท Posted at 21:34:10 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Pretty sure it's "Dark Man". 90's, I think.
zCourge_iDX ยท 28 points ยท Posted at 21:35:34 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
SetYourGoals ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 22:15:12 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
His...weird skin chemical...can't melt steel beams...
I don't know. I tried. Darkman is a weird movie.
Duderino732 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:06:43 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It really is and thought it would be good because Coen bro writer.
Sir_Herp_Derp ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:44:54 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It has that classic Sam Raimi charm to it.
Dxxx2 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:38:19 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Fighter of the Scat Man.
zCourge_iDX ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:42:04 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Champion of the Cum?
Bob_Droll ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:40:05 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Well aren't you just the nicest of people...
wowshan ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 21:41:29 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Well doesn't your punctuation make you sound like the most sarcastic of people... If I'm wrong I'm sorry, it was just a guess.
Bob_Droll ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:51:34 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Hmmm... perhaps I should avoid the use of... elipses when I'm.... being sincere...
(No, but seriously, thanks for the hit on the source - I really was curious what movie the gif was taken from.)
cake4chu ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:07:58 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
.....was
HerculesQEinstein ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:32:29 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Yup. Darkman. Sam Raimi wanted to do a comic book movie, but he couldn't secure the rights to one, so he made up his own.
dumb_ ยท 2643 points ยท Posted at 18:36:37 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
aka Oxford Dictionary Struggles Desperately to Remain Relevant
arkhony ยท 474 points ยท Posted at 21:10:44 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
OED is relevant exactly for this reason. Dictionaries are not about documenting how well-bred and well-educated people talk when they want to sound smarter than the pleb, they're about listing the words that are being used by English-speaking people, no matter the context.
Edit: many people replied saying it's not a word, and that's honestly a very interesting question. Saying it's an image is not enough โ people at OED acknowledge that it's a pictograph, and those aren't uncommon in natural languages (think Egyptian hieroglyphs, Chinese pictogramsโฆ). It's weird cause English is usually written with an alphabet, but when you think about it that emoji is not very different from a hieroglyph, it's an image that conveys a meaning. Then again, lots of symbols are already used that way โ are they words too? Or just signs/symbols/whatever? What's the difference? And where's the limit between the two? I really don't have the answers, I'm not a specialist, all I know is that those are complicated questions that involve lots of grey areas.
[deleted] ยท 77 points ยท Posted at 22:46:41 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
However, it's hard to call this a word. Unless OED are planning on appending the Unicode description strings for every character, including an emoji in the dictionary seems a bit odd
EvanHarper ยท -8 points ยท Posted at 23:36:18 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It really is not hard to call it a word.
brandong567 ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 23:45:20 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It kind of is though. It's equal to calling a picture a word, because it stands for something.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:56:57 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
IT'S AN IMAGE
[deleted] ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 00:04:38 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
so are letters and words when you get down to it
miasmic ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 01:00:27 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Only in a pictographic language
dontknowmeatall ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 02:16:59 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
So is ้ญ but that doesn't make it less of a word.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 04:35:05 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
้ญ has a part of speech. ๐ does not.
้ญ is a noun. What part of speech is ๐?
dontknowmeatall ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:56:35 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
One could argue it's a particle like "ne" or "da" in Japanese. It doesn't have any meaning of itself, but it modifies the meaning of other text and with enough context it can substitute entire chunks of dialogue.
mlarocque1000 ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 01:27:23 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Right. Because Unicode, and not a fucking dictionary, is the authority on what is or isn't a word.
dontknowmeatall ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:15:53 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Technically, there isn't a universal definition on what constitutes a word. ๐ญ is used by itself to convey a meaning, and can be used in spoken conversation by making that face, so under some definitions it has the same validity as kanji.
Drewsipher ยท 123 points ยท Posted at 22:34:38 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
When they used vape and selfie I was fine. Those are words. An emoji isn't a word.
trippy_grape ยท 144 points ยท Posted at 22:49:37 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
If the word of the year for 2015 is a picture, and a picture says a thousand words, does that mean this word says a thousand words?
edogman9955 ยท 81 points ยท Posted at 22:50:34 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Bruh
DifficultApple ยท 43 points ยท Posted at 23:03:12 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Hits blunt
andrewsad1 ยท 22 points ยท Posted at 22:56:29 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Then it should be the word of the millennium
Ardgarius ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 00:46:51 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
How can our eyes be real if we swaffelen
Predatormagnet ยท 28 points ยท Posted at 22:45:15 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐๐๐
lankypants ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:10:01 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
FaceWithTearsOfJoyFaceWithTearsOfJoyFaceWithTearsOfJoy
MAKE_ME_REDDIT ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:06:38 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
TL;DR
garboooo ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 00:28:49 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
What defines a word? Is a word not a collection of symbols designed to express a meaning? Is that not what an emoji is?
Brio_ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:41:01 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
That's a bit simplistic. Literally everything in existence is a word if you want to go that route.
garboooo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:07:40 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
An electron isn't a word.
woolinsilver ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:11:36 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
No.
Words and pictures are not at the same level of abstraction.
dontknowmeatall ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:19:48 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
How are emoji different from kanji? They're a somewhat abstract representation of a material concept to convey a meaning that is universally accepted by the culture of its users. What makes ๐ different from ้ญ?
audi4444player ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:53:30 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
an emoji is actually heaps more communicative, anyone, in the whole world, looking at ๐ knows it's a fish, no matter their language, unless somehow they've managed to avoid ever seeing or hearing about fish lol
dontknowmeatall ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:55:47 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
And that's exactly my point! Everyone understands emoji; that's literally what they were designed for. Why see them as lesser words when they actually break the language barrier?
Alex_Rose ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:36:06 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
First, everyone understands 1 emoji on its own. Once you start to combine them together to make a sentence that becomes very debateable, especially when people will take their own language's grammatical sentence structure to try and build up the picture, which won't make sense in another language.
Second, it's not accessible, you can't just bring up a fish on any device without knowing thousands of altcodes and even then you don't know if it can be parsed by whatever you're reading it in.
Third, if you aren't using an electronic device, it becomes a game of pictionary and entirely depends on your ability to draw. Sometimes when I'm abroad I try to draw things, but it's really hard in drawing to convey an idea like "Can I eat this food raw or do I need to cook it?" Pictionary only exists in the first place because we all know drawing stuff is an inefficient method of conveying a meaning.
Fourth, you can't read that symbol. You can say "it's a fish", but in French you'd say "c'est un poisson". A great deal of our communication is done orally, these are useless and time wasting for things like that.
Fifth, it doesn't work for any words with any level of abstractism or basic complexity. You can't do a symbol that shows you mean a carp, salmon, tuna or trout. And you can't make an emoji that obviously means something like pride, feelings. You especially can't describe niche things like scientific terms.
They aren't lesser words, they aren't words. They don't fit into grammar, they aren't defined in our alphabet, they don't belong to specific languages. They're pictures. There's nothing wrong with them serving a purpose as a picture, but to conflate them with words is ridiculous.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:32:03 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Tell that to the Chinese
woolinsilver ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:03:13 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Written Chinese is pictographic, but that doesn't mean Chinese characters are akin to smiley faces. The characters are symbols standing for concepts that can be agreed upon. Smiley faces don't convey the same category of information.
This: "ๅฅฝ" is derived from a picture, whereas this "โบ" is a picture.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 03:19:10 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
There is no line of demarcation, why is the Chinese characters appropriately abstract and the smiley not?
Alex_Rose ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 03:24:21 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
Because the left one isn't a picture of a girl, it's a combination of the radical for a woman and the radical for a child, neither of which look like their original subject, but the right one is just a picture of a face that doesn't have stroke order or standardisation.
You can use the left one to make hybrid words, and it can take on a whole other meaning. The right one will only ever convey one meaning.
You can read the left one out loud as a word made of syllables. You can only describe the right one.
The left one belongs to a language. The right one doesn't. Even if you were to describe the right one, you would describe it using completely different sounds in another language.
Hudston ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:25:47 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
If anything, wouldn't an emoji be more like a form of punctuation than a word? The meaning of an emoji in a sentence feels a little closer to that of an exclaimation or question mark than a single word or phrase.
garboooo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:06:45 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I don't see how a picture of a smiley face is punctuation.
Hudston ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 08:08:02 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
I didn't say it was. I said it was "more like" punctuation than a word.
garboooo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:52:41 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It's not even similar to punctuation, it readily takes the place of words
Hudston ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 09:29:51 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
So an emoji that implies a sentence is meant angrily or excitedly isn't even slightly similar to how "!" implies a strong feeling behind a sentence? I mean, they're most often used at the end of a sentence to inform an intention or emotion behind it that we don't currently have a symbol for. For example, some of the most common uses I see is the use of ๐ to indicate light hearted sarcasm or ๐ to indicate that a sentence is meant less seriously than it could seem.
garboooo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:53:04 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
They can be used like that, but so can lol or haha or stuff like that.
Alex_Rose ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 03:40:12 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It isn't part of any language, it isn't made up of the symbols that the language is made up of, it doesn't have a set pronunciation, you can't use it with the grammar of a language, you can't reliably use it to make compound words, you can't conjugate it, you can't decline it, you can't tell tense from it, or plurality, you can't write it if you can't draw, there's no standardised form of it, it can't convey anything particularly abstract or complex, it's open to interpretation, when you add multiple together it no longer clearly conveys a message (and you'll probably try to express ideas in the grammar of your own language which won't translate to other languages), you can't guarantee any particular program or device can parse it, and you can't type it on all devices of your language.
It's not a word.
garboooo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:02:03 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
All of that was, it's not part of a traditional language. So what?
Alex_Rose ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:24:01 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Because you said "what defines a word". A word by definition is a composite of a traditional language.
garboooo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:37:51 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
That is not the definition of a word
Alex_Rose ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:32:08 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/word#Noun
The smallest unit of language which has a particular meaning and can be expressed by itself; the smallest discrete, meaningful unit of language.
I used "composite" wrong but I meant "something larger things are composed of", constituent rather.
It's the smallest part of a language. A smiley face is not a part of any language, it's a pictograph.
garboooo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:49:24 on November 19, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
So is Kanji. But Japanese is still a language.
Alex_Rose ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:18:53 on November 19, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Right, but hiragana, katakana and kanji aren't words. Combinations of them are words. A kanji on its own is not a piece of vocabulary, it's just a symbol that can make up words. A lot of words are only one kanji, but that's analogous us having "I" and "a" are words but they're still letters.
Kanji are all made of radicals that all have a stroke order, and aren't just drawings of the object like a smiley face is. You can combine kanji to make words that aren't to do with the original meaning of the base word, like in English.
Each kanji has an on-yomi and kun-yomi reading, and every hiragana and katakana has a set reading. You can read them out loud and convey their meaning to a deaf person and you can use them with grammar to build sentences. When you put them together, there is no ambiguation, they form words. When you put multiple smileys together, it means whatever you might be trying to say, which is massively open to interpretation.
garboooo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:01:30 on November 19, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
A lot of combinations of words are open to interpretation. Just because it's an abstract form of meaning and symbolism doesn't mean it isn't a word. I mean, obviously the OED, which basically controls the English language, agrees with me.
Alex_Rose ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:32:08 on November 19, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
The OED's definition of a word:
You can't form a sentence with emoji, isn't distinct and isn't an element of speech or handwriting.
Emoji don't have variant forms, can't be declined, can't be conjugated and aren't a constitutent part of any language or uniform.
The OED definition of "word" doesn't agree with you.
Also in the OED:
The OED calls an emoji an image or icon, not a word.
Whereas it calls letters a symbol or a character.
And it calls kanji words. Meanwhile:
It calls the kana syllabic writing.
Hiragana, used for words.
Katakana, used for words.
None of these are comparible to their definition of emoji.
Even hieroglyphs:
Talk about them in terms of syllables and words and the language they belong to, which emoji are not.
garboooo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 20:39:33 on November 19, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
This post is OED making an emoji their word of the year, did you forget that?
Alex_Rose ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:10:47 on November 19, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, but the whole point of this argument is clearly some of us think that it's a contradiction.
You don't have to blindly accept every press statement they issue when it goes in very obvious direct contradiction to their own definition of the word "word". It wouldn't be in this subreddit in the first place if there wasn't a problem with that.
This is just a statement from the OED saying "Hey, emoji are becoming a bigger part of our culture and will continue to grow".
If they were actually behind this, they would also add :) :( ;) :D xD :3 etc. etc. to the dictionary. But clearly they aren't doing that, because this is nothing more than a gesture on their behalf.
On top of that, even though some social media team at OED decided to do this meaningless statement, I doubt they will even add this to any of their future dictionaries, how are they even going to print that? See if there are emoji in your dictionary next year, I'll bet you a tenner there aren't.
garboooo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:14:33 on November 19, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Except those emoticons aren't part of the English language, they have no dictionary to belong to. Same with emojis, they're universal words
Alex_Rose ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:16:05 on November 19, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Not according to the OED's definitions of the word "word" or "emoji".
I accept their dictionary definitions over the whims of their social media team, sorry. It's their dictionary that's a high quality source and world renowned, not their blog.
garboooo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:23:39 on November 19, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I think many emojis fit that definition of word
Alex_Rose ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:27:43 on November 19, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Name an emoji that's a distinct element of speech or writing, and is used with others to form a sentence.
In fact, even the very smallest criteria at the end "typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed" isn't even true, because A. They aren't written, and B. when you put multiple emoji after each other you don't use spaces.
So you could say "I am very very very happy", but you'd say "[:D][:D][:D]" (where those are emoji), not with spaces.
Literally none of the conditions match, and their definition of the word emoji doesn't state it to be a word or anything similar.
But there's no point even discussing this with you anymore, you've obviously already made up your mind and you aren't going to convince me that the dictionary is wrong.
garboooo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:46:01 on November 19, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
First, typing is a form of writing. Second, it says "typically," not always. Third, not all words have to be formed with other words. "Okay." is a grammatically correct sentence. Fourth, every emoji is a distinct element of writing, read:typing.
Nobody is saying the dictionary is wrong. I'm saying your interpretation of the dictionary is wrong.
Alex_Rose ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:58:13 on November 19, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
Another question before I carry on correcting you. Do you think any of these are words?
โซxยฒdx = xยณ/3+c
I used symbols to convey meaning. They're all distinct elements. I can even write those physically, hell I can pronounce them too, and I can combine them to create more meaning. Does that mean these are words?
Point 2:
Yes, it does say typically, but I was just pointing out it doesn't even fill the optional criteria so you're reaching.
Point 3:
The definition of word here includes that:
It can be used "alone" to form a sentence..
":D" is not a sentence. Literally in the definition of the word "word" it specifies it has to be able to form a sentence. Emoji can't.
Point 1 & 4:
Writing in the OED:
"Mark" in the OED as a verb:
"Impression" in the OED:
"Impress" in the OED:
"Stain" in the OED:
I think you'll agree that you don't impress an emoji with pressure, dye or use a dirty mark.
Typing (the noun) isn't a form of writing (the noun, which we're talking about).
^ Note, physical pages of typing.
unless you print it off with a printer. Emoji are sent digitally and isn't a uniform specification, it isn't writing, according to the OED's definition of writing in any possible interpretation using the other definitions of the words in the sentence.
And it isn't a member of speech either.
Again, it fails all the criteria.
garboooo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:04:53 on November 20, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
":D," though not an emoji, can absolutely be a sentence. It's more abstract than English sentences, sure, but it's not invalid in common use.
So an emoji is a word if you print it out. That distinction is pretty pedantic
Alex_Rose ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:11:24 on November 20, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
":D" is not a sentence.
It doesn't convey a command, question, doesn't have a clause, isn't a set of words, doesn't have a subject, doesn't have a predicate, and is completely ambiguous as to whether it's supposed to be interpreted as a statement or an exclamation.
You can't "write" an emoji, that's why it's not "writing". If I print a photograph of a horse, that isn't writing, it's an image. If you print a png, that isn't writing.
Again, it isn't a member of speech, it isn't writing, it can't form sentences.
Also I edited my thing but you haven't seen it yet:
Do you think any of these are words?
โซex +x4 dx > ex +x5 /5+c+i2, x=โ.
I used symbols to convey meaning. They're all distinct elements. I can even write those physically, hell I can pronounce them too, and I can combine them to create more meaning. Hell I can even read that out loud as a sentence and any other English person who knows maths will say the same thing, unlike emoji which are open to interpretation. Does that mean these are words?
Or this:
int x = y%36?f(y):0;
Are those now words?
garboooo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:17:57 on November 20, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It's like you don't know what 'typically' means. It conveys a statement or exclamation. The difference between those two is fairly vague even in English, and really is just solved with punctuation (":D" is a statement, ":D!" is an exclamation).
You're backpedaling on your own arguments. You brought up definitions of writing, those applied to printing words, then you re claiming it's not a word and therefore printing isn't writing, in order to argue that an emoji isn't a word. It's a cyclical argument. "It's not a word because it's not written because it's not a word."
Math is called a language for a reason, yes I do believe those a words, in the language of mathematics. It's abstract, yes. It's not in English, obviously. But it fits the definition
Alex_Rose ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:26:39 on November 20, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
Nonsense, ":D" can be interpreted as "I am happy" or "Hooray!" without any punctuation.
ONE of my arguments is that neither the definition of sentence nor word allow emoji unless you're making a positive assumption. ONE of the arguments, and the only one you have even a slight argument on, but the other 3 arguments you're avoiding still defy it.
No, fam, an integral sign is not a fucking word, neither is a fourth exponent, neither is e, neither is a division symbol, neither is a real symbol, neither is an imaginary number symbol, they are symbols, not words, only a disingenuous moron would try and convince themselves of that because it would invalidate their dumb emoji argument.
Likewise, I added some code up there. Code makes up a programming language. However, the components aren't words because they don't make sentences.
Maths isn't a language. Maths has a language that we use to express it, it isn't a language in itself. It's a language because it's a vocabulary of symbols with grammar, syntax and discourse. It isn't made of words.
And your "typically" evasion doesn't work because this:
lies outside that clause.
A sentence includes a main clause.
Emoji aren't verbs fam. Sorry to disappoint you, but emoji can't make sentences because they can't make clauses because they aren't verbs.
garboooo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:36:42 on November 20, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
By that argument, "Okay." is not a sentence, even though you said it was. So either I'm right and you're wrong, or we're both wrong.
Alex_Rose ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:48:55 on November 20, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
I actually didn't think "Okay" was fair to be interpreted as a sentence in the first place but I didn't pull you up on it because I thought that was being overly pedantic.
"Okay" can just about get away with being interpreted as a colloquial sentence because saying "Okay" implies a verb (as in "[That is] okay"), but grammatically it isn't a valid sentence.
I wasn't sure if my primary school teachers who said a sentence required a clause were being overzealous like with "i before e except after c", but yeah, I'll happily admit that that I was wrong to accept what you said without looking it up first, but that's neither here nor there. That was an aside to appease you, it's a complete red herring and a detraction from the actual discussion we've been having for the last 20 posts. I have absolutely no investment in the argument "'Okay' is a sentence", in fact I'm glad it's not, it makes my actual point a lot easier.
My point is that emojis aren't words according to the OED's own rules and every other dictionary. And unless you disagree with:
The OED definition of sentence.
