• Epp2@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 day ago

    Because Merriam Webster creates and produces the dictionary of the English language. They’re literally the one who decides if a word is official. Their retort is succinct.

    • my_hat_stinks@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      Partly right, but they don’t decide if a word is “official” (whatever that’s supposed to mean). For a word to be a so-called “real” word it only has to be in common use among some group, dictionaries simply document words that have been in common use. Merriam-Webster is an authoritative record of words in use specifically in US English (with some records for other English variants and dialects, I think? ) but they are not a prescriptivist organisation. A word which appears in their dictionary is almost certainly a word that is or was in use in US English but a word that doesn’t appear might also be a real word, particularly if it’s a relatively new word or meaning.

      So with that in mind, arguing that a word is real when it doesn’t appear in the dictionary can be valid in some cases, but arguing that a word isn’t real when it does appear in a dictionary (like Brian did) is generally not smart.

      tl;dr, a dictionary, not the dictionary; not all English; “official” doesn’t make sense here; in some (but not this) cases disagreeing is valid.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Nope. They document what words are in common use. English is a “form follows usage” kind of language, where popularity of a word makes it correct. That’s why “literally” can mean its own antonym and influencers get to make up new meanings for Fetch and Mid.

      Less architectural, more suicide note.

    • ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      23 hours ago

      How is just tagging him by name, and repeating his first name succinct? I don’t get any sort of meaning from that response, it reads like a mistyped response.

      • stormdelay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Just imagine your mom saying your full name with an audible full stop, right after you said/did something a bit dumb

          • TheTetrapod@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            17 hours ago

            Oooh, I wonder if that’s part of what’s confusing the other guy. At this point I just completely filter out the tag when I’m reading a post like this, since very few people intend to incorporate it into the comment.

            • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              16 hours ago

              As someone who’s managed to never use Twitter, it was very confusing. I guess it’s one of those things you pick up subconsciously and never really think about once you’ve used the system enough.

          • Bo7a@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            20 hours ago

            the ‘first last’ is just how tagging a user works.