A friend dropped off a clipping from another newspaper, concerned that I may have missed the latest “word news.” I had. Kinda wish I still had.
It was a whimsical column about some new additions to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. My first reaction was very Andy-Rooney-ish: If a respected dictionary is adding such gibberish to what they consider a registry of English words, add that to the recent elimination of a dress code on the floor of the U.S. Senate of evidence of our society’s continued decline.
But beyond my old-man-grumpiness, the question arose in this inquisitive mind: Who determines what is and is not an official English word? When does “rizz” or even “simp” become allowed in Scrabble?
So I did some research, which these days translates into asking Mrs. Google.
First stop: The Merriam-Webster website. The columnist had listed just eight new words or terms, all of which he found “bussin’” which apparently means “extremely good.” Ugh. This guy probably has never heard of Andy Rooney.
But it gets worse. M-W (I feel comfortable using that as a word based on their new standards) actually added 690 new “words” to their dictionary in September. I put “words” in quotes because that’s what they say in their headline but many of them are phrases — such as “large language model” — or abbreviations — such as “TTYL,” most often used in texting and social media postings.
A few examples:
• rizz – romantic appeal or charm. (My computer’s Auto-Correct is obviously out of date. It keeps changing that to “fizz.” I like my computer.)
• doggo – dog. (How gauche. [One of my favorite words.])
• ngl – not gonna lie; not going to lie. (So a three-letter mumble without a vowel is a word? God help us.) (BTW, “gonna” — according to M-W — is a word worthy of being in their dictionary.) (And yes, so is “BTW.”)
• TFW – that feeling when. (Why does one get capitalized and the other does not?)
• jorts – shorts made of denim: jean shorts. (I’ve actually heard that one before.)
Some of the new entries are not new words but are old words for which M-W is adding an additional meaning. For example, “boss” retains it’s traditional meanings but they are adding a third optional definition: “3. a major antagonist in a game (such as a video game or board game)…” Why not add another: “4. Bruce Springsteen.”
Others seem totally unnecessary. Do we really need to have a dictionary entry to tell us what “forever chemical” means? It’s two words. Where is the entry for “hot meal”?
And to M-W’s credit, many are labeled as “slang” or “informal.” I have to wonder how an English teacher would react to having these new “words” inserted into an essay. I seem to recall one of my assignments being rejected because I used “ain’t,” a word that still aggravates my wife, who maintains that it is not a word “because it’s not in the dictionary.”
I used to argue that it is. And several authorities (thesaurus.com, Oxford dictionary to name two) list it as a word but cautions that it is considered “non-standard.” You will also find a lot of controversy surrounding the legitimacy of “ain’t.” So it’s still being debated. And maybe these new “words” will be also. At least I hope.
Back to the original question: Does M-W’s decision mean these are now genuine words? There probably is no good answer to that question. Ben Zimmer writes a weekly column in the Wall Street Journal that examines the history — etymology it is called — of a word. For example, today we certainly think of “blurb” as a legitimate word but it was long disparaged as “non-standard.”
The irony here is that I enjoy made-up words, but that doesn’t mean I think they ought to be in a dictionary. My favorite is “strategery.” Largely attributed to George W. Bush who was known for mispronouncing words, it actually made its debut on a Saturday Night Live skit satirizing Bush. Bush’s White House staff, the story goes, began to use it regularly. I have used it often but according to M-W, it is not a word. Which I’m OK with.
However, I may be an edgelord, doing something grammable. Look it up.
miller@news-banner.com