The OED definition of word.
The OED definition of writing.
Then you're definitely wrong. And I'd like to remind you that in your effort to string together an argument here you suggested maths symbols are words, which I think is just a intellectually dishonest grasp at a straw to try and hold onto a bad point you're too heavily invested in.
Cheers, bye.
garboooo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:52:36 on November 20, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Your entire argument is based in logical fallacies and pedantism
Alex_Rose ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:56:38 on November 20, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Point out the logical fallacies. "Pedantry" as a counter argument is an ad hominem, there's yours. You just made no arguments pertaining to the actual point and cited no examples, that's another red herring fallacy.
Besides that, you're arguing I'm being too pedantic in an argument about dictionary definitions. The definitions are the entire crux of the discussion we're having.
The argument, "An emoji is a word because it can't be used to build a sentence (among other things) and a word by definition must be able to build a sentence" is not pedantic. If you can refute that go ahead, but considering your entire argument rests upon the idea "the OED put out a blog post so it must be true" (which is an appeal to authority anyway, a logical fallacy) meanwhile their actual dictionary which is a reputable, referenceable source contradicts that, it's a pretty weak argument.
garboooo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:56:56 on November 20, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I'm too tired to sift through your bullshit anymore, you clearly know nothing about language.
Your interpretation of the definitions is wrong. There is an interpretation where an emoji is a word, and the OED clearly agrees with that interpretation, since they have said an emoji is a word. End of discussion.
Alex_Rose ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:23:39 on November 20, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
"I can't be bothered to read this but I'll downvote it" is not an argument, it's completely facile. 3 comments in a row I've tried to get any points out of you now and you've only been able to defer, you haven't been able to give anything.
You haven't got a single interpretation that manages to prove it's a word from the dictionary definitions, all you have is a blog post.
As for my knowledge of language, I speak conversational Japanese and French and do business in Japan semi regularly, I know Lithuanian grammar but my vocabulary is weak, I studied 5 years of Latin and Ancient Greek, and although I took Physics over English for higher education I still got 23 marks above an A* in English Language. I can't claim to have a degree or anything but to say I'm clueless when we're literally arguing just dictionary definitions is pretty facile.
Also I would never claim programming languages or knowing maths are anything relevant to linguistics or language at all, but since a minute ago you were claiming mathematical symbols were words and programming languages and maths were "languages", if you're going to call me unqualified to speak on this, I'm at least demonstrably qualified in physics, maths and code so if you're considering them languages as you did before I by your definition know 9 extra languages. I also call bullshit on that and I believe I'm allowed to if we're judging each other on credentials.
Again, a second ago you called out a logical fallacy, now you're just arguing ad hominems because you have no more points to make. Also what exactly are your credentials? You read a blog? Again, argument from authority is a logical fallacy, this information is not too obfuscated for either of us to understand.
"Your interpretation is wrong". I interpreted everything using their own definitions.
If you can unravel the logic of:
An emoji cannot form a group of words or be a verb, so it cannot becoming a set of words that has a clause, i.e. a sentence, therefore it can't be described as a word.
And, again, I'll point out that that was the last thread of your argument remaining, as every "optional" part of the definition it also failed to qualify for, e.g. it's not a part of speech, it's not part of writing according to the OED definition though I don't mind dropping that point, and we already established they don't fulfil any of the "typical" criteria even though I'm well aware they aren't obligatory.
The point is, you haven't made a single point that indicates they're words other than "that blog post said so". The blog post that contradicts their actual dictionary. You couldn't provide a good reason why code and mathematical symbols aren't considered words but an emoji is.
You forced me to use the OED definitions as the crux of your argument. Using other dictionary definitions I could completely destroy its ability to be considered a word, but I used that since your whole argument is "OED is the authority".
You refuse to acknowledge that emoji don't belong to a languages, unlike every other word that isn't a proper noun that exists, that they can't be used in speech, that they can't be conjugated or declined, that they don't have case, tense, form or gender, that they are completely open to interpretation, that they can't make compound words, that they can't express complex or abtract meanings, that they can't be reliably parsed or that they can't be reliably written without being an artist (a feature of pictures not words).
Those are all arguments for why it isn't a word, and you won't let me use them because your whole argument is "but.. but the OED blog!". Meanwhile I just used the god damn OED to extensively show you have no leg to stand on and you're still trying to argue? There is no interpretation in there that agrees with you. You haven't been able to demonstrate one at all, and you haven't been able to disprove most of my points, the nearest you can get is to say that one point is impossible to make because it's circular and another is pedantic. The rest of your arguments rely on "but those things aren't NECESSARY to be a word", but every one of them has stacked up, none of the "optional things that make a word" count for emoji. You've made zero counter arguments and now you physically can't show that an emoji can make a sentence because it can't be a verb and it can't form a clause. You have no leg left to stand on.
Your argument "OED say so, so it's true" (which is a terrible argument from authority, again, a logical fallacy, which is fun because you told me I was arguing fallacies and yet haven't managed to point out a single one where I've pointed out 5 of yours without even trying) is demonstrably false, because the OED definition of the word "word" requires that it can be combined to form a sentence, which requires that it can form a clause. Which it can't.
QED, your hypothesis is disproven. I've supplied all the evidence and it isn't open to interpretation, there's no rebuttal.
Feel free to stop replying now so I can get on with my life instead of arguing with someone who can't make any arguments but still wants to participate.
garboooo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:53:54 on November 20, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
"Your interpretation of the definitions are wrong, and here's confirmation from the writers of the definitions."
"No it isn't, I used the definitions."
"But your interpretations of the definitions are wrong, and here's confirmation from the writers of those definitions."
"No, here are the definitions, therefore you're wrong."
"I'm not putting up with this anymore, I've already proven my argument."
"See that proves you're wrong."
Alex_Rose ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:54:56 on November 20, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Addressing your points below, because my point was that I chose to restrict myself to the OED because you fallaciously say no other dictionary counts. I was showing you that the OED definition 1 doesn't even allow the word "word", but now I'll include for you definition 1.1 and definitions from all reputable dictionaries. Like, I've been being nice to you and playing by your stupid imposed rules just to show you that even with your ridiculous restrictions your argument doesn't make sense, but now let's just bring out everything.
Then I'll address your shitty argument here.
So first:
OED Definition 1.1
It doesn't have inflected or variant forms.
Dictionary.com
Emoji don't belong to a language, don't consist of a spoken sound or its written representation, aren't a principal carrier of meaning. They aren't composed of morphemes, can't consist of multiples. They can't be distinguished phonologically. (And, again, aren't separated by spaces but that's "usually").
Merriam-Webster
Emoji aren't spoken so they clearly breach all of these definitions.
Collins
They don't belong to a language and aren't units of speech or made of morphemes.
Websters
It isn't made of letters.
It isn't a speech sound, it isn't made of morphemes, it's not a unit of language.
Etymology Online
Very clearly derives from it being spoken. Which an emoji isn't.
Cambridge
It isn't a unit of language, it can't be spoken. We can fight on interpretation there but "or" implies "can be [either] spoken or written"
And now back to your argument.
Writers of the organisation's blog.
Which I did
There's no such thing as an interpretation of a statement. If I say "Dogs are mammals", you can't misinterpret that. There's no element of interpretation to "words have to build up sentences", which emoji can't.
The writers of the blog didn't address the problem of their definition.
Yes, statement, proof that you can't refute.
But you haven't because as you literally just pointed out, I gave you the definitions as proof and you can't refute it.
Which it does, unless you can refute it. Also refute every other dictionary please.
garboooo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:14:42 on November 20, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Ah, I didn't realise you were retarded, my apologies
Alex_Rose ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:46:28 on November 21, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I meant an unambiguous, factual statement. There's no way to way to misinterpret, "Unit that makes up a sentence".
And way to avoid the maths symbol argument, the fact that the OED's two definitions disagree with you and the fact that every other dictionary disagrees with you.
I can't tell if you've realised you're wrong yet but you have too much pride/dislike for me to admit it or whether you're actually that delusional that even with a massively overwhelming argument against your point you still hold to it.
garboooo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:53:07 on November 21, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Your entire argument has been backpedaling, misinterpreting, and ignoring. There's no point trying to prove my argument anymore, I mean, I already have and you just ignore it became it doesn't agree woth you. So I'm done. If you're egotistical enough to consider that a win for you I couldn't care less.
Alex_Rose ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:59:08 on November 21, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
One argument was what you argued to be circular logic, I omitted that from my argument. Misinterpretation, you could argue the idea that typing is not writing was misinterpretation, I also omit that argument.
Ignoring, I'm not ignoring, I've addressed every single line you've made in every post. Each one of my posts has responded to everything you've brought up, meanwhile you just reply little 2 sentence snipes instead of making an actual point. I don't think you even tried to make an argument in the last maybe 6-7 posts. You meanwhile just ignored 6 dictionary definitions and in several posts literally stated you're ignoring.
Your entire point has been "the OED blog says it's right and they must know what they're talking about". Every other dictionary and the OED itself demonstrably disagrees with this. I've shown that their two definitions unquestionably disagree, you are completely unable to show that Emoji don't defy the definition of "word" in the context of them building sentences, and you can't refute the other dictionaries.
If your argument is so great, why can't you address any of my points? Why are you sidestepping and ignoring them? If you really believe you're right and if you can make the mental gymnastic in your head of believing you're right, actually step up to it and provide some counter arguments or (realistically) just admit that you're wrong. Not to me, but to yourself. It's like, actually pathetic, and I mean it in the "evoking sympathy" way, not the critical way, that you seriously can't bear to lose an argument that you've clearly lost.
I don't know how unfathomably terrible you must be to have around if you can be this shitty about an argument where you have no leg to stand on, what must you be like in every other situation? I can't imagine having to know your unreasonable ass in real life, I pity your coworkers and friends.
I don't consider it a win for me, I consider it delusion for you that you still think you're right.
garboooo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:01:18 on November 21, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
They don't disagree, at all. You claim to have replied to every line but you never bothered to actually challenge my argument, you just spewed the same demonstrably incorrect interpretation of a definition. If anyone is delusional it's you
Alex_Rose ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:07:47 on November 21, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
Demonstrate it's incorrect then.
You just said demonstrably, that's a positive statement, you need proof for a positive statement.
Demonstrate that this logic is flawed:
An emoji can't be a subject or a predicate or be combined to make a clause, so it can't make a sentence, so it isn't a word.
Definition 1.1:
It's not a part of any language and doesn't comprise inflected and variant forms.
So go on, demonstrate I'm wrong. Your argument "the OED blog said so" is an argument from authority which is a logical fallacy. It's clear the people running the social media account were just trying to be progressive and didn't actually look to check if it matched their own definition of the word "word", and if you're going to argue that the OED's blog is the only source you accept (even above the fucking DICTIONARY) then I therefore proceed to accept the other 6 dictionaries as sources, all of which definitely say you're completely wrong.
That is my challenge to your argument which I've repeated. The OED blog is not a reliable source when their dictionary disagrees with them. For you to reestablish them as a reliable source, the crux of your argument, you have to demonstrate that their dictionary doesn't contradict their blog.
And even after you do that I'm going to counter with "I'm going to agree with the other 6 dictionaries over the OED". I mean, this is just the fucking warmup lol. This is breaking down your argument on your own terms. As soon as you actually make your argument valid on your own terms I'm going to start arguing that your whole argument relying on OED as "the only source of info" is fucking stupid. But I don't think you actually WILL manage to make your argument valid because I don't see how it's physically possible unless you can pull some great magic other interpretation out of the air since you say my interpretation's wrong. What's your counter interpretation?
Like, you're still here, you're still fucking arguing. If you're still going to waste both of our time replying to my comments, actually fucking respond to my points instead of just making disparaging remarks and avoiding the argument, because I'm not going away until you make a counter argument, admit you're wrong or stop replying entirely.
garboooo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:20:02 on November 21, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Ignoring every time I already have shown that I'm right, exactly like I said. There's no point doing it again because you'll reply with basically the same comment and completely ignore what I said, just like you've already done several times.
Alex_Rose ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:24:23 on November 21, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
If your interpretation exists, it's easier for you to just restate it clearly here instead of saying "oh but u ignored my interpretation" 8 comments in a row, and it'll save us a lot of time.
If your "interpretation" is, "The OED blog said it's a word", that isn't an interpretation of the text we're talking about. That's a statement that I'm already aware of and I have already discussed (fallacy by appeal to authority, an authority who contradicts themselves in their own definition).
I'm asking you to actually interpret the words in the dictionary differently to how I am. I'm not asking you to quote the OED's offshoot blog post where they don't talk about the dictionary definition at all, I'm asking you to look at those OED definitions and tell me how an emoji can be interpreted as forming a sentence with a subject/predicate clause.
And once you do that, I'll happily accept it as a valid argument.
But until then, repeating, "MY ARGUMENT EXISTS I'M JUST NOT GOING TO SAY IT AGAIN" is a complete non-point. You've had plenty of opportunity to state it and I'm directly giving you another opportunity. State it. But, again, remember, saying "Look at this OED blog" is not an interpretation of a statement, I want you to look at the text and tell me how it possibly doesn't say what I'm saying it says. I want you to show me the ambiguity. Because it's impossible to minsinterpret something unambiguous, so I want you to show me where the ambiguity lies.
Cheers. I'm even going to bed now, I hope to see in the morning you've either made a real, valid point where you've interpreted that text in a different way demonstrably (Mr. "you are demonstrably wrong but I can't demonstrate it") and show me what part is ambiguous, or just fucked off entirely.
garboooo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:17:26 on November 21, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
And ignoring what I said, again. Talking to nothing.
I've already stated my interpretation, many times. I have already made the counterargument you seek, and you ignored it. I'm not doing it again, because after so many times being ignored, you're just going to ignore it again
KanadaKid19 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:34:56 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Well I sure didn't know what the fuck it is or means or how to use it in a sentence, and now I do. I hate that icon, with it's tiny indecipherable details.
BeefPieSoup ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:02:03 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Agree. You can say vape and selfie casually in a spoken conversation. You can't use that emoji without considerable conviction and a working human face complete with tear ducts.
Althonse ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:53:04 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I'm glad you made this point. Dictionaries are descriptive not perscriptive.
mt_xing ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:34:56 on December 6, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
At least in English
PappaPalpatine ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:56:43 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐๐ก๐ฌ๐๐ก๐๐ฏ๐ฏ๐ก๐ค๐๐๐ก you
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:31:25 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I'd define it as affective punctuation. It's clearly not a word as it doesn't have a part of speech like an adjective or verb does, but it does change the tone of the sentence like punctuation can.
Cryzgnik ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 23:08:51 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
This is exactly why this is a bad "word of the year".
Of the billions of people who speak English, only a proportion of those are going to be familiar with this pictograph. It's very much only used by the elite: those with easy access to electronic devices, the Internet and an understanding of Internet culture.
What if word of the year was an obscure medical term that very few people had heard of? That would be bad. You and I might be familiar with this emoji but there are a huge number of English speakers for whom this is just meaningless. It probably shouldn't be word of the year.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 00:47:21 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
What you've said doesn't invalidate "dictionaries are. . .about listing the words that are being used by English-speaking people." Obscure medical terms are often in the dictionary, because they're used by English-speaking people. The dictionary doesn't list only words that everyone ever would use, it lists all the words that are written or spoken enough to be considered part of the language.
However, you're definitely pointing out a major flaw in the whole "Word of the Year" thing. It's a popularity contest for a word, nothing more.
Cryzgnik ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:38:00 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I only meant to attack the word of the year concept, not dictionaries. Of course all manner of obscure words are in the dictionary, but the word of the year shouldn't be something like this.
Decalance ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:40:58 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Not really. It's an image, which means it already speaks to more people than an English word.
[deleted] ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 22:20:56 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
3kool5you ยท 616 points ยท Posted at 20:27:29 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Damn this thread is an easy way to tell apart English Majors from others. As an English Major, OED is quite literally a godsend at times.
Bmandk ยท 438 points ยท Posted at 20:59:42 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
literally /หlษชt(ษ)rษli/
literal /หlษชt(ษ)r(ษ)l/
Nhexus ยท 302 points ยท Posted at 21:05:50 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
According to the dictionary, โliterallyโ now also means โfigurativelyโ
[deleted] ยท 244 points ยท Posted at 21:59:11 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
epicblob ยท 71 points ยท Posted at 23:03:09 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
IMHO it's less that and more exaggeration
LvS ยท 47 points ยท Posted at 00:22:53 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I sanction this post with my vote.
epicblob ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 00:23:52 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Thanks you too
holocaustic_soda ยท 18 points ยท Posted at 00:19:24 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
But 'literally' literally means 'without exaggeration'.
ignirtoq ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 00:36:46 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Do you mean that 'literally' literally or literally?
holocaustic_soda ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:07:23 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Literally
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:20:09 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Not sure if you're exaggerating or not
Decalance ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:42:53 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
And who gives meaning to language ? People do. So meaning can be given and taken away
holocaustic_soda ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:02:25 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
You're literally ruining English
Decalance ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:07:32 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Is that what people said when old English gradually became what it is now ?
holocaustic_soda ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:10:31 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Thou areth rouineing thee Englisch language.
Decalance ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:14:00 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Or maybe go way back to Latin
holocaustic_soda ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:17:52 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Du diese Englische Sprache ruiniert hast.
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 01:58:10 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
StellarNeonJellyfish ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:27:16 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Or sarcasm.
pahlmitchell ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:06:06 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Exaggeratym
Great_Zarquon ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 00:08:49 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Words that have two identical meanings are also referred to as contronyms.
JackNightmare ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 00:27:07 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Controception.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:46:48 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Different words with the same meaning are synonyms. The same word with multiple same meanings is superfluous and irrelevant.
Great_Zarquon ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:00:37 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Superfluous might have a few of the same meanings, but I think irrelevant really only has the one definition.
Grandy12 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:39:37 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
So if words with opposite meanings are contronyms and words with the same meaning are contronyms that means contronym is a contronym?
8HokiePokie8 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:28:17 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Resign
Xylth ยท 27 points ยท Posted at 00:40:15 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
That definition has been in the OED since 1903.
Gobae ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 03:16:11 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
And it was dumb then too.
BasqueInGlory ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 01:04:02 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Dictionaries only describe usage.
Nhexus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:27:00 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
This guy gets it.
kingeryck ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 21:20:01 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I've seen people say it always did, it was just more common until lately to use it to mean like 'exactly'.
holocaustic_soda ยท 33 points ยท Posted at 00:23:49 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
OED in the year 2055:
exactly /ฤญg-zฤktโฒlฤ/
adv.
chrisdunn3 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:30:17 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Well, if cats and dogs fell from the sky, it sounds odd to say it was "exactly raining cats and dogs." Of course this example wouldn't happen, but it can be frustrating if you're trying to say that something, well, literally literally happened.
holocaustic_soda ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:37:04 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Do you mean literally literally, or do you mean literally literally literally?
DotGaming ยท 62 points ยท Posted at 21:35:01 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Fuck that, there is literally no way to say literally now.
This has to be one of the shittiest language changes in existence.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:05:27 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Ann. Perkins. That is literally. The truest thing. Anyone has ever said. <intense stare>
premature_eulogy ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 07:12:12 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Are you also upset about the change where "really" became sarcastic / hyperbolical instead of its original meaning of "in truth" or "not jokingly"? That's a really healthy viewpoint on language.
Besides, if you cannot infer whether a person is joking or serious when they say "literally" from the context of the speech, I'd say you need to work on reading social cues.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 10:54:34 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Using sarcasm isn't changing the meaning of a word, the point of sarcasm is to say a phrase with undertones of what is often its opposite
Ebotchl ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 09:48:01 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I dunno... Fag is a pretty bad one
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 22:43:50 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Indeed, and now I'm sure the hyper-descriptivists from /r/badlinguistics will arrive here soon and claim that nothing can ever be wrong, even when it causes genuine confusion
EvanHarper ยท 23 points ยท Posted at 23:38:43 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
that's an interesting way of spelling "people who know more than me about language"
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 10:41:27 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
Oh, the circlejerk has arrived
It's a way to refer to the people who claim that any error made by more than 5 people should be considered just as valid as standard English, hence the 'hyper-', I'm not decrying all descriptivism
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 02:14:11 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
EvanHarper ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:23:05 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
hahaha what the fuck is this
sammythemc ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 06:55:08 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
TumblrInAction in action.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:09:08 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
sammythemc ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:06:38 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Is this where I make a joke about you getting triggered
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:17:12 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
sammythemc ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:42:41 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Everyone has their own bugbear
Shanman150 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:18:03 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I don't do very much in the realm of linguistics, but isn't it true that some people do not grow up in environments which encourage reading or learning? You seem to base your arguments on everyone being able to gain a full education in "proper English", but disregard that some people are not raised in an environment where proper English is preferred. The people who ARE raised in that environment are, by and large, more middle class or wealthier people.
By all means, everyone CAN get a good grasp of "proper English" if they really seek it out, but by virtue of how some people have been raised, this may not be something they even want.
sammythemc ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 06:53:33 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
kingkayvee ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 22:02:09 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Batshitcrazytroll say what?
I'm going to ignore issues of class and race. While linguistics can be used to support those theoretical discussions, that is besides the point.
Linguistics, in and of itself, does not make judgment calls on the language people use. It does not tell people who use a standard that they are classist/racist/whateverist. It merely tells them that there is a standard and there is a reason for it (often because that is the group in the majority power). All linguists believe this. If you don't, you are, by definition, not a (good) linguist.
Objectively, you are wrong. There is no such thing as "fantastic grasp of language" when talking about native speakers. They all have equally fantastic grasps of their language. That is the point of linguistics. And we justify "language changes" so easily. Proof? You don't speak the way people spoke a thousand years ago and yet you think it is still 'good English.'
Also:
r/iamverysmart much?
PS: Plenty of linguists are good at math. I also do not see what that has to do with it being a science. You're a stupid troll. And I don't mean that as in a troll who is stupid. I mean that as in a troll who isn't even effective at being a troll.
Babill ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:32:45 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I'm curious, have you ever been confused by someone's use of "literally"? Cos I think you'd have to be literally retarded.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 10:42:52 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, I've often been confused by people I know using it for emphasis, eg. "I literally spent hundreds of pounds last night", when they mean ยฃ20 (if they insert 'like' before the 'hundreds', it's a bit easier to see that they're exaggerating)
SaxifrageRussel ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:57:32 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I would like to see them defend "very unique."
Grandy12 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:49:50 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I literally cannot think of a sentence that uses the word 'literally' that would be literally confusing to anyone who spends literally a second to think about it.
kingkayvee ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 22:02:36 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Except, you know, it literally never causes genuine confusion.
dodspringer ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:19:52 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
English in general is a shitty language change. Contronyms and idiotic spelling/pronunciation discrepancies are rampant.
Liamb2179 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:13:11 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Have you never heard of exaggeration or hyperbole before?
warpus ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 18:57:41 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Okay everyone, let's now extend the meaning of "figuratively" to also now be "literally"
Together we can do it
fuck_bestbuy ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:27:57 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Please literally kill me
austin101123 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:54:06 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
But... People have been using literally in a figurative sense for much longer than "now".
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:22:47 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
This is really interesting. I've heard girls say things like 'and i literally died' when describing how hard they laugh at something.
Nhexus ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:29:19 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Well its due to their continued and consistent misuse that its become documented as meaning "figuratively"
HerrUggla ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:46:54 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
No, it doesn't. It is used figuratively which is something else from literally meaning "figuratively".
Omniscient_Snail_Sam ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:20:50 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Nope.
The word can be used in a figurative manner, as an intensifier. For that use, the dictionary does not define it as "figuratively," instead stating that it's informally "used for emphasis while not being literally true." That's not the same as meaning figuratively. If you were to replace "literally" with "figuratively" in such a sentence, it would substantially change what the sentence conveys.
I really hate this misconception, because it's not particularly different from claiming that the phrase "a hundred feet tall" means "figuratively," because you might say "the man I bumped into was a hundred feet tall" in a figurative manner.
ArkitekZero ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:32:45 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
The people compiling these dictionaries have obviously completely lost all sense of its purpose. Accordingly, new printings are no longer valid.
SpiffyShindigs ยท 54 points ยท Posted at 22:49:30 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
hyperbole /hฤซหpษrbษlฤ/
RedAero ยท 45 points ยท Posted at 23:05:41 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Finally someone gets it...
Literally is only ever used to "mean" figuratively when used in hyperbole. And sarcastic use doesn't really equate to a bona fide dictionary definition.
[deleted] ยท 35 points ยท Posted at 00:18:43 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
This is just a big circlejerk of /r/lewronggeneration wannabe linguists to be honest. The English language has gone through changes like this before and now we consider it normal. Words change definition because words gain their definition from how we use them. Dictionaries aren't enforcers of language, they are recorders of language. And thus, they will be updated to reflect such usages. Literally being used in hyperbole makes perfect sense. You are exaggerating your claim as if it were being taken literally. Not that it isn't overused, but it's being used... so it's a dictionary's job to reflect that.
Hudston ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 02:16:35 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I wish more people knew this. This argument is literally driving me insane.
TheFatMistake ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:59:53 on December 14, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I see you trying to bait people!
idwthis ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:00:31 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I just had the thought that there were probably people who argued over what words like "villain," "nimrod," and "prude" meant when those words started having their definions and usage changed by society/the masses.
Just imagine men and women arguing over whether prude really meant an honorable woman or a person uncomfortable with sex and its related issues/topics.
lenaro ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:55:10 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Well, unless you're Noah Webster, who created his dictionary in an attempt to force his spellings.
But I agree with you.
Salindurthas ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:39:32 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Imagine hearing someone say the following:
Is the use of "really" hyperbole? Or is it an accepted and figurative use of the word "really", which would normally mean "actually" or "in reality".
RedAero ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:07:59 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It's an accepted use, but it doesn't parallel "literally" very well. "Really" does not normally only mean "actually" or "truthfully", it is also a generic term of emphasis, often a synonym of "very", i.e. "really tall" or "really interesting". It has completely "calm", non-hyperbolic usages even when used as emphasis, which is what your example is showcasing: "really blew up" is simple, generic emphasis, not hyperbole.
Literally does not have "calm" usages (other than what it actually means), nor is it a generic term of emphasis. It is very specifically a term of emphasis if and only if its use is hyperbolic, in other words humorously contradictory or exaggerated (which, it should be pointed out, only works if the word primarily means figuratively, otherwise there is no humor). You might say "the party literally blew up", but it sounds off, because it's not exaggerated enough. You would rather say "the party was literally out of this world", since the exaggeration is more extreme, hence humorous. And you would never say "that man is literally tall": literally is not a simple term of emphasis.
Salindurthas ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:02:04 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Absolutely. It can mean both "actually/truthfully" and also be a superlative (used for emphasis). However, what if it was 50, or 100, or 500 years ago. Would people say "really" and not mean "actually"?
Do note that "blowing up" could easily mean exploding. It is this figurative explosion (symbolising intensity, I imagine) that is meant. "Really blew up" is not simply me emphasizing how blown up the party was, it is me stating that it figuratively blew up, or at least that it blew up further.
Perhaps a better example will use a man named Bob at a party. Here are two possible comments you might hear:
Do they contradict each other? Are they ambiguous? Is Bob a cool guy that makes parties awesome, or is he a terrorist bomber?
If Bob is a cool guy, then the party didn't really blow up, it figuratively blew up. I am using the word really to mean figuratively, as in not really.
I'm not saying it is. I'm also not claiming that literally and really and perfect synonyms for each other.
How about this:
People sometimes use the word in this manner without (in reality) doing the thing in question (shitting their pant in this case).
Someone might say this and be using the world literally to mean figuratively, as in not literally.
In conclusion, it shouldn't be a problem that the dictionary includes a definition of "literally" that is "figuratively".
We have plenty of auto-antonyms in the English language, like "really", "fast", "dust", and "bolt". Those 4 words (and dozens, if not hundreds more) have at least 2 meanings which mean the opposites of each other.
RedAero ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:20:09 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
The problem is the word that is changing meaning here is "blew up", not "really". "To blow up" has a genuine meaning, with or without any prefixes, meaning "to escalate". "Really" is simply a generic term of emphasis in that context, not "figuratively", though depending on nuances of spoken tone it can certainly mean "actually". In writing, without context, it is indeed ambiguous.
Simply because a word which can also mean "in actuality" is being used for emphasis does not mean it therefore means "figuratively". That's not how you parse the sentence, since if you parse the sentence with that meaning in mind the word loses its meaning of emphasis, and becomes redundant. You don't need to specify that the party "figuratively" blew up, since "to blow up" already has non-literal meaning without any prefixes. The only reason you would add "literally" is for hyperbole, and the only reason you would add "really" is generic emphasis. You can't have the word simultaneously meaning "figuratively" and be a term of emphasis in the same sentence. The figurative nature is implied by the emphasis.
And like I said before, that makes no sense. Substitute in "figuratively" into that sentence, does it read the same? No. You've lost all the hyperbole. That's the whole point.
The problem is the dictionary is included sarcastic, hyperbolic usages which make no sense outside of a sarcastic, hyperbolic context. Should they list every single conceivable sarcastic sentence as well? In a sarcastic context, any word can be its own antonym, because the entire point of sarcasm is to say one thing and mean the opposite. That's be a great idea!
Does "great" mean bad now?
Salindurthas ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:08:29 on November 19, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Ok, I see your point. I don't say "The party figuratively blew up" or "That guitar solo figuratively melted my face", in order to emphasize my figure of speech.
Do we agree, then, that there are some words that are usually ok for emphasising a figurative phrase, and some that are not; and that words can change from one category to the other?
For example, out of this list of words:
Some (all?) of those words would be appropriate for emphasising the figurative nature of "That guitar solo melted by face".
The word "literally" is now one such word, agreed?
Well that is interesting, since some words have actually drifted in a similar sense.
For example, the word "stench" originally wasn't just for bad smells, but for all smells in general prior to the year ~1200.
Then people used it as a euphemism for "bad smell", and 800 years later that is simply the definition of the word. I can no longer sensibly speak of a "pleasant stench" like people would a thousand years ago.
A bit similar with "smelly", "smells", and "smelled" (and may soon happen to "pungent").
In principle, if I note that something "smells" then I'm merely stating that it isn't odourless. However you normally expect that I mean it "smells bad" unless I qualify it otherwise.
Now, euphemisms are not the same as sarcasm, but language can indeed change in this kind of way. (However perhaps you are right that the word "literally" has not changed in this way.
RedAero ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:17:25 on November 19, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Of course. It's a word, like many others, which can be used for emphasis, and in this specific case sarcastic, hyperbolic emphasis, rendering it, at face value, to be its own antonym. All I've ever said is that this does not add a genuine dictionary definition to it.
It's certainly possible, but not when the word is still being used sarcastically. If people start using "literally" to mean "figuratively" outside of a sarcastic, hyperbolic context, then it belongs in the dictionary.
Hubblesphere ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:18:40 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
When I eat all the hot pockets and my roommate says he's going to kill me I get really frustrated because I literally can't tell if he is going to follow through with it or not...
Not_Stupid ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:53:05 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, nah. People literally use it in perfectly normal statements with no sense of hyperbowl whatsoever. People are idiots.
Babill ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 23:34:09 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
But the hyperbole meaning isn't in the dictionary so it must not exist! Wait, what is a figure of speech? You mean I had to listen in English class because dictionaries can't alone adequately describe words?
(that's sarcasm, by the way, a figure of speech. None of what I said was meant literally, some of it was even contrary to its dictionary definition)
organazized ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 22:59:13 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
The usage of literally to add emphasis is in the OED. /u/3kool5you is correct.
Literally 1. c. colloq. Used to indicate that some (freq. conventional) metaphorical or hyperbolical expression is to be taken in the strongest admissible sense: โvirtually, as good asโ; (also) โcompletely, utterly, absolutelyโ.
Source: OED
[deleted] ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 00:07:24 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
[deleted]
Uexie ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 00:16:26 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Can't you argue everyone in the world understands what that icon means? Even if you have never seen a smartphone before. The expression is quite clear.
Vancha ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:07:29 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Sure, but an icon isn't a word, in the same way a picture of a cat isn't a word. Most people would recognize the cat is a cat, but that doesn't qualify it as a word.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:11:17 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Because it's an illustration of a face displaying an emotion. People have been painting such illustrations for millennia. But that doesn't mean such symbols or illustrations should be considered "words". If it's a word, it should be associated with a rule of grammar. Is it a noun? Adjective? Verb? Gerund? Article? What part of speech does it fall under?
ripcitybitch ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:47:45 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
In what way is using 'literally' as an intensifier not understandable?
Or diminishes any depth or power?
I don't think you quite understand linguistics...
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 05:30:08 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
What word do you use if you are telling someone a story about something that happened to you, and what happened is extraordinary to the point that those being communicated to might assume that you're being hyperbolic, but it's actually what occurred, and you want to convey that in spite of that seeming hyperbole, it literally happened?
Besides, even if we accept its usage as an intensifier, there are so many great ways to intensify a sentence it seems like poor diction to use a contronym.
ripcitybitch ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 05:41:16 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
You could use literally. Its use as an intensifier would still be apparent based on the context of the situation and the user's intonation.
Eh, that's just your opinion. Literally has been used as an intensifier for centuries and in a colloquial register, "proper diction" would literally not be relevant.
Getting your panties in a bunch over its use is just pure misplaced pedantry.
Shanman150 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:24:33 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It seems like the way they've defined this is different than simply "figuratively", (expressing one thing in terms normally denoting another with which it may be regarded as analogous). Literally means that you're exaggerating, but with an emphasis that your exaggeration is "as good as" the reality. It's definitely a mode of hyperbole.
Figuratively and literally still have shades of meaning here - figuratively means that you're intentionally speaking in "figures" of speech, which aren't intended to be precise. Literally means you're using these figures of speech in the strongest sense.
Cagi ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:15:17 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
While you're at it, look up hyperbole and poetic license.
CHIBI_titan ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:47:27 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
All these other responses seem to be missing the point. Who are you to argue what a literal godsend is according to U/3kool5you ?
The definition of a godsend is subjective. Maybe he meant exactly what he said.
sammythemc ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:48:11 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
U 8 the b8 m8
Limepirate ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:40:41 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
You just opened up your dictionary and schooled his ass.
Salindurthas ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:36:55 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
We use worlds like "really" (also "exactly", "very", and "totally") in a similar way.
Eg: "After the booze arrived the party really blew up!"
There are also plenty of other contronyms, like:
"fast" meaning either 'quickly' or 'without the slightest movement'
"dust" meaning 'to remove fine particles' or 'to cover in fine particles'
"bolt" meaning 'to flee' or 'to secure or fasten'
[deleted] ยท 48 points ยท Posted at 22:38:50 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Care to defend adding an emoji to the dictionary then? I really would like a explanation.
3kool5you ยท 105 points ยท Posted at 22:56:44 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I'm still a student, so I probably can't give you a perfect answer. I can ask my linguistics professor tomorrow and I'm sure she would have a good answer.
If I have to construct my own response off the top of my head, I'll argue that just because a word isn't a "word" and is in fact a symbol, doesn't disqualify it from word of the year. For example, a word of the year last year was "#blacklivesmatter". Not "blacklivesmatter" but "#blacklivesmatter". The argument was that it shows the power of the hashtag in this era.
Emojis are a little different, but they really are becoming a part of English language whether we like it or not. The thing about language is that there's no "right" or "wrong", it changes as is convenient for its speakers. Right now, emojis are becoming a part of the language and that's not necessarily a bad thing. So by using this, the most commonly used emoji(I'm presuming) as the word of the year, it just shows that emojis have taken a place in the English Language.
LazyOort ยท 60 points ยท Posted at 00:20:05 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
My linguistics textbook never stops emphasizing that language and words are nothing but symbols. Would anyone argue the hieroglyphs aren't communication?
[deleted] ยท 31 points ยท Posted at 00:38:54 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
They probably wouldn't, but not everyone is aware of their own language being a system of symbols. The average English-speaker just never stops to think that the English writing system is another system of symbols, for whatever reason.
LazyOort ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 00:53:18 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Truuuuuuuuuuu.
bustednbruised ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:30:04 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I think people downvoting you missed the point, "lol".
Brio_ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:44:12 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I would argue they aren't words.
[deleted] ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 02:49:50 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Is "I", as in the pronoun, a word? Yes.
It is also a symbol.
So where's the large difference between I and ๐?
Both use symbols to convey meaning.
In fact, over time symbols are usually drawn in more simple ways, as seen with โบ :-) :) and in the end become letters, or represented with letters.
Using emoji or emoticons for language is a trend, but it is still a trend of language.
Alex_Rose ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 04:00:33 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
โซxยฒdx = xยณ/3+c
I just used symbols to convey meaning, is the integral symbol a word now? What about the nabla symbol? Squared signs? deltas?
"I" is a word that just happens to be made up of one letter. That doesn't mean the abstract idea of "I" as a letter is a word, it's a letter that makes up a word, which has 1 constituent.
๐ isn't a one letter word, it's a standalone symbol that you can't combine to make new symbols.
:-) and :) is not a meaningful distinction with letters. The left one does not mean "A being with eyes, a nose and a smiling mouth" as opposed to the right one being "A being with eyes and a smiling mouth". Like, both of those would get parsed to a generic smiley face, and you wouldn't assume the right one is some hideous disfigured noseless person.
๐ doesn't belong to a language, it doesn't have a pronunciation. You show that to someone in France and they will say something completely different to me. Hell, the guy next door to me might say "Face crying with laughter" while I just say "smiley face". It doesn't have a fixed meaning.
It doesn't fit in with grammar. It can't convey anything particularly abstract or complex. You can't stack that symbol together with more to make a sentence, and if you do it probably won't be understandable, and it'll probably fit the sentence structure of your own language and not others, so it isn't even useful as a universal symbol in that respect.
"I" is one of a handful of letters we use that are each able to produce a handful of noises and we can read out loud and communicate with each other. It's something that can be made into a font and doesn't require someone to be talented at drawing to produce.
It can be combined with other letters to make words that mean things completely different to "I", and those words can be combined to make meanings that are different still. ๐ will never have any significance other than its very specific meaning. It's clumsy and inconvenient, not guaranteed to be parsed by whatever you're reading it in and hard to type.
It is an image. It's the same as pictionary. Pictures are inefficient and in the hands of someone who isn't a talented artist, an inferior method of communication, that's why pictionary works as a game. A dog emoji won't convey a breed of dog, just a dog. You can't use specific terminology etc.
You can't read it to a deaf person without resorting to interpreting it in your native language, which would be different depending on who's reading it.
If pictures were adequate, we never would've had written language in the first place, we'd all have some universal picture language we use instead.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 09:33:26 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Language developed out of picture languages, though โ we simplified the pictures to make them easier writeable.
Every single ancient writing system was based on pictures.
This is just another step.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:28:16 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
"I" is a personal pronoun. What part of speech is ๐? An adjective? Can you use it as an adjective?
Brio_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:50:56 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I didn't say it wasn't language. Language is more than words.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:27:02 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Are the 200+ calls employed by crows a language?
What separates symbolic communication from language?
lenaro ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:07:24 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Why are you asking enormous philosophical gotcha questions instead of just looking this shit up in an article about linguistics? If you really care about the answer, and not about the argument, you're welcome to look it up. It is a very popular topic.
LinguisticPenguin14 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:44:18 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I'm gonna be a bit pedantic for a second and say that no, emojis aren't a form of language, really the dictionary primarily doesn't record language first hand. As far as I can tell, they take new entries from literary or written sources.
Writing is secondary to language, it's a tool for representing language. So in my own opinion I would be hesitant to call emojis a feature of language, at least not spoken language.
LazyOort ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 00:20:21 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
My linguistics textbook never stops emphasizing that language and words are nothing but symbols. Would anyone argue the hieroglyphs aren't communication?
SpaceTire ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:24:46 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Where should I place these pictographs on my resume?
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 00:21:46 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
How do you pronounce it?
I mean, most of this contention would be eased by calling it "symbol of the year". Symbols belong to cultures, but not necessarily languages. Otherwise it opens the floodgates for every emoticon and sign to become part of the language itself. Should a stop sign be considered a word? What about the color red as it is used to mean "stop" or "hot"? What about more abstract symbols like a clothing style? Should those be words in a language, or just symbols in a culture?
percypersimmon ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:06:55 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
all words are symbols. they have no inherent meaning.
Brio_ ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 02:45:47 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
But a word is a word. An image can be many words.
lenaro ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:03:18 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
And a word can never be many words, huh?
... Except when it can. Here are 119 meanings of the word set.
Brio_ ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:43:07 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It's still a word.
BeefPieSoup ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:58:28 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Nah. It's a fucking wank.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:51:39 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
DoughnutHole ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 00:09:03 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Plenty of languages have scripts that represent concepts rather than pronouncable words (Chinese). They still have dictionaries.
Brio_ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:46:09 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
But then they are not words.
MixT ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:37:17 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, but those symbols have pronunciations attached to them. The emoji has no pronunciation attached to it other than the phrase describing its image, and that phrase is rarely ever used in day to day communication. That's the line I draw between an image and a glyph.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 00:37:15 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
An image can represent a word. In this case, that emoji represents laughter. For example, Hieroglyphs are also a type of language, but they represent words in the form of images.
Torgamous ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 10:56:38 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Sign language: Not a language.
flameoguy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:39:32 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
What's wrong with you? Of course it is.
bluecanaryflood ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 00:12:37 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I don't see why written language is less legitimate than spoken language.
enskatekeni ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:44:41 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
What is language if not to communicate? What is written language if not to represent that way in which we communicate? Emoticons add to this expression. No, we cannot pronounce ๐ but we can express it.
Brio_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:47:11 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Is someone smiling (literally the person smiling) a word?
enskatekeni ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:51:13 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Why not? Philosophical, linguistically, it's a symbol that represents an idea. Is that a word?
GenBlase ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:19:17 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Hieroglyphics bro
organazized ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 23:59:42 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
The OED may be making a wider point about how communication is changing. Emojis, memes, gifs and many other images are becoming commonplace as alternatives to what would previously have been written messages. Just an idea...
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 04:29:59 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
If that's the contribution they were seeking to make, instead of a clickbait dumbed down article, they should have an editorial about the emergence of symbols as affective punctuation.
Sladeakakevin ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:28:15 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Similar to how Chinese characters originated as small illustrations of concepts, the emoji has the same function.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:52:05 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
And we can even see the evolution from pictures to characters live!
We see โบ develop over :-) to :) (or well, we saw).
In a German sociolect, we see a language that used to be very restrictive take over words from dozens of other languages and losing its restrictive grammar โ similar to how English developed, but live, right this moment.
Language is changing right in front of us.
schnappischnap ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:48:04 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Source on it being added to the dictionary?
Damadawf ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:15:41 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Language is evolving and emoji have become a way that we express ourselves, like a new form of punctuation. I'm sure that if you could bring someone from Shakespearean times to the 21st century, they'd find a lot of the language we use questionable and pointless.
Using emoji to communicate might be an informal thing to do, but the same can be said about using contractions, for example.
avaratzz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:52:42 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Not that I support the addition of it, but my logic would be:
Before written communication, we had no symbols to represent our language. The need arose for symbols which would represent our language, so they were created, and became our alphabet.
Currently, there is a need for written symbols which represent emotions in written communication. So emoticons/emojis were created. Why shouldn't they be added to our alphabet/language?
I would argue that we have adequate symbols to express emotions, and emojis are just lazy. But there are plenty of examples where laziness has dictated the development of a language.
I don't like it, but can't find a logical reason to argue against it.
GenBlase ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:18:56 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Think hieroglyphics.
percypersimmon ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:12:05 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Word
/wษrd/
What about that definition suggests that the 'Face With Tears of Joy' is not a word?
In reality, all words are just random symbols strung together or set out independently that humans have assigned an arbitrary meaning to.
I'm an English teacher. I frequently have students "make up" words during class and apologize. I always tell them, if someone understands what you're saying, then it's okay. That's language.
STFUNeckbeard ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 03:19:20 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
So then you must understand the meaning of "pretentious"...
_dies_to_doom_blade ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 03:17:20 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
As an anything else major, sorry about your future.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:08:23 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
_dies_to_doom_blade ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:27:19 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Gj
sk8r2000 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:39:00 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
The OED isn't the same entity as Oxford Dictionaries, though they are both published by the Oxford University Press.
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 04:25:45 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
English majors struggle to remain relevant
3BetLight ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:12:38 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
English majors are probably 2% of the population at best. So there's the "just assume someone isn't an English major" way of doing it too.
Baalinooo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:00:18 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I think an easier way to tell apart English majors from others, is the fact that you refer to a book for information that could have more easily be found online...
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:44:43 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I must be English majoring wrong, I've never really felt like any dictionary was much of a "godsend" or even that much of a help.
...but I'm also avoiding linguistics like the plague, so there's that, too.
3kool5you ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:50:55 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
The reason why the OED is so awesome and cool for English majors, is that not only does it give you every definition for every word, but it also gives you the in depth etymology for all words. You can look up where words came from and what specific texts first used a certain word and that kind of stuff is good to know when analyzing past works or looking at the implications of words through history
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:56:00 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I seriously have never needed to do this for an English class. I've dicked around looking at etymology in my Latin courses, but never for English.
What rad courses are you in? Can we trade?
Kongo204 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:56:12 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I'm an English major too and I've never had to look up the etymologies. It sure as hell helps, though.
ponte92 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:52:22 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
As someone who has to do linguistics in their course I agree with you whole heartedly.
CJ090 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:35:30 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Oh you're an English major? If that's true, what's the proper way to prepare cappuccino?
CjsJibb ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:20:38 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
r/iamverysmart
[deleted] ยท -32 points ยท Posted at 22:04:01 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
[deleted]
mullet85 ยท 25 points ยท Posted at 22:11:24 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
From OED itself:
Definition of literally in English:
adverb
informal Used for emphasis while not being literally true:
I have received literally thousands of letters
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/literally
deepit6431 ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 22:12:32 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
To the contrary, an English major would know that literally has two meanings: literally and figuratively.
Don't believe me? Look it up in the dictionary!
There's also a word for words like this - a contronym.
TheInternetShill ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 22:38:36 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Even without the colloquial definition of "literally", using that doesn't take a word back to its etymological origin. For example, you are literally a faggot; I'm not calling you a bundle of sticks.
Mazetron ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 23:03:53 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
/r/fellowkids
GenBlase ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 00:18:25 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Well, they aren't wrong, the emoji are a part of our language now.
No different than the pictographs of the past, unless you want to call the Ancient Egyptians desperate to remain relevant.
thegeneraldisarray ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:44:02 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I'd laugh if I weren't already crying.
westcoastmaximalist ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:41:56 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Uh, pretty sure the entire point of picking something like "word of the year" is to pick something relevant.
ms_g_tx ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 02:52:08 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Or, just possibly, to get attention.
westcoastmaximalist ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:31:12 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, typically articles are published for people to read them.
kingeryck ยท -7 points ยท Posted at 21:16:59 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
That's why they constantly add things like irregardless to the dictionary. Just to drum up attention. That shit came up in my fucking autocorrect.
David-Puddy ยท 26 points ยท Posted at 21:59:54 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Or because they've become so widely used as to be part of the english language?
That's how english works. We don't have some council of elders, like the french do, who decide on which words are english or not.
If people use it, it's in english.
And all dictionaries do (or are supposed to do) is list words currently in use and their definition. (hell, the first dictionaries didn't even have the definitions)
Root-of-Evil ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:47:45 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Despite your superiority you still think "irregardless" is a word.
imdrinkingteaatwork ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:14:44 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
You people are such babies, such complainers.
netflixandchili ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 20:06:36 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
To be fair, they captured the average conversation on Twitter pretty well
mrcarlita ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 23:17:22 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I've been talking to a 19 year old German girl, and every other message is this emoji. To be fair, it makes me feel like she liked what I said
Moose_Nuts ยท 88 points ยท Posted at 18:41:17 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Merriam-Webster went with this one:
http://emojipedia-us.s3.amazonaws.com/cache/de/ca/decadd7edb6b1014ca0cb7a1afcb8ea3.png
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:51:46 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
SilentJac ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 00:01:32 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐ฉ
e3o2 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:13:29 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ฉ
ledger12 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:37:49 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ฉ
radicalspacebitch ยท 135 points ยท Posted at 18:59:07 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
So, am I allowed to use this in my college papers now?
arkhony ยท 113 points ยท Posted at 21:03:21 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
Is that your
criteriumcriteria for separating words from non-words? Cause I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to use cunt eitherโฆ Academical English has some specific restrictions, but it's limited to a particular context.radicalspacebitch ยท 29 points ยท Posted at 21:17:45 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Good point. Though I'm actually writing a paper right now where I can't avoid using the word nigger (it's part of a book title) so I guess anything could be used in a paper if you have the right context.
arkhony ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 21:23:50 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, it's always a matter of context. In your case it's a quote, which means you're writing it without being the one using it.
TheNotoriousLogank ยท 25 points ยท Posted at 01:10:15 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Well then "fuck you".
arkhony ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 01:59:21 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
As I said, it's always about context. And I'm not great with verbal (or written) cues, but in this context I have this feeling that you're not actually quoting someoneโฆ
TheNotoriousLogank ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 02:02:19 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Oh I'm sure lots of people have said that, take your pick.
Dogredisblue ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:13:15 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Which book? Doesn't sound like one I'd be interested in...
radicalspacebitch ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:28:07 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Ten Little Niggers by Agatha Christie. I'm writing on the movie And Then There Were None, which is a spinoff of that book and is actually a pretty good film.
Dogredisblue ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:08:40 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I guess that family guy episode must have been about this movie.
But how come it says niggers if the people are white? And there's also another movie called ten little Indians with the same plot?
radicalspacebitch ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:42:41 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Never seen the family guy episode, so I can't confirm. But the whole idea is that there's a nursery rhyme called Ten Little Injuns, and this book is about a murderer who kills each of ten victims in accordance with the deaths of the Indians in the poem. I'm not sure where Christie got "ten little niggers" other than the fact that the rhyme was originally written for a minstrel show. They changed it to Indians in the U.S. because we pick and choose who we're racist against here and apparently native Americans are fair game.
OptimalCynic ยท 30 points ยท Posted at 22:22:32 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
If you're going to be hyper-correct, you should get it right. It comes from a Greek root so the singular is "criterion".
In English you can just use "criteria" as both singular and plural.
arkhony ยท 38 points ยท Posted at 00:44:18 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Woops it appears you're right. Sorry, I'm not a native English speaker. Funny story: since it's Kriterium in German, I searched quickly in the Oxford Dictionary to see if it was the same in English, I saw that the word existed so I just went for it. Turns out, criterium exists in English but it's actually some kind ofโฆ bicycle race? Thanks for the info anyway.
Daniel15 ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 02:55:40 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Your English is excellent :D
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:53:50 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It's always weird, English does the same with Visa vs Visa, while German uses Visum vs. Visa.
(Try saying that out loud... ๐)
Noodleholz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:26:28 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I'm also German and I do the same, I thought "that guy must be German" while reading your "criterium" before I read your second post ๐
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:20:34 on December 7, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
Every day I grow more convinced that the Internet is populated almost entirely by secret Germans.
That or you guys just love Reddit.
P.S. I hope my German will one day be as good as your English :)
Edit: Actually, reading through your post history, you seem to not be a native German speaker?
arkhony ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:26:37 on December 7, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Ha ha yeah I'm actually French, just living and studying in Berlin at the moment!
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:57:00 on December 8, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Wow, I must say I'm rather envious. I'm currently learning German but after German I am definitely going to learn French as well. I've always wanted to be fluent in the English-French-German triangle of languages. Good luck with your studies!
GloveSlapBaby ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:34:15 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
You should read more Women's Studies journals. Or, better yet, don't.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:42:16 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Words have grammar. Emojis do not. Therefore they aren't words; they are more like affective punctuation.
arkhony ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:27:39 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
see :) you tomorrow is usually perceived as incorrect, whereas see you tomorrow :) is perceived as correct. Emojis do have grammatical rules governing their position in the sentence. The thing is, they don't fit in the system that has been prevalent in English to this day. But if you have other languages in mind, like for instance Chinese, it's easier to see that emojis as such can't really be dismissed as words. I think the most interesting question this raises now is: can a word be only written and not spoken?
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:43:24 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Indeed. Which is why I would argue that emojis are unique punctuation, not words. They perform more similarly to punctuation than words. They alter the tone of a sentence, can't be spoken aloud, and as you just pointed out, tend to occur more predominately at the end of a sentence.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 30 points ยท Posted at 19:00:53 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Well, if I'm grading the paper, it will be a point off and a note that says "Use Merriam Webster. This is not a word."
jagershark ยท 75 points ยท Posted at 21:46:32 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
found the prescriptivist.
I don't disagree that using an emoji in a college paper would be ridiculous. but using a dictionary to define what is and isn't a word is silly. how did all those words get in there in the first place if not through being used while they were not in the dictionary and therefore 'not a word'?
Realtrain ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 22:00:40 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Frindle!
deathcomplex ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 22:09:23 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Dat book Doe blew this young niggas mind lmao
CptSandbag73 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:41:38 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Ayyyyyy ๐๐๐๐๐ฝ๐ฏ
TheRealBarrelRider ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 22:11:56 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Personally I'd understand taking the point off for using informal language, rather than for using the wrong dictionary. The same way I can't say "it sucks" and have to say "it is undesirable".
Also where would this emoji even come up in a paper
jagershark ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:17:20 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
precisely my thoughts. perhaps in five years, who knows?
3 years ago, saying 'selfie' in a college paper who be laughable. nowadays it's a pretty mainstream word, perhaps still a bit chatty. you could definitely write a paper about selfies and their effect on culture, not sure you could use selfie outside of that context though, i don't think it will be long though until 'selfie' is a perfectly normal word - look at all the 70s and 80s slang which is now mainstream language.
i could imagine a world in the not too distant future where an emoji appears in a college paper, somehow, and not just in a linguistics paper about the effect of emoji use on communication, which is already quite widespread.
RedAero ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 23:19:24 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
70s and 80s slang is still slang today. You won't find "bitchin'" in any serious publication.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 22:10:47 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Written English is not a pictographic language. We have an alphabet. Emojis aren't words. They are a symbolic medium to convey nonverbal cues in a verbal-only medium where other forms of emotional writing are limited due to other restraints (e.g, texting).
As a professor I feel it's more important to teach students to have a greater grasp on the English language than to rely solely on text speak to convey themselves.
jagershark ยท 31 points ยท Posted at 22:29:15 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Correct, not right now, no reason why that couldn't change though.
No, they aren't. But in many ways they behave very similarly to words. I'm not sure it's necessary to be so precise about categorising things as 'words' or 'not words'.
Is 'AAAAAARRRGGGHHH' a word? It's like a word. It's a string of letters which seems to be a criteria for you, but you won't find it in Merriam Webster - at least not without a billion different alternate spellings. It conveys an idea very clearly. You'll find it novels as much as you'll find it on WhatsApp. You wouldn't put it in a paper though. It seems to fall in a weird middle ground between 'word' and 'not word'. Just like emojis. Ultimately, I don't think it really matters.
I'm fine with academics insisting on a certain style of language in their own domain, but to say something 'isn't a word' is to try to define English to be what you think it is. English is used by millions of people who couldn't care less what academics want to write in their journals. It's their language as much as yours - that is, you both have zero claim to it.
Acceptable academic style is of course going to be 5-10 years behind 'street' language in terms of what is acceptable (dictionaries will fall somewhere in the middle) but it will always, inevitably, follow closely behind. If you're going to insist on saying something 'isn't a word', you could at least say 'that's not a word yet'. End rant.
RedAero ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 23:16:01 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Except for the fact that these smilies don't mean anything. They convey tone. At best therefore, they are punctuation.
CoffeeHamster ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:47:12 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Holy shit, that makes a lot of sense.
codymariesmith ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:14:25 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
idk bruh, eggplant definitely means dick. like, for sure.
imdrinkingteaatwork ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:20:43 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Ummmmm.... I think you forgot how semantics works.
All words have ambiguity and can take on different meanings in different circumstances. Emojis are no different. They definitely convey meaning.
RedAero ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 16:20:06 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
OK, so use :-P in a complex sentence as you would a word. Then read it aloud.
imdrinkingteaatwork ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 16:35:17 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Written language and spoken language are not necessarily mirror images of one another.
That has literally never been how languages work, otherwise how would character based (logogrammatic) languages exist?
The combination of the two, as we see here, is taking on a new linguistic phenomenon, notably in how semantic meaning correlates with phonemic representation, or in this case does not. Calling it "wrong" is unnecessarily prescriptivist, and just stands in the way of progress.
Also: linguistically convey meaning โ being able to be read aloud
RedAero ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 17:18:19 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
I'm fairly sure it's possible to read Chinese, because the pictograms represent actual words: nouns, verbs, adjectives, sometimes more than one. :-/ can not be read aloud, at least not unambiguously, since its meaning is carried through tone and nonverbal language outside of a written context. Just like a question mark.
"Progress". And it is wrong by every single rule of grammar that has ever existed in the English language. You're trying to shoehorn a pictogram into an alphabet.
Exactly. Punctuation conveys meaning. Words can be read around. :-P is not a word.
imdrinkingteaatwork ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:48:31 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Shoehorn a pictograms into an alphabet? No. That would be saying the emoji is a letter. That's not what is happening.
What is happening is that, words and language as a whole has become more than just compositions of letters reflecting meaning.
This is about more than something's "wordness," this is about the very essence of communication, and its evolution. Words can be spoken or not. They can be abstract or not. They can be so ambiguous that their essence is never truly agreed upon, or they can be fairly universal.
As for your understanding of grammar and meaning, you really need a refresher course on linguistics. Notably the debate between descriptivism and prescriptivism.
RedAero ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:50:02 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Example that isn't an emoticon.
I'm well aware, I fail to see why you feel the need to talk down to me.
imdrinkingteaatwork ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:34:24 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
The need comes from your gross misrepresentation of several linguistic concepts with such certainty.
Any symbol ever really. We can attach them a description, and even near universally agree on that, but that is only an abstract representation of what it "means". The same follows for emojis. I could call that emoji happy crying from laughter face, yet the meaning exists still from it having been written.
That is a word. A distinct singular element of writing, used in a sentence. Syntactically how it is used will be varied from language to language.
RedAero ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:53:12 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Interesting that you called them symbols, and not words... It's almost as if one is not the other...
imdrinkingteaatwork ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:02:08 on November 19, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Something can be called one thing, and get this... also another.
jagershark ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:24:08 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
What?
I'm guessing you never use them.
A 'face with tears of joy' emoticon, the most popular emoji this year, conveys an emotion and it conveys it much more clearly than the phrase 'I'm crying with laughter/happiness'. It's not about tone of voice/language at all.
Just today I sent my girlfriend a message:
'love heart' 'aussie flag' 'plane' 'british flag' 'christmas tree' 'gift' 'love heart'.
Clearly this means 'I love that you're flying over to the UK for Christmas'. So the idea that emojis don't mean anything is completely ridiculous.
Of course, they can be punctuation as well. I sometimes end a sentence with a happy face or a love heart instead of a fullstop which just adds an extra layer of expression while still serving as a break in text.
RedAero ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 23:26:09 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Please, use it in a sentence as you would a word. A complete sentence, preferably compound.
I don't think "clearly" means what you think it means. Due to lacking proper syntax that string of pictures could mean a dozen things depending on how you parse it.
jagershark ยท -6 points ยท Posted at 23:36:48 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
OK you must be a troll. Nobody can be this stupid/socially ignorant.
Do you honestly think a smiley face has no meaning? Have you never heard that a smiley face is associated with happiness? Do you think something has to be usable in a compound sentence (why compound?!) in order to convey meaning.
Moving an eyebrow can convey meaning in some contexts, would you fail to understand this unless the eyebrow were used in a sentence?!
As for the emoji sentence. It was completely clear. You've chosen to go on about syntax and parsing while completely neglecting context. Calling troll.
In the context of a British boyfriend talking to an Australian girlfriend who has already made plans to fly over at Christmas, it's pretty bloody clear what that series of emoji means. Go on, give me 'a dozen' ways in which my girlfriend might have realistically misconstrued that in that context.
RedAero ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 23:49:18 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Not necessarily, but we're primarily arguing about whether it's a word.
What context? The one you just pulled out of your ass post-hoc?
Here:
โค๏ธ ๐ฆ๐บ โ๏ธ ๐ฌ๐ง ๐ ๐ โค๏ธ
Translation:
Loving Australian planes, flying to Britain for Christmas.
Hell, at a stretch: Flying to Australia with British Airways for Christmas.
The entire personal nature of the communication is one you assumed. You can perhaps argue that between two, and only two people, this will be just about intelligible, but all manner of gobbledygook could be. It is not, however, unambiguous, nor is it generally understandable.
Barkerbarker ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:54:50 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
For the record if I saw that exact emoji sentence I wouldn't have a clue what it meant. Obviously it made sense to the original reader (GF) but to me it's gibberish.
Grandy12 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:09:46 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I :D new york
miniflip ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:23:53 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I was gonna argue against that but I think you're right...
GenBlase ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 00:25:34 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Which is a part of our language now...
Think of it like this, we are witnessing a new form of English, like how it was from Ye old'e English to modern and now seems to be evolving again.
RedAero ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:27:47 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
So, how is :D pronounced?
GenBlase ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:30:59 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
:D
Capt_Underpants ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:53:15 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Can't wait as the world goes full circle
GenBlase ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:24:13 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
If the English language does not evolve, then it is considered a dead language. Would you want a dead language?
Like how English was Ye olde wanker or something like that.
imdrinkingteaatwork ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:25:30 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
That's a false dichotomy. Grasping English language and text speak are not mutually exclusive.
This entire thread is the linguistic version of /r/lewronggeneration. You should probably just take a seat and realize that language evolves. Your rigorous adherence to the rules is about as arbitrary as possible.
Prescriptivism is ๐ฉ.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:40:24 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
True. But they have mutually exclusive genres and mediums. Besides, if someone relies solely upon what is essentially tiny clip art to convey emotion, they'll never get the skill to express it using the full depth that the English language provides.
And you should realize that communication occurs through more than "words". The use of tiny illustrations of faces to convey emotion is definitely an evolution in how people communicate in new media, but that doesn't make it "a word". Emoticons emerged as a way to quickly digitize facial expressions. It's taking the non-verbal and bringing it into a verbal-only space. But a word is unique.
imdrinkingteaatwork ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:38:45 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
No they don't? Meaning can still be derived if you use emojis in a dissertation, and complex syntax in a text message.
If someone relies solely? That's not happening though?
Except that it does.
A unique unit written to convey meaning. Which emojis do. Failing to see how it doesn't fit...
Language is not verbal only.
Jeanpuetz ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:38:27 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah seriously, as a linguist (or, well, I guess I should rather say "as a person who took some courses in linguistics in Uni) I have no problem with this, on the contrary, I actually think it's pretty cool that they chose an emoji for the word of the year 2015. It does represent language in this year. It may not really be a word by most definitions, but it's definitely part of many languages. So why the hell not?
miasmic ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:05:23 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
You said it yourself - because the word of the year should be a word
swohio ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:42:04 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
As far as words go, you have an argument however THIS IS A FUCKING SMILEY FACE! It's not a series of letters forming a sound, also known as a "word."
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:57:43 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
In competitive debate a dictionary is used all the time to argue the definition of words, and whether the word used is usable in the context.
ittybittyshittykitty ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:17:54 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I choose to be descriptive with language, not prescriptive. I just learned about this in my linguistics class!
jagershark ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:37:22 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I love it.
I used to mumble and fuss about 'correct' use of language. 17 year old me with his intellectual superiority complex would've been mortified to hear that 2015's word of the year was going to be an emoji. He would've taken great delight in complaining about it though. He would've asked 'what the world was coming to' and said that he had 'lost his faith in humanity' (ok maybe he wasn't that insufferable!).
Looking at language from a descriptivist perspective is so much more fun. You see new words and the changing ways in which people communicate (e.g. emoji, 'selfie') and it's interesting to think about where language comes from and where it goes. None of the descriptive complainers could ever follow a fun train of thought about what human communication will look like in ten years without moaning that the language will be 'ruined' by 'idiots'. Never mind that a descriptivist from the 16th Century would bemoan the fact that they had 'ruined' Shakespearean English with their 'you's' and 'have's' and 'does's'.
GenBlase ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:22:57 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
You would be a bad teacher then.
Think pictograph, how they were important in the past and seems to be making a come back now.
You would be like one of those teachers who punishes people for not using cursive.
dontknowmeatall ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:21:29 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
How are emoji different from kanji? They're a somewhat abstract representation of a material concept to convey a meaning that is universally accepted by the culture of its users. What makes ๐ different from ้ญ?
deepit6431 ยท -4 points ยท Posted at 22:14:08 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
That would make you a pretty shitty professor.
TheMSensation ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:47:06 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Fuck that, I want to know how to play this in Scrabble. I could draw it on a blank but I want points.
radicalspacebitch ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:29:18 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Just draw it on the letter o!
TheMSensation ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:46:09 on November 19, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Genius
chicklepip ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:59:39 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
"ain't" is in the dictionary, too--are you OK with using that in a college paper?
Supersnazz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:20:31 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
No, because it isn't in the OED. They made it word of the year, but haven't accepted into their dictionary.
bandalooper ยท 131 points ยท Posted at 20:25:29 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I'm equally infuriated that it's not Oxford Dictionary's word of the year, but Oxford Dictionaries word of the year.
[deleted] ยท 32 points ยท Posted at 22:00:47 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
ich_habe_keine_kase ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 04:14:00 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
While I'm not usually one to argue with a well-placed plural possessive apostrophe, it's actually correct without it. The Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year is a title given to something, they're not claiming it as their own. It is still grammatically correct with the apostrophe, but it's not incorrect without it.
Edit: found a grammar mistake. Appalled, but willing to appreciate the irony.
[deleted] ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 22:49:40 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It still sort of makes sense, since Oxford Dictionaries now produce more than one dictionary, and it's using 'Oxford Dictionaries' as a sort of adjective phrase maybe?
underthesign ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 21:40:52 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
That is far more infuriating!
bandaloo ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:08:49 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
Wait, why are our usernames so similar? How did you choose yours? Because a long time ago I made up the word... like... completely. It's meaningless to me.
bandalooper ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:06:37 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Jitterbug Perfume by Tom Robbins
I highly recommend it. And I still would even if I weren't high.
schnappischnap ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:55:27 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
"Oxford Dictionaries word of the year" is right.
Like how "Reddit post of the year" would be right, not "Reddit's post of the year".
Liamzinho ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:52:52 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Oxford Dictionaries is the name of the organisation, so I assume they're using it as a single noun. As in "the 'Oxford Dictionaries' Word of the Year".
Brosefiss ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 23:08:42 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I know, It's like knowing English got scrubbed of their minimum employee requirements.
TheClam-UK ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 23:51:55 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
*off
blastnabbit ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 21:43:51 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Is this the Oxford Dictionary's version of click-baiting?
teapot112 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:30:24 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Not really. They are one of the most well known and experienced lexicographers of the English language. But this pretty much highlights how people in 2015 used English language online. Even for the past few months, I noticed how frequently people used emojis online.
yahoowizard ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:40:34 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Why is that face "English language"?
teapot112 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:57:40 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Because people who communicate in English used it as a word.
press_A_to_skip ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 09:03:39 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
They use it as a symbol which represents an emotion. You can also send a GIF to show emotions, would a picture become a word then? You can't pronounce it. You can't type it on a typewriter, which contains all the letters used in English. This is not a word.
yahoowizard ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 15:42:23 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I was also curious why it was "English" when it was used across all languages. And also language, it's not really language.
yahoowizard ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:45:50 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It's not really a word and it's not English. It's just dumb.
[deleted] ยท 338 points ยท Posted at 19:17:30 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Honestly, who cares? I hate when people blow these stupid awards out of proportion.
Like everybody panicking after Caitlyn Jenner was named "woman of the year"
She was named by a glamour tabloid....WHO FUCKING CARES.
The Oxford Dictionary is relatively irrelevant now. There are millions of variations of online dictionaries that make the Oxford no longer of use. They just want to catch some attention.
[deleted] ยท 27 points ยท Posted at 00:21:52 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Oxford is the go-to academic dictionary. It was always largely irrelevant in most cases, but for the most accurate etymology, connotation, and denotation, every English professor knows which dictionaries are for the kids and which is for the big boys.
What they pick for word of the year I don't really give a fuck about, because that's not why I use them.
ich_habe_keine_kase ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 04:07:16 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
No, the Oxford English Dictionary is the go-to academic dictionary. The Oxford Dictionary is all about modern language and usage, while the OED is about etymology and use throughout time. They outline it quite well here.
[deleted] ยท 92 points ยท Posted at 23:12:38 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
The only issue that I have is that it is literally not a word.
GenBlase ยท 29 points ยท Posted at 00:21:46 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Pictographs bro.
Crossaix ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:30:52 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
How would you define a word?
guitarman565 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 00:04:04 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
A bunch of letters together. A face is not letters together.
bluecanaryflood ยท 16 points ยท Posted at 00:18:21 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
kksinntsumbt is a bunch of letters together, but isn't a word. I'd venture to define "word" as the smallest meaningful unit of communication.
Axel_Foley_ ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 02:32:38 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
..Fine, a bunch of letters put together that serves the purpose of conveying information phonetically.
An emoji is a form of communication, but it is not a word.
akcaye ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 07:25:53 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
a and I are just single letters that are words nonetheless.
And why do you even have such restrictive conditions anyway? Are you trying to come up with a definition that specifically avoids emojis? "phonetically"? What does that even mean? "nayshun" conveys information phonetically, while "nation" doesn't. Which of these is a word?
What about "[sic]"? Or something like "*laughs*" or "(pause)"? They're words and they convey information, and letters put together. But they aren't supposed to be phonetic, nor do they phonetically represent what they stand for.
What about hieroglyphs? They weren't phonetic or made of letters. Didn't they convey information? You're saying they didn't have words while they clearly did.
edit: formatting
Axel_Foley_ ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 07:43:42 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
..I don't have restrictive conditions. But I also don't have the tendency to call things which they are not.
Nayshun and nation both follow the standard method of words, but nation is the widely accepted correct spelling of the word. But both could and have been used as words.
Hieroglyphs are pictures. Not words.
This is super simple stuff man. There isn't any groundbreaking evolution of language or anything going on. It's an emoji, a picture.
It's not only impossible to argue that it's a word, but pointless as well. What would be gained by abruptly and arbitrarily changing the simple elements of what makes a word to be able to include a cell phone emoji?
akcaye ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 11:14:47 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Hieroglyphs aren't words? Can't you just look things up before making statements like that? They're even phonetic a lot of times. I thought you like phonetics!
What about Asian languages? Do they not have words because they have a different character for an idea instead of a bunch of phonetic characters put together?
And who said things abruptly changed? Are you new to the internet? People have been using emojis for a long-ass time. They've just recently been recognized as an evolution of today's language and our ability to convey information.
I still use three words when I write "I โค U". You even read it as a three word sentence.
Finally there's no universal concept of what a word is. It's arbitrary. to is a "word" in English but can be a suffix or a prefix in other languages. So what makes the distinction between words and affixes? It's actually nothing. "to day" and "to morrow" used to be phrases. Then they became hyphenated. Now they're single words. So there are no "simple elements of what makes a word" to begin with. It's just based on what people call a word. That's it.
Axel_Foley_ ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 11:38:10 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
..To day and today both share something significant in common. Can you see what that is? โค๏ธ Shares nothing in common.
akcaye ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 12:00:56 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Except for the state of being a word. The point was not about their meaning, it was about how being a word or not is just an arbitrary thing. "today" is a word, "to day" isn't.
โค literally means "love" and you know it.
Axel_Foley_ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 12:07:29 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
..a single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed.
Nope, both qualify as words. One isn't the correct spelling, but there is a different school of thought governing spelling.
akcaye ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 12:33:45 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It's not spelling. I'm saying that they were separate words, and that has nothing to do with spelling. A space on either side means that "to" was a word, and "day" was a word, but "today" wasn't because "to" and "day" were separated as two distinct words.
And while you say "both qualify as words" by your definition, โค also does, as it is a single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed.
Axel_Foley_ ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:00:02 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
..It's not writing. It's drawing.
I can tell you are passionate about this but no matter which way you want to spin it or the lengths you want to take it, emotes are not words.
They are a form of communication, but they are not words.
akcaye ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:29:13 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
What's your distinction there? What's the definition of writing that separates it from drawing?
You must know that what we call writing now is literally simplified drawing. The letter A was an ox head. Like it or not, hieroglyphs are a form of writing, not drawing.
ndstumme ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:45:21 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
I'm gonna jump in here.
What separates writing from drawing? I'd say that writing is a visual recording of meaningful sounds. 'Writing', and by extension 'words', have to have a meaningful sound associated with it.
Punctuation are not words. Punctuation are drawings commonly used with writing to help clarify, but '?' by itself is not a word, nor can it be part of one unless we grant it a sound.
Until this emoji has a meaningful sound, it's just a pretty drawing not a word.
akcaye ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 13:50:37 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Punctuation isn't words, but isn't it writing? It surely isn't a drawing, or part of speech.
ndstumme ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:19:44 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Punctuation aren't words.
akcaye ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:59:09 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I don't remember saying it is.
Axel_Foley_ ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:02:18 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
..Emotes aren't words my friend.
akcaye ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:20:34 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not your friend, guy.
And that's not an argument.
Axel_Foley_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:44:36 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
..Who you Fallon' guy, pal?
Ok so how about this, you're right, that emoji is a word.
But since we're being so open and evolving, I'd like to add a few words myself. How about the top 5 most repeated gifs in /r/ReactionGifs.
I've often found that a good gif can really encapsulate a meaning or viewpoint. What do you think?
akcaye ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:02:30 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
http://i.imgur.com/ZQDiRol.gif
Axel_Foley_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:12:13 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
..You'll note that the gif had to use actual words to convey the message.
And that being fine by you proves my point about not accepting emojis as words.
Letters strung together to make words is universal. Once you learn how to read and write, you can convey anything that's inside your head to anyone who also knows how to read and write.
That is beautiful, and emojis don't follow that same suit.
akcaye ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:42:55 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
How does me being fine with having reaction gifs as words prove your point? I don't understand what you mean. Maybe emojis would help.
Language isn't about what's beautiful or specific methods in which you can convey what's in your head. It's about how you do it. And that changes.
No it isn't. Ask someone from China.
Axel_Foley_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:49:54 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
..It proves my point because you are willing to call anything a word, thus convoluting and undermining the written word.
You being ok with it proves that you have absolutely no clue and no care.
Emojis are not words.
akcaye ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:49:47 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
And if you repeat it enough, it will become true!
Axel_Foley_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:57:04 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
..It already is true, I'm repeating it for your benefit.
akcaye ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:44:41 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
So emojis are words, right?
Axel_Foley_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:46:34 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
..Of you want to believe they are words, there's nothing I can do to stop you. More power to you man.
But the simple truth is they fit none of the criteria of a word.
Nice talking with you dude.
teapot112 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:18:22 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
But language evolves. And the purpose of lexicographers is not to be the arbiters of English language. Nobody owns it. Their primary purpose is to document how people use English language and the new words that are created.
When a majority of people use an emoji as a replacement for a word, it becomes one. Maybe not all emojis will become replacement for words but this single emoji is used by majority of people for this to become word of the year.
Axel_Foley_ ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:52:59 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
..The language evolves is a pretty weak argument. It either is or isn't a word, and by all metrics, an emoji is not a word.
I think you are overestimating exactly how many people use this or any emoji.
What makes you, and others, so adamant on making this non word a word?
teapot112 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:26:39 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Definition of "word":
It didn't say words should only contain alphabets.
Language evolves. People use emojis, a pictogram as a word replacement so therefore it gets a mention.
So why did it suddenly got the word of the year award?
I am not adamant. I am just pointing out the already existing phenomena. But it seems like you, on the other hand, is the one who is adamant about the definitions of words as if they are set on stone. English, like any other language has formal and informal aspects to it.
ndstumme ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:58:53 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
'Words' serve to be spoken. Writing was an afterthought to allow us to record our vocal sounds that have meaning.
How would you pronounce this emoji?
teapot112 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 06:33:18 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
How do you pronounce a word in sign language? By translating the sign actions to English.
You can pronounce that emoji by translating it back to english(which is "face with tears of joy")
ndstumme ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:58:47 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
So you're saying it's a word, just not an English word. Then why is it the word of the year for an English dictionary?
By your definition, a word is a meaningful element of writing (or speech), but what separates writing from other forms of drawing? I posit that writing is a visual recording of sounds. What sound does an emoji make? If it doesn't have one, then it's simply a drawing that has meaning, but it is not a word.
Axel_Foley_ ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:17:05 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
..Element of speech or writing. You can't WRITE that emoji or SPEAK it. You can only draw or explains it, coincidently , with actual words.
People did not use emojis or pictograms as words, they used them as the main element of that language. Language, not words.
It suddenly got the word or the year award, I suspect, to get people talking and visiting and thinking about the Oxford Dictionary. It worked too, as this stunt has brought more attention to it then an actual word would have.
There isn't a phenomena, there isn't strange and wonderful unexplainable metamorphosis of words. It's the same criteria that hasn't changed since the introduction of the alphabet and spoken utterance.
It's an emoji, a picture, a standardized drawing, not a word.
Tashre ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:19:14 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Word.
mrmojorisingi ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:04:06 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
o
dontknowmeatall ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 02:28:17 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
How would you define a letter? Is G a letter? Is ร? Is ใ or ่ป? Why not ๐ then?
ndstumme ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:59:46 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
The definition of a letter is not in question. The definition of a word is what's in question.
dontknowmeatall ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:29:48 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
By OP's terms, the definition of a word is directly dependant of the definition of a letter, since it starts with "a bunch of letters". If there is no clear definition for what a letter is, then a word can be anything I imagine.
guitarman565 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:32:06 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
We all know that face isn't a word, people are just being pedantic and arguing for the sake of arguing.
dontknowmeatall ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 02:33:12 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I notice you are avoiding the question.
Pablopubes ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:47:40 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Word: those things u use when u txt ur bff Jill ๐๐ค๐ฉ
cake4chu ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 00:10:59 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Constanents and vowels that form to make a sound.
Not le_ebic_cryinghappy face
Rauwz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:17:03 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Well according to Oxford's dictionary's definition of litterely, it litterely is a word.
8BitHedgehog ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:03:26 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I know another guy already used this definition but:
Word: a single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed.
So yeah, it is technically a word.
ndstumme ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:00:33 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
How would you pronounce it, exactly?
8BitHedgehog ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:23:14 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Nowhere in the definition does it say you have to be able to say it for it to be a word. If you really wanted to "say" it, you would do ๐ <-----that
I guess you could also say "Tears of joy emoji".
ndstumme ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 05:31:36 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Then what separates a 'writing' from 'drawing'? Your definition says it's a meaningful element of writing.
I will put forth that writing is a recorded form of spoken sound. Drawing is unspoken images.
8BitHedgehog ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:19:06 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
That is a very good question. I'm not very sure where you would draw the line between drawing and words. Maybe there isn't really a difference. I mean, they are both just some strokes of a pen that have meaning to us.
press_A_to_skip ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:57:03 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Could this be word of the year then?
8BitHedgehog ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:20:11 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
If you're trying to communicate something then yes, I guess it could be Word of the Year.
press_A_to_skip ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:00:47 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
So how do you spell it? How do you type in out on a typewriter? How do you write it in Braille?
8BitHedgehog ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:14:11 on November 19, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
Spelling: retardedhorse.jpg
How to type it: Use your brain to send signals to your arms to move in a way that makes you type out "retardedhorse.jpg".
I don't know how to write stuff in Braille, but you get the point.
Sarcasm aside though, thanks for reminding me of that meme.
press_A_to_skip ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:57:46 on November 19, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
But then the word would be an actual word representing the picture, not the picture itself.
If they used "emoji" or "tearsofjoy" it would be ok, but they used a picture, which is not a word in English.
It's a pity retarded horse never was a word of the year though.
8BitHedgehog ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:26:27 on November 19, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
You definitely have a point there. I guess Oxford Dictionary had a very loose definition of "word". By their standards, it fits, but to everybody else it does not. By the way, if Oxford made Retarded Horse word of the year, I would be the happiest person in the universe.
Ozqo ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 02:10:34 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Exactly, just like Jenner isn't a woman.
dontknowmeatall ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 02:26:29 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
How are emoji different from kanji? They're a somewhat abstract representation of a material concept to convey a meaning that is universally accepted by the culture of its users. What makes ๐ different from ้ญ?
ndstumme ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 05:00:53 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
The kanji have a pronunciation.
dontknowmeatall ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 05:28:31 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
The emoji have a facial expression.
eternalexodus ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:29:06 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
someone, somewhere, is pissed off about red starbucks cups too. I'm pretty close to just deactivating my facebook because people talking about all of this inane shit is driving me crazy.
Capt_Underpants ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:59:38 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Someone has to care, because it's most likely their job to care or the result will make it more difficult to do their job.
Doubt it, there's a reason there are still name brands for almost every commodity.
ponte92 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:59:10 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
As someone who does linguistics in their I can tell you the Oxford dictionary is not irrelevant. My language teachers will only allow the Oxford English/ Italian or German (depending on the class) in our classes. The last few years people have made fun the Word of the Year but the truth is language evolves and Oxford evolves with it. Yes an emoji is a stretch but how many text messages and comments online now use them there is a fair argument that they have become part of our language. Not all language uses Latin alphabet look at the Asia region and their use of characters of hieroglyphics of older languages its the same thing.
killer4u77 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:27:06 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I swear these are the kind of people that freak the fuck out when someone says swag or something. God forbid they have a little fun with it, lol.
ohyouresilly ยท 502 points ยท Posted at 18:14:22 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
No. No no no no no. No fucking way guys. First of all, that's clearly not a fucking word so it can't be the fucking "word" of the year. And second of all, no.
I_EAT_GUSHERS ยท 328 points ยท Posted at 21:25:46 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Third of all, the poop emoji is the clear word of the year.
[deleted] ยท 71 points ยท Posted at 21:51:19 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I prefer the longer tildeใฐ
YM_Industries ยท 64 points ยท Posted at 23:06:04 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
For when something is barely even close to a number? E.g. The number of people in the world is ใฐ7,000?
Or perhaps for when you really need to access the developer console of a game?
NosyEnthusiast6 ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 00:31:20 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
then just ~~~~
`~~~~~!~12aaaaaaAAAAAAA`~nicholas818 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:53:11 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
the ` and ~ have special formatting on reddit. So you wanted ~~~~~~`~~~~~~~~`~!~12aaaaaaAAAAAAA```~`~~~~~```
(But that doesn't change the meaning here)
NosyEnthusiast6 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:59:23 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
shh purposeful
Zeyphle ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 03:13:54 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Approximately approximate?
KingCrabmaster ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:47:09 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Am developer.
Can confirm even this tilde isn't long enough.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:56:23 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
YM_Industries ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:40:04 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
ISkipLegDayAMA ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:20:34 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
8=D~
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:42:32 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
[deleted]
YM_Industries ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:24:06 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Well based on the example I provided we're looking at at least 6 orders of magnitude. I'd say that a regular ~ offers less than 1 order of magnitude of leeway. So I'd say ใฐ7,000 means ~-7,000,000 - ~7,000,000,000.
StereotypeLumberjack ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 00:29:38 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
I myself, am a fan of ๐๐ป, ๐ฝ, and โ๏ธ
Isurelovekittiesande ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 03:05:23 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
You're a fan of cancer?! Sheesh, what an asshole!
danyisill ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:16:06 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
i too like 01f 959 and 01f 3fb
_arcyn ยท 12 points ยท Posted at 22:15:26 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
ใฝ
ShaneH7646 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:28:40 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Fourthly, no
TheInternetShill ยท 36 points ยท Posted at 22:40:32 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I think you mean ๐ก.
thehudgeful ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:29:51 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
So cute.
euthlogo ยท 70 points ยท Posted at 23:06:30 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Definition of "word" from OED:
A single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed.
Emojis definitely qualify.
MugaSofer ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 17:40:35 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
By that logic, a fucking comma is a "word".
fweebrownies ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:02:06 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
well that's more than a bit abstract isn't it. If I were to draw a cow right in the middle of this sentence, would it be considered a word? If you're going by the dictionary you could certainly argue for it, but no one would look at it and understand except maybe me. it would have meaning like a painting has meaning. and you can use an emoji without one space on each side. ifyourunwordstogether the word doesn't quite read right and could be misinterpreted. Now if I were to put an emoji right hereยง you can still read it, even if you're barely thinking. And I don't think anyone has made a official way to use the emoji. If anything emojis are closer to periods and other syntactical elements.
broncosandwrestling ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 01:59:54 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
It's probably worth saying that ancient Chinese didn't necessarily have spaces in between words, and one character was/is a crude drawing of a cow.
fweebrownies ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 02:05:09 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
Thing is that that has a concrete definition. Emoji's meanings can change depending on context.
Edit: I want to somehow recognize that this statement is false with out being downvoted to hell. So there. Any further comment about how normal words can change definition depending on context is unneeded and redundant. /u/broncosandwrestling said it best.
broncosandwrestling ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 02:12:54 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Chinese characters also differ in meaning depending on context. So do English words, for that matter.
Captain_Alaska ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:30:59 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
So you're saying I couldn't lead you on with a block of lead?
cosmik_debris ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:18:34 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
And "actual" words can't?
dontknowmeatall ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:24:05 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
How are emoji different from kanji? They're a somewhat abstract representation of a material concept to convey a meaning that is universally accepted by the culture of its users. What makes ๐ different from ้ญ?
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 04:39:13 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
้ญ is a noun. ๐ is a digital illustration.
What linguistic morphology does ๐ have? Is it a noun? Adjective? Does it follow grammatical rules? Is it an English word? German word? Spanish word? Can it be transliterated? Translated? Does it exist outside of electronic forms of communication? If I drew ๐ in a sentence on a piece of paper, would the reader think it was a word or just a cartoon of a fish in the middle of my paragraph?
codymariesmith ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 08:09:26 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
the Egyptians would like a word with you.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:05:40 on November 19, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Holy shit. This thread convinced me emojis can qualify as a word. My mind is blown.
Decalance ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 09:48:33 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It does get the point across.
SerMerynTrance ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 11:58:03 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
You could say the exact same thing about ้ญใ
And the entire Chinese "alphabet"
Those symbols were standardized and simplified over years of use and being written to make them more understandable, yes, but most people now use a standard set of emojis too, so clearly it's headed in the same direction, and developing the same way.
We are watching history repeat itself, it's pretty fascinating.
TheFatMistake ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:16:25 on December 14, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Emojis follow rules. It can actually be kind of hard to text someone without using some sort of connotative "lol" or "haha" or emoji. So they're obviously symbols of communication. And different emoji convey different emotions.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:34:19 on December 14, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It's an older thread, but I commented elsewhere arguing that emojis are more akin to punctuation - sort of affective punctuation. Because you're right they have a place in informal text-based communication. Still not words though :-p
fweebrownies ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:29:47 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I have no knowledge of the Chinese language. I had no clue that they were pretty much the same. That was on me for now looking that up.
dontknowmeatall ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:32:32 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
So does your ignorance of its definition mean that ้ญ is not a word until someone explains it to you? Emoji are like universal pictographs, and they are a part of language now, for better or worse. Most of them are used like words, so why not accept them as that?
fweebrownies ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:34:29 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I was told that the character was a rough drawing of a cow. I had no clue that it actually meant cow. I was perfectly aware of the word, I was not aware of it's function though
squngy ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 10:26:04 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hieroglyph
DickMcMuffin ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:33:46 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
If you take ๐ out from a sentence, the meaning is exactly the same. It has no impact in the structure of the sentence. The only thing that I can think it actually, grammatically signifies, is sarcasm. But sarcasm doesn't translate to written language anyway. I would have to disagree with you here.
codymariesmith ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 08:11:50 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
you've never added a smiley face to a sentence to convey jest or sarcasm? that's literally the most bullshit thing I've ever heard ;))).
sarcasm translates just fine, it's all about context my love.
SerMerynTrance ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 12:01:07 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Words can change but grammar rules can't?
Languages have evolved over thousands of years and never stopped evolving. Were watching language evolve right now.
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 00:49:17 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
[deleted]
euthlogo ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 00:51:38 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
There are lots of words that aren't in the dictionary.
Baxxb ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:24:53 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Can someone share an audio file on how to pronounce this word?
dontknowmeatall ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:23:11 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
How are emoji different from kanji? They're a somewhat abstract representation of a material concept to convey a meaning that is universally accepted by the culture of its users. What makes ๐ different from ้ญ?
ohyouresilly ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 02:35:46 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Fair point. I'm not sure what makes the two symbols different exactly, I suppose it's partly because I feel symbols like ้ญ are already the basis of those languages and have been for so long. Admittedly I am being kind of unfair towards emojis, but I don't care. If anyone ever texted me "hey want to go to the lake and ๐ this weekend?" I would agree only so that I could drown them in the lake.
dontknowmeatall ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:43:46 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Well, they weren't always like that. When China introduced kanji to Japan, they were a novelty. But now it's been about a thousand years and people seem to have managed to work them out. Now, Japan is introducing us to ideographs in our languages. They're not what we're used to use, but they work in some level. Why not accept them? What's the worse that could happen?
That's also a valid point. However, I doubt most people use emoji as a word-per-word substitution system. Maybe that wouldn't work, but texting "๐ณ๐โ" conveys the same meaning as "wanna go bowling at 3?" whilst being much more casual. Maybe you wouldn't speak like that, just like you wouldn't, like, talk like a valley girl, y'know, byotch? But there is no doubt some people do, and that is as valid language as what we use. It's just a different linguistic turn fit for different social contexts.
ohyouresilly ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:50:01 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, my use of fish emoji was a bit of a stretch. I can see how some could be used for convenience (like your bowling example), I just can't stand it when people abuse the shit out of them to the point of it being absolute nonsense.
dontknowmeatall ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 02:54:02 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Nobody does. It's like "like" in valley girl speech or "nigga" in AAVE. Sometimes it's just empty noise. But that doesn't mean it's not relevant in certain contexts, so we gotta consider those too.
OptimalCynic ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:47:14 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
When kanji were brought to Japan, writing was a novelty. The Japanese never developed a writing system before then. Kana were developed from kanji to simplify things.
dontknowmeatall ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 04:54:35 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Doesn't negate my point though.
RabbitSeesSTARS ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 01:54:23 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
well if Jenner can get woman of the year then I guess anything is possible.
yehti ยท 58 points ยท Posted at 19:39:29 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I'm sorry but that's hilarious.
warped_and_bubbling ยท 60 points ยท Posted at 21:20:34 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
FTFY
jaytaicho ยท 19 points ยท Posted at 21:49:13 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
You're reply is an appropriate use of ๐. What mildly infuriates me is when people on FB use it after EVERY. FUCKING. COMMENT. YOU'RE COMMENT WASN'T EVEN FUNNY! AND DEFINITELY NOT FUNNY ENOUGH TO CRY OF LAUGHTER! Did I say mildly? I meant majorly.
idlephase ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 22:49:18 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
"I'm sorry for your loss ๐"
SuperCho ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 22:12:15 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
So truuuuu!!!!!!๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:24:36 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
*YOUR
The poor spelling and grammar from FB must be contaigious.
LvS ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:37:32 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
JUST. LIKE. THOSE. PEOPLE. WHO. USE. A. FULL. STOP. AFTER. EVERY. WORD.!
RainbowEffingDash ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:36:10 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
You've never been on twitter then. If you are ever unfortunate to click on a popular tweet, all you get is ๐๐๐๐
1C3M4Nz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:47:44 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Guess it's the new 'lol'.
[deleted] ยท 104 points ยท Posted at 20:34:53 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
[deleted]
staffell ยท 13 points ยท Posted at 23:14:09 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Fuck you, it means everything
MenacingErmine ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:49:13 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
That is the point of this subreddit, right?
please don't stab me with pitchforks
Gobae ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:36:01 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
mildlyinfuriating
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 23:16:59 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
[deleted]
miniflip ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:26:16 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
So what if it is? It means that they actually sat down and came to a justified conclusion. Why does OED's decision affect you so badly?
somegetit ยท 14 points ยท Posted at 21:42:58 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah, people pretend like they're not using or understanding it. It's a graphic symbol, it expresses something, it's wildly used across multiple cultures, so it's a word. What's the big deal.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:48:13 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
"?"
Is that a word? It's a graphic symbol, it expresses something, it's widely used across multiple cultures.
somegetit ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 06:39:41 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
You know, that's a good example. 10 years ago I would say no, it's clearly just a punctuation sign. But in the past years, people started using '?' all by itself, in text messages. And in that context (replying to someone with just '?'), it's a word.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:13:03 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
[deleted]
somegetit ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:26:40 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Don't know, doesn't matter really. It's like asking what letters form this word. None. It's a new type of word. (According to Oxford. I don't care one way or the other, but I can see the reasoning pretty easily)
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:17:56 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 04:49:52 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Is "?" a word?
SerMerynTrance ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:04:02 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Yes. Pronounced silently but modifying the preceding word with an upward infection when part of a sentence, pronounced "huh" or "eh" or similar with an upward infection on its own.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:34:45 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
That's what punctuation does. It doesn't make it a word.
dontknowmeatall ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:25:59 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
In ASL, you greet someone by saluting them with your index and middle fingers of the right hand. What are the phonemes represented by that? If you can't pronounce it it's not a word? Does that mean ASL is not an actual language?
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:51:50 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
That's a good point. But are the 200 calls used by crows to communicate also a language? Are the grunts and cries of gorillas a language?
Linguists don't tend to count every single symbol as a word belonging to a language. The color red conveys many things (anger, stop, hot) but that doesn't mean the color red is a word in a language.
What separates communication from language? A symbol from a word?
dontknowmeatall ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:53:59 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Depends on who you ask. Most linguists argue that sentience is required for a language. Others say dolphins and computers qualify. There is no one answer at the moment.
Jeanpuetz ยท -3 points ยท Posted at 22:40:40 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
There are multiple definitions for a "word", and they constantly change. Language evolves, just like everything else in the world. Just go with it and don't get upset about it!
UselessCommentThief ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 22:34:54 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Underrated comment.
Roflkopt3r ยท 22 points ยท Posted at 22:41:22 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
One the other hand we could also acknowledge that emojis are a virtually universally understood version of the extra punctuation for irony etc, often proposed like this, and even more than that.
You can say that the true art of writing is to describe what you mean with words alone rather than gestures, imagery, sound, and smileys - but these things make communication terribly much easier and more universal.
Denotation may be the core message, but without the right connotation it is more often ineffective or counterproductive than effective. Emojis deliver the full range of connotation with unparalleled ease.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:57:05 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Aye. You're completely right. But that doesn't make it a word within a language. Is a smile from a person across the room a word? Or something different?
Nonverbal communication is an important part of understanding someone. An emoji is a method to translate the nonverbal in a different medium, but it's still something different than a word just as a smile is something different than a spoken word.
bhare418 ยท 24 points ยท Posted at 20:38:20 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
/r/fellowkids
SimonGn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:20:34 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
MRW IRL
HumbleEngineer ยท 51 points ยท Posted at 21:39:36 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I see no problem with that. Words are meant to transmit meaning but also feelings. The Chinese have their multitude of symbols also and I'm pretty sure they have a symbol for happiness. Language evolves.
poopcornkernels ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 22:29:17 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I agree, I love it. I think it's awesome and I'm lucky to get to experience such a shift in something that hasn't changed in a long time. I don't think emojis are going to be a part of proper grammar anytime soon but I'm amazed how global they've become.
sicklyfish ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 01:07:37 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
How long until they are a requirement for making a password?
ArgonGryphon ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 11:31:25 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
We're going back to hieroglyphics soon.
๐ค๐๐ป
press_A_to_skip ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 09:04:46 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Symbols are what Chinese language is based on. English is based on an alphabet. Good luck typing your emoji on a typewriter.
HumbleEngineer ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 09:15:10 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Ok ;)
[deleted] ยท 17 points ยท Posted at 23:15:24 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I think it's great actually
I can almost feel the sarcasm dripping off my screen
DatHamSandwich ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 20:38:41 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Also notice how instead of word, it refers to the emoji as a "word." How did this even happen?
EnadZT ยท 35 points ยท Posted at 21:56:29 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
ITT: People who have no idea how lexicography works.
StinkyFeetPatrol ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 01:24:13 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐
Capt_Underpants ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:54:42 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
How the heck does it work?
teapot112 ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 03:34:30 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
From wiki:
Lexicography is divided into two separate but equally important groups:
No1Asked4MyOpinion ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:51:41 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Can you explain what you mean by that?
GenBlase ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 00:26:57 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Languages that uses pictures and shit. Think Egyptian hieroglyphics.
[deleted] ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 21:16:19 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
How do you like our word of the year, fellow kids?
DaTigerMan ยท 15 points ยท Posted at 00:07:00 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
this thread is a /r/lewronggeneration gold mine
filthyridh ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:07:49 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
/r/badlinguistics too.
DragonTamerMCT ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 05:39:19 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
its a le thatsnotwhatafuckingdictionaryis thread.
Guy_92 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:15:35 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It's not like being the word of the year means anything. "Oh hey they think this word deserves word of the year! Ok?"
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 10 points ยท Posted at 18:25:42 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
They also ask "What would it look like if you used emojis in real life?"
NeroAngelo257 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:15:30 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Theres a quiz at the bottom asking you to name the emojis. I and 5,000 others got the lowest mark, which was the majority of people who had taken the test.
GenBlase ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:27:48 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
You would do the same thing? Laugh out Loud and shit like that.
NichySteves ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 01:52:09 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I think we all took YOLO a little to seriously this year. Let's back this shit up a bit.
KexyKnave ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:07:11 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Agreed. The stupidity is getting too damn high.
eatingcheetos ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 03:29:35 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
What is the definition of this word?
grungebot5000 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 09:31:27 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
why couldn't they go with the poop emoji or something
that's literally the worst smiley of them all
cube1234567890 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 13:40:04 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐ฉ
saltyshyster ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 21:47:56 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
No need to take it so seriously...
whitecompass ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 20:24:14 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
No way this is real, they said "dictionaries" instead of "Dictionary's"
dukwon ยท 8 points ยท Posted at 00:25:11 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
"Oxford Dictionaries" is another project/service/product/whatever from OUP, separate to the OED. I have no idea why they chose the name to be plural.
http://public.oed.com/about/the-oed-and-oxford-dictionaries/
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 20:40:32 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
"Do you think God stays in Heaven because he, too, lives in fear of what he's created?" - Steve Buscemi, Spy Kids 2
Jonny-Sniper ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 21:08:09 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
smh tbh fam ๐๐๐ผ๐ฏ
TerroristOgre ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 21:09:40 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
/r/Fellowkids
Fixner_Blount ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 23:08:39 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Oxford Dictionary can just fuck off. These words have been increasingly stupid over the years.
Therealeggplant ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:33:56 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐๐ซ
_Buff_Drinklots_ ยท 22 points ยท Posted at 18:21:41 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I had to look it up because I didn't believe it....it's true. :(
BallinHonky ยท 20 points ยท Posted at 21:23:53 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Same as fuck.
whale ยท 11 points ยท Posted at 21:57:13 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
nice meme bro
BallinHonky ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 22:20:26 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Thanks, I picked it out myself!
SirAwesomeTheThird ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:16:07 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Why do you think this matters at all?
eternalguardian ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 22:12:22 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Welp... I didn't used to care which dictionary I used. Now I won't use Oxford.
Haz3rd ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:40:57 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah ok sure you won't
exadrid ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:58:13 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Yes, because they recognized that emojis are becoming important, they are a shit dictionary. You literally can't trust them.
eternalguardian ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:03:01 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
dicยทtionยทarยทy n.: a book or electronic resource that lists the words of a language (typically in alphabetical order) and gives their meaning
exadrid ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:17:46 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
word :
1) A single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed.
2) A single distinct conceptual unit of language, comprising inflected and variant forms.
Using that definition it is a word.
teapot112 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:22:20 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I hope you are sarcastic.
SpaceMonkey_Mafia ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 20:12:05 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Their short list:
ad blocker,ย noun: Aย piece of software designed to prevent advertisements from appearing on a web page.
Brexit,ย noun: A term for the potential or hypothetical departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union, fromBritishย +ย exit.
Dark Web,ย noun:ย The part of the World Wide Web that is only accessible by means of special software, allowing users and website operators to remain anonymous or untraceable.
on fleek,ย adjectival phrase:ย Extremely good, attractive, or stylish.
lumbersexual,ย noun: Aย young urban man who cultivates an appearance and style of dress (typified by a beard and check shirt) suggestive of a rugged outdoor lifestyle.
refugee,ย noun:ย A person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.
sharing economy,ย noun:ย An economic system in which assets or services are shared between private individuals, either for free or for a fee, typically by means of the Internet.
they (singular),ย pronoun: Used to refer to a person of unspecified sex.
OptimalCynic ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:23:13 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Those are at least all words.
dontknowmeatall ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 02:29:51 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
How are emoji different from kanji? They're a somewhat abstract representation of a material concept to convey a meaning that is universally accepted by the culture of its users. What makes ๐ different from ้ญ?
OptimalCynic ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:32:01 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
English is not an ideographic language.
dontknowmeatall ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:35:16 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Says who? Languages evolve. Japanese is not an ideographic language (it has a phonetic writing that is perfectly exchangeable with kanji), but it uses ideographs. Why couldn't English? We are using them right now, so why not just accept it?
OptimalCynic ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:18:35 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
You might be. I'm not. There's no universal meaning, not even a consistent representation.
Even if there was, the English language has evolved with an alphabet.
dontknowmeatall ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:23:39 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
There is a universal meaning for most of them. ๐ means the same in every western culture, and it's perfectly understandable for anyone who's ever seen American TV (AKA most people in the world). And every person in the world knows what ๐ฑ is. The name might change from language to language, but the meaning is the same. As for the consistent representation, there are about six standards, and you could argue that they have the same relevance as fonts do in traditional text. Times New Roman is quite different from Comic Sans, but an A is an A in both, and you can recognise it as the same symbol.
Any particular reason why? Because you seem to be in the minority here.
OptimalCynic ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:27:07 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
What is it? I can't even see the fucking thing properly! It looks like a yellow blob with horns.
https://medium.com/matter/lost-in-emoji-translation-apple-vs-android-648fdd57ca25
Yes. I'd rather express myself in words.
dontknowmeatall ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:35:55 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Now you're just being an ass.
OptimalCynic ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:39:27 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
No, I'm completely serious. I can't distinguish that emoji. I can see the other one is a broken heart, but the yellow one is impossible for me to make out unless I zoom in to about 250%. My best guess was a downcast face looking down at its feet.
By copy/pasting it into Textedit and changing the font size to 288 I see it's some sort of cat/bear face, but as a method of communication it is totally useless to me.
bvr5 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:13:40 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I wouldn't have been mad if they chose any of these, even on fleek.
AliGatorrrrr ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:24:07 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
This has to be fake, would it not say "Oxford Dictionary's word of the year"?
hexasquid ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:31:12 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Next year can the bird emoji be the word?
slicedpi ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:39:40 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐๐๐=๐๐
markh110 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:35:49 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Surely this is fake? It's "Dictionary's". Where's this from?
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:59:39 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I don't have a problem with this, lots of languages use pictographs to convey meaning which is what an emoji is at the end of the day. So if its something that conveys meaning when written down or typed I think it should conceivably count as a word or at least a kind of punctuation if its use becomes universal. Though I may have started with something like :) first.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:20:46 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I'd agree that it's a unique form of punctuation, and would love to read an academic paper by an linguist exploring what that means, but I'd still never call it a word simply because it doesn't follow any standards for word usage in language.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 00:03:09 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg2u_De8j5o
CounterClockworkOrng ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:23:58 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
I don't really see that much of a problem with this. If Oxford's goal is to select which word is relevant for the year, then I think it's appropriate. Like when selfie got it in 2013 and vape got it in 2014.
Similarly how Times has their "person of the year" its not the most "inspirational" its genrerally someone that best defines the year from a historical perspective and/or may pocess much relevance in the years to come. Like Putin getting it in 2007, or Hitler in 1936.
Sawybean ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 01:44:16 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
This thread is one half people saying "THIS WAS A HUGE MISTAKE" and one half "WHAT A TIME TO BE ALIVE"
SagamiSurprise ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:03:10 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It's not a word, but it actually does capture a new cultural attitude. I think its tied to the rise of black humor on twitter, and the sort of mocking/roasting type of humor that's taken over social networking sites.
I mean, it's not a word, and it's objectively dumb, but it's also kind of interesting if you think about it, so why get so bothered?
TheDaug ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:23:56 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It sucks to see the OED give in to this shit.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:53:40 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Someone thought this was a good idea. Someone else didn't stop that idea from running up the ladder. Someone else gave the final green light.
All those someones make me question my stance on capital punishment.
jason6253 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:43:09 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
kill me.
unclemusclzhour ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:53:36 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Of course it's the emoji I hate the most. For some reason that one emoji that's laughing with tears coming out of its eyes pissed me the hell off. People use it all the time, and it's so disingenuous.
thisisnewt ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:05:38 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
How does "face with tears of joy" reflect the "ethos, mood, and preoccupations" of a year where we've witnessed the most lethal terrorist attack in the western world in the last decade?
I get the whole "it's a picture, not a word" thing, but there's a lot else that's wrong with this.
userlastname ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:55:10 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
So there's still hope that the Word of the Year for 2016 can be a picture of my dick.
ProfWhite ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:06:17 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Not even dictionary print is that small, bro.
denye_mon_gen_mon ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:07:40 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I mean, it's a symbol with meaning. Words are symbols with meaning. Not that out there considering how much emojis are used.
Javad0g ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 05:24:15 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Right in line with Common Core. We keep dumbing down our language any more and pretty soon everyone is going to be drinking Brawndo.
ProfWhite ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:05:34 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
But it's got electrolytes...
CHIBI_titan ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 06:07:30 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
What sucks about this is that it's an emoji that's been designed by some graphic designer for a media company. It's not like an emoticon which was invented and spread by users for the purpose of expression, it's something that was packaged with every smartphone and picked from a drop-down list to use when you're too lazy to type or think of something to type or be accountable for something you typed. I'd be loath to even define this as language; it's a word that is only used this often because it's available on everybody's phone.
davanillagorilla ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:12:23 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It may not exclude it from technically being a word but why does no one care that it can't be spoken? I'd think that would be a big part of how useful a word is.
potatan ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 08:14:46 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It needs pointing out after reading a lot of comments in this thread, that the OED and Oxford Dictionaries are two separate entities. This emoji is not the OED's word of the year, it is a marketing wheeze from Oxford Dictionaries.
The OED and the dictionaries in Oxford Dictionaries are themselves very different. While Oxford Dictionaries focuses on the current language and practical usage, the OED shows how words and meanings have changed over time.
Edit: explanation added
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 09:56:41 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Source? I mean, other than this image.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:46:26 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
www.oxforddictionaries.com
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 19:10:51 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Thanks for that.
[deleted] ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 13:30:32 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐๐๐๐ so dumb...
BCSteve ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 16:41:12 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I mean, yes, it's not a "word" in the conventional sense... but in a way, emoji have definitely become a part of how we communicate nowadays. Now that a lot of our writing is text-based, we lose the wealth of nonverbal communication that comes with a face-to-face conversation, and emoji can be seen as a way of restoring tone and inflection to an otherwise deadpan sentence. So I'm not entirely opposed to a dictionary cataloging emoji, since they are a part of our modern language.
However, I'd liken emoji more to inflection or punctuation, rather than "words". While they can represent elements of speech themselves, more commonly they inform the reader with what tone they should read the surrounding text. They're meta-textual, not text themselves.
scrubs2009 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 03:55:30 on April 6, 2016 ยท (Permalink)
Brb, hanging myself in the bathroom
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 22:29:31 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
ScrewYouMorbidPanda2 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:11:54 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Is this your first time on the internet?
elephino1 ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 11:36:32 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Language evolves.
Whether it's the creation of a new word that enters our lexicon, the mutation of meaning (e.g., literally now means figuratively in casual slang), or a new iconography to convey meaning in written electronic text, it's all significant.
Props to OED for recognizing shifts in our language and recognizing them as relevant. And I'm surprised that Reddit looks down on change and thinks of these evolutions as beneath them. It's an odd "get off my lawn" mentality that we'd complain about if our parents did it.
ChaGz ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:49:01 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐๐
Wallace_Grover ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 02:12:17 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
โ๐๐ฅ๐ฏ๐ฏ๐ฏ๐ฏ๐ฏ
theSecondPi ยท 7 points ยท Posted at 18:23:12 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
But its not a word, IT CONTAINS NO LETTERS I hate modern society sometimes
[deleted] ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 19:17:43 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Modern societies like Ancient Egypt!
Gobae ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 03:44:48 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
English words are made of letters. It's how our language works.
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 04:51:55 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I'm just saying there's historical precedence for this type of language bro
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 01:18:48 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
You can pronounce a hieroglyph. You can't pronounce an emoji. The reason is because they aren't words, but symbols attempting to represent the nonverbal.
bluecanaryflood ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:24:11 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๋ค, ํ๋ ์ฌํ ์จ๋ฐ.
Jeanpuetz ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:42:07 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
/r/lewronggeneration
It's funny because they actually have a thread up right now about exactly this topic.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:51:19 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
What definition of word are you referring to? Because I'm pretty sure the definition of what counts as a word or not isn't as narrow or simplistic as "must contain letters."
Google gives us:
Emoji definitely fit that definition.
Star-spangled-Banner ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 21:48:35 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I actually think that of all the 'word of the year's Oxford could have chosen, this is absolutely brilliant. As stupid as it may sound, it says so much about our time and the development of our language.
Jeanpuetz ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:44:26 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Right? I really like this. And it fits. So what if it's not "technically a word", blah, blah, who cares? It's clearly part of our language, and I think it's great that they chose an emoji.
All these downers here apparently don't know how language works.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:04:48 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Is a smile from a person across the room a word? Or something different? Does a smile have grammar? Linguistic morphology?
Nonverbal communication is an important part of understanding someone. An emoji is a method to translate the nonverbal in a different medium, but it's still something different than a written word - just as a smile is something different than a spoken word.
IntiEtxegoia ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 22:14:28 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
ITT: old people.
[deleted] ยท 4 points ยท Posted at 00:37:19 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
IntiEtxegoia ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:43:22 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Got a point there!
dodspringer ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:53:41 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I swear it should have been "fam"
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:02:36 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Apparently oxford english dictionary has forgotten their definition of the word "word".
Jeanpuetz ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:46:30 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
But... an emoji mostly fits into that definition, except maybe for that "to form a sentence" part, and even that is somewhat debatable.
It is a single distinct meaninful element of writing.
It's used with other words, sometimes alone.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:05:29 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Is "?" a word?
Shanman150 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:15:44 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Is "?" usually set off by spaces ?
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:31:09 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
That's an odd differentiation though considering hyphen and other punctuation use. Words at times have spaces, at times do not. IfITypeLikeThis can you understand it? Then is it one word, or many? What-about-phrases-like-this where there clearly aren't spaces separating the words? And if that's all it takes for an emoji to be a "word", what happens when you put two or more of them side-by-side without spaces? Are they then one word?
Really the definition for "word" they give sounds like it didn't come from a linguist scholar, but from a committee.
Shanman150 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:38:12 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I believe the key word in their definition is "usually". NowMostOfThePopulationDoesntTypeLikeThis, and though I occasionally create words-that-aren't-words by hyphonizing them together or addificating parts that don't actually make-sensify them, the base words within these are still words by virtue of them USUALLY being separated by spaces. If something is used often enough, it too enters the dictionary, much like you used "side-by-side" above.
Jeanpuetz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:31:23 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
No, but it's also not a single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing. A "?" on itself usually doesn't express anything distinct. An emoji does.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:52:20 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
An
Does that express something distinct all by itself? Is it a word?
I don't think the ability to express is adequate for defining a word. Of course emojis express something, so does the color red and a million other symbols. I don't see how a picture of a face, a piece of clipart, somehow becomes a word just because it's inserted at the end of a sentence anymore than a block of red color is a word if it's inserted into a sentence.
Can written sentences contain more than words? I'd say yes. An emoji is one of these things: a symbol. But not a "word" anymore than the color red is a word or a heart drawn before a name at the end of a letter is a word or a question mark is a word.
Jeanpuetz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:03:04 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I mean, I don't even really disagree with you. I just found it a bit stupid to use a literal dictionary definition of "word" to make a point.
Okay, an emoji isn't technically a word. But it is, without a doubt, part of a language. Of many language, actually, internationally. So while the title "Word of the year" may seem a bit off, I still think it's pretty cool, because it still fits, kind of. Not as an award for a "word", but an award for something that is meaningful for our language in 2015.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:41:22 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
I see what you're saying, yeah. I'd specify the distinction even more, which could make it even more important than if it were a word. Instead of "word of the year", what if the feature highlighted the most prominent communication element in new media?
If we look at emojis from semiotics, the pictograph can be understood as the signifier for an emotion referent. This is very new and very powerful in terms of communication. I'd say calling it a word oversimplifies it's significance from a communications context (while still seems silly as a dictionary "word of the year"). Perhaps our concept of dictionaries should change to archives of communicative elements instead of just trying to fit new elements into the old model.
Jeanpuetz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:55:08 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah. Grammar is already so fucking complicated. There are a gazillion different rulesets, and it's hard to call any of them the right or the wrong one, because linguists over the world are always revamping stuff, putting their own spin on things, emphasizing certain aspects while ignoring others, etc.
I just like that they chose something unconventional because it challenges our ideas of what communication is, and what it means. But yeah, I guess calling it the "word of the year" is a bit problematic. I just don't see it that "strict" about that, it may not be a word, but I appreciate the message they were trying to send with the "award".
[deleted] ยท 3 points ยท Posted at 22:04:35 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
fuck this shit.
jefriboy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:04:41 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Well according to their own site "refugee" and "on fleek" made the short list as well which is just great.
Gogohax ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:23:55 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
What a time to be alive.
BadTasteKing ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:27:31 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
What rhymes with spastic but actually doesn't, and is just a good word to describe the Oxford dictionary using a similar logic it uses. You sloppy flatulent book.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:45:05 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Apparently they teamed up with swiftkey to determine the most popular emoji people use. Rather interesting, although I would like to know what kind of person would need to look up an emoji in the dictionary. The entire point is that they are 'self explanatory'.
oditogre ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:54:24 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I've always thought of emoji / emoticons / ascii smilies as more of a punctuation than a word. They're like accent marks that change or clarify tone.
WolfieTheWolf ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:00:16 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I want to see the list of words that didn't make it
euthlogo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:05:29 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Definition of "Word" from OED:
A single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed.
I think they are making a point about the definition of the word "word"
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:42:41 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
By that definition punctuation marks could be "words." I think it's more beneficial to differentiate symbols and words. All words are symbols. Not all symbols are words. If emojis are words, how do you pronounce them aloud? It's an interesting precedent to claim languages can contain words that aren't pronouncable.
zumx ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:15:27 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
This totally sounds like an onion post
sarge21 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:33:27 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
You should probably stop caring about "word of the year"
EvanHarper ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:35:39 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
http://i.imgur.com/wNQWJ1O.gif
kurokabau ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:41:59 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Can't wait for that one to hit the national spelling bee.
alienjin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:47:07 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Oxford dictionary has jumped the shark
ZippoInk ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:48:25 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
How will I play this in scrabble?
OneADayFlintstones ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:59:05 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Cryling should be the word.
demcatsdoe ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:10:30 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It seems as if human language is literally reverting back to pictographs.
Nice job, society.
GenBlase ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:20:12 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Guys... Think about Hieroglyphics.
Cocunutmilk ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:28:07 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Idk if this is true or not But I can see this I respect this
mattsprofile ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:29:35 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I'm okay with things like selfie and YOLO becoming words of the year, but this literally isn't a word.
CUDesu ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:36:03 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
My word of the year is 'Oxford Dictionary', noun: a language resource that struggles to stay relevant, resorting to adding emojis and whatever terms the kids are using these days. Was once a good source of English words and definitions but has now lost all reputability.
KanadaKid19 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:36:42 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I'm totally okay with this. Good luck putting emoticons in alphabetical order, though!
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:53:27 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Should have been lumbersexual.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:55:54 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
[deleted]
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:09:39 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Let's get away from prescriptivsim then. What part of speech is ๐? Is there a linguistic morphology associated with it? Is it a new word in English, or German, or French? What grammatical rules are associated with it? Does the dialect that contains it place it in a sentence structure in proper accord with its grammar?
Or is it merely a pictographic representation of nonverbal cues traditionally lost in the text medium?
theWforce ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:58:38 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I believe I am the only one who actually likes this news.
174pounder ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:02:36 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
should have went with the 100 emoji, tbh
AgentWashingtub1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:08:31 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Did I accidentally stumble onto The Onion without noticing?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:11:19 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Take that Scrabble enthusiasts!
MisterFoo ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:14:47 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Thought it would be "bae".
Tashre ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:21:57 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Shakespeare made up a bunch of bullshit that got accepted into the norm, so I don't see why this can't be.
Fourwindsgone ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:23:30 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
There isn't an emoji I hate more than this. Fuck you, Oxford.
RiverTam ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:31:46 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Source? A quick google doesn't back this up
Pahalial ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:32:25 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Everyone here is complaining about this choice because it's a pictograph rather than a 'normal' word.
Meanwhile we all know this only made it to /r/all because it's a screenshot on imgur rather than a link to the article.
MarcsterS ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:35:36 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Not only is it not a word but its also the worst, most punch-inducing emoji they could choose.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:49:54 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Wow you guys in this thread are no fun
AwesomeSaucer9 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:51:17 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
...
I...actually like it. :/
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:02:28 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
We've gone hieroglyphic, people!
enki1337 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:04:40 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Calling it now, 2016 is "cringe".
ScrewYouMorbidPanda2 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:06:55 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
r/MarkMyWords
Theige ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:13:32 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I finally have something worth rioting over.
EvilBosom ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:22:43 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It's a morpheme all the same, I don't know why everyone cares so much
ynotdoe666 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:29:54 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Browsing this on mobile and was seriously hoping this was in r/theonion
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:35:42 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
[deleted]
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:15:09 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
What part of speech is ๐? Is there a linguistic morphology associated with it? What grammatical rules are associated with it?
Or is it merely a pictographic representation of nonverbal cues traditionally lost in the text medium?
Are all symbols words? When a gorilla grunts, and clearly communicates something, is he employing a word within a language?
CormacMccarthy91 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:37:04 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
This is the end... My only friend the end. -morrison
Internetologist ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:37:37 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
ITT: /r/lewronggeneration
Why_did_I_rejoin ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:37:42 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Meh, still a better dictionary than Macquarie.
2814werewolf ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:46:09 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I hate that there is a tears of joy emoji but no sobbing emoji. Just take tears of joy and put a frown where the smile is. Do the emoji people not cry worse than ๐๐ซ๐ฉ๐ญ๐ช? I mean yeah ๐ญ could be seen as sobbing but it also looks like laughing so hard you're crying because of the teeth in its mouth. I have always hated that.
QuantumStorm ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:52:34 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It's like we're returning to ancient hieroglyphics!
audi4444player ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:02:15 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I wish it was ๐
pm_me_ur_flags ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:38:26 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
i mean...they're not too far off. this emoji has been plastered everywhere and on everything.
SlytherinF1 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:55:45 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Shouldn't it be Oxford Dictionary's?
ScrewYouMorbidPanda2 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:04:09 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
WHAT IS THIS BULLSHIT. A MOTHERFUCKING EMOJI FOR OUR WORD OF THE YEAR? HELL NO I NOMINATE EFFLORESCENCE FOR WORD OF THE YEAR.
DragonTamerMCT ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:33:56 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
fuck it, I'm buying a Webster dictionary.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 06:30:36 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I breathed through my nose very loudly when I saw this.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:24:05 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Maybe next year it could be Rush's seminal album 'Moving Pictures.'
robhol ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 07:26:28 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Well, that's just ใฝ(ยฐโฝใยฐ)๏พ.
Mevsstories ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 08:46:00 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I think it's great
3xcloud ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:17:36 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I hope in 2016 it's...propane
squngy ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 10:23:44 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/word
EnragedTurkey ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 13:33:34 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Had a laugh 'cause I though this was /r/Circlejerk back out of the image to find out it's /r/MildlyInfuriating
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 14:46:15 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
time again to get upset at the dictionary! a book no ones looked at since middle school!
Hardin_of_Akaneia ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 18:37:52 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
New word of the year: ( อกยฐ อส อกยฐ)
midasbadtouch ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:13:22 on November 25, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
we're devolving.
columbus8myhw ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:26:38 on December 1, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Why didn't they just do the word emoji
FantasticTony ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:08:53 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
ITT: Revising dictionaries to the modern lexicon is UNACCEPTABLE.
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 04:25:14 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It would be better defined as punctuation. A word has grammar associated with it. What part of speech is this? Adjective? article? noun? verb?
ArabRedditor ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:29:04 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Yeah for a sub about mild infuriation people are way more pissed off than they should be
mattreyu ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:28:56 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
C'mon Oxford Dictionary, that's not a word. How would you arrange that in a dictionary? By the name of the emoji? What next, cuneiform?
euthlogo ยท 5 points ยท Posted at 23:07:47 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Definition of Word from OED:
A single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed.
LvS ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:43:41 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
You sort the words.
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:58:23 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
We are devolving back into hieroglyphs.
deepit6431 ยท 6 points ยท Posted at 22:16:02 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
We haven't evolved from ancient Egyptian times. They were homo sapiens too.
Wallace_Grover ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:13:05 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Creationism?
[deleted] ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:18:14 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
*our language is devolving
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 01:21:27 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Hieroglyphics at least represent words that can be pronounced. Emojis are just tiny illustrations.
NewAccountPlsRespond ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:29:12 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Better than "they". By the way, its a legitimate choice in my book, this pic blew up lately and this thing reflects how our language evolves in a way.
silenteye ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:59:21 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Can we rename them to the <poop emoji> English Dictionary? Because that's what it has become.
Brosefiss ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:06:24 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Shouldnโt it say: โOxford Dictionaryโsโ instead of: โOxford Dictionariesโ which is the plural, not the possessive. Jusus-fuck, they canโt even English anymore...
santeeass ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:19:32 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
no joking here. open writing is one of my favorite forms of communication. it's not a complete system, of course, because i don't believe that emojii utility requires particular rules of grammar and syntax. still, this is pretty cool stuff.
CAMYtheCOCONUT ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:26:21 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It's not their fault that this best reflected 2015.
ocurti ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:33:23 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
This is the fastest way to lose credibility as a language resource
silenced_no_more ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 00:03:39 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
For me this more like /r/rage
NattyIceLife ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:48:56 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Lolol no response. I owned you cuz ๐
NattyIceLife ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 04:03:13 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Life must be awesome when you go through it getting enraged by incredibly minor things like this that have no effect on you ๐๐๐
ricdesi ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 03:29:26 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Last I checked, you needed fucking letters to qualify as a word.
PShelly ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 15:37:18 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
...no. Nonononono.
AnoK760 ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 21:51:47 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
thats it. Mirriam-Webster is my dictionary now. Fuck off oxford, You suck.
Newsuperstevebros ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 19:09:56 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
This is why aliens won't talk to us.
the-postminimalist ยท 9 points ยท Posted at 20:39:03 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I doubt aliens would refuse to talk to us because one website used an emoji as the word of the year.
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 19:11:30 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
[deleted]
Guy_92 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 22:15:57 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It's not even a word.
urbestfriendsgirl ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 21:18:18 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
shut up is this for real?
cocothecat11 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:35:00 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
There has to be some way to reverse this, like a petition or something. Those always work!
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 22:45:14 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
[deleted]
Shanman150 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 21:28:41 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I commonly judge the purpose of common household items by whether or not my ancestors would be proud of their present use. Would my ancestors be proud that I can clean my toilet with a toilet brush? They did toil for thousands of years so that I could make these scrambled eggs. I wonder if they're proud of me when I check the time on my Mickey Mouse clock from Disney!
Left4pillz ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 23:35:31 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I wonder if my ancestors wanted my family to have an automatic bin, a wifi connected washing machine, or a fridge that emits a horrible loud beep when it's been open for more than 15 seconds.
DannyLad1 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 23:37:03 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
They would probably think that evolution went the wrong way and we became less intelligent as a species than them.
hijinga ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:28:36 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Anybody else annoyed at how pretentious op is?
ValdemarSt ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:10:37 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
How the fuck can this be the word of the year, when you can't even type it out on a god damn keyboard?
NattyIceLife ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:05:14 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Do you know what an alt-code is, fam? ๐ (typed on my keyboard)
ValdemarSt ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 07:52:50 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
No, and i shouldn't have to, to type a word.
NattyIceLife ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 18:40:36 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Okay then it's through your own ignorance that you can't type it on a keyboard ๐๐๐ that's like saying capitals aren't letters because you don't know what the shift key does.
ValdemarSt ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 18:45:50 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Not at all. I'm saying i don't think it should be a word because you would have to go to some website that tells you which code to write on your numpad while holding down ALT, just to type it. Or you could just try to remember all 255 codes. But let's be real. This is bullshit, and it's definitely not a word.
NattyIceLife ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 19:18:57 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Cuz remembering the alt-codes you use frequently is so damn hard ๐ข๐ข๐ข๐ข๐ข I mean the average Chinese person knows 8000 different characters but remembering the 50 or so useful alt-codes is way too much to ask. I don't really feel one way or the other regarding whether it's a word or not, but your reasoning for why it isn't is really stupid.
ValdemarSt ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 22:06:55 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Why can't you see that having to remember a code when you want to write a 'word' is too much work? What you're describing is too much to ask for.
Words should be made with letters, not code. That's my reasoning.
NattyIceLife ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:17:55 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)*
You do realize that letter representations on a screen are in fact code, right? I mean every letter you type has a binary value that a processor interprets and puts on your screen that shows the representation of a letter. It is no different than an alt code. An alt-code is a unicode value that can be broken down into binary that a processor interprets to put a symbol on your screen.
I mean I could bind my keyboard so that when I pressed 'a' a smiley face would be output instead of an 'a'. So at the end of the day your argument falls short. We could make keyboards that had emoji keys with very little effort. Would that make emojis more of a word? You wouldn't have to use alt-codes then. You would just hit the key like typing in a letter.
The fact you're ignorant and stupid isn't a really compelling reason for an emoji not to be a word.
ValdemarSt ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 22:23:50 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
How does it fall short? I press 'A' and out comes 'a'. All the binary value shit you just spewed out mr. /r/iamverysmart, has nothing to do with what i'm saying. It's like you saw the most relevant thing i mentioned and made it as irrelevant as you could.
And if you have to go through all the trouble of recoding your keyboard to makes smileys instead of letters, it shouldn't be classified as a word.
I don't think we're getting anywhere since you really can't see my reasoning for why it shouldn't be a word.
What you basically keep saying is "You're stupid, i'm smart, your arguments are invalid".
You can reply and whatever, but this is becoming a waste of time, and i'm not gonna respond.
NattyIceLife ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 22:39:23 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I mean reassigning registry values for a keyboard isn't hard. I'm not very smart, but the people who make software like SharpKeys are, and that's all you need.
What I'm saying is if we were to create a larger key board with emoji buttons, would that make emojis more of a word because you could type it on your keyboard? Because like I said, that would be very, very easy to do.
Honestly I see your reasoning, it's just idiotic. I've shown you that you can type an emoji on a keyboard and you can bind it to one key like a letter. Your only comeback to the amounting evidence is "that's too hard". Which really shows what a stupid lazy sack of shit you are.
The fact you are lazy and stupid should not be a justification for an emoji not being a word. You are more than welcome to say it's not a word for other reasons, but saying "I can't type it on a keyboard", or "remembering alt-codes is too hard" or "binary value shit doesn't make sense to me" is asinine, and stupid argument.
Akiba89 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 22:26:20 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
are....are you serious? If you're serious I'll never buy an Oxford dictionary every again
Rombombim ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 21:05:05 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I think everybody on oxford dictionary should take a taste of some delicious bleach
[deleted] ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 21:09:02 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
What the fuck?
elaearae ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 22:35:26 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I don't want to be on this planet anymore.
Danceswithunicornz ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 03:06:01 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
This is just like the woman of the year award going to Caitlin Jenner. This world has gone to shit.
ScrewYouMorbidPanda2 ยท 2 points ยท Posted at 04:05:24 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Dude. This is some stupid bullshit but why do you have to insult trans people?
Danceswithunicornz ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 08:31:15 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I'm not insulting trans people. Bruce Jenner is getting away with murder because he decided to get a sex change and keeps changing his mind and doing ridiculous things to get attention. There are so many more deserving women, trans or not.
ScrewYouMorbidPanda2 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 12:06:45 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I haven't been keeping up with the news, sorry.
staffell ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:13:43 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I fucking hate this smiley, it's for teenagers and people with no personalities.
Caturbator ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:14:32 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I ferl that they're just going down hill and they have been for years.
UnclePepe ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:51:53 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Jesus fuck, we are really circling the drain as a species.
bert4560 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:52:22 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Fuck I hate people.
Fernao ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 23:53:37 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Every day we stray further from God's light.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:14:16 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
SmashtheFunk ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:23:55 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐๐๐
smileysarahlee ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:25:11 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
For fucks sake..
boxingdog ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:33:40 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
never ever go full retard
Majorkerina ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:35:46 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Not a word. Barely even a string of characters. Sigh...
_dismal_scientist ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:44:07 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
เฒ _เฒ
Rossnoceros ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:46:11 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
That is Fucking stupid.
sophiepritch5 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:52:02 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐
xxx_yoloscope420_xxx ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 00:59:35 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
fr fr?
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:22:20 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
๐๏ธ Prof_Acorn ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 05:12:18 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Define "language."
Rebenga11 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:45:42 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Swaffelen!
IAMERORR ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:47:32 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
There is so little hope for this society.
Fruit-Dealer ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 01:58:25 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
RIP English Language
DooGieBoy ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:34:49 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:45:48 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
TweetsInCommentsBot ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 02:45:54 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
@piersmorgan
This message was created by a bot
[Contact creator][Source code]
thegreathero ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 02:55:02 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
And the world takes another step closer to Idiocracy.
flait7 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:04:44 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Oxford is dead to me.
hostelo ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:08:02 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
What a time to be alive...
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:13:25 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I feel like the movie Idiocracy has predicted our future.
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:20:03 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I fucking hate this world anyone selling pitchforks?
very_fancy_name ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:23:51 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
R.I.P. English
jory26 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:28:42 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
ITT: /r/lewronggeneration
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:31:05 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
ITT: /r/lewronggeneration
goddammitgary ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 03:49:14 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
/r/BlackPeopleTwitter
red_sky33 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:01:10 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
These are the things that drive me towards suicide
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:19:58 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐
Indiancheese ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 04:20:33 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
So this is what the world has come to, huh?
Jenks44 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 05:22:42 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
I was hoping for triggered.
Andy_p88 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 07:07:34 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
What a joke.
RedLeader7 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 07:28:16 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
2015 was great, woman of the year wasn't a woman and now word of the year isn't a word.
SweetJaques ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 08:48:20 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
The Horror! The Horror...
arefx ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 09:48:15 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
It's not even a fucking word ๐
proROKexpat ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 10:22:11 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
In the same year where woman of the year has a penis
[deleted] ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 10:31:27 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Oxford Dictionary used to be cool.
writhinginnoodles ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 11:26:54 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
So much fucking neckbeardness in this thread. Language evolves, holy shit, who knew?
mb99 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 12:19:40 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Wait is this for real? I thought this was r/blackpeopletwitter
decadentdiscord ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 12:26:32 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
That's... disappointing
radiohead93 ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 14:44:46 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
In their defense, The Oxford Dictionary Commitee probably came to this decision during real nigga hours.
PoopReddditConverter ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:15:25 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐๐๐๐ , ๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐.
Gameros ยท 0 points ยท Posted at 15:30:30 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
EleGiggle
PigeonSa174 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 20:47:20 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
And we wounded why no intelligent life will bother to talk to us
Shanman150 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 21:29:43 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Yes - I'm sure aliens are staying away because we have incorporated pictographs into our lexicon. That's probably why they didn't talk to ancient Egypt either.
General_GTFO ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 00:42:02 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Fucking no.
TheSilence13 ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 02:00:30 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
This is cringey and incredibly sad and stupid, and that's the most obnoxious emoji. All emojis are obnoxious and stupid
IAmTheCatMaster ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 03:16:38 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ smack dat mf upvote
Paddy_Tanninger ยท -1 points ยท Posted at 06:11:32 on November 18, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
smh...
[deleted] ยท -2 points ยท Posted at 19:54:46 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
[deleted]
Omegaman2010 ยท 1 points ยท Posted at 20:08:32 on November 17, 2015 ยท (Permalink)
Hey man, eat a Snickers ๐