Guess what I read about on twitter today - OED traces OMG back to 1917 - Seems it's not such a modern problem after all
Come on Webster
- Thread starter KJbushway
- Start date
Guess what I read about on twitter today - OED traces OMG back to 1917 - Seems it's not such a modern problem after all
Guess what I read about on twitter today - OED traces OMG back to 1917 - Seems it's not such a modern problem after all
Well, it traces "O.M.G." with periods (6 characters) back to 1917. Our familiar three character "OMG" it traces to 1994.
Makes me wonder who first said it or coined the term or how it came into use. Must have been an author from back in the day or something.
Dear God, yes.
You would be surprised (or perhaps not, sadly enough) how many times I have seen test papers where the writer believes that U, 2, C and R are actual words appropriate for use in a high-stakes exam. "The lecturer talks about how when U R looking at the fossil, U C only part of the story."
Radar, laser, scuba, and AIDS are acronyms. CEO, LOL and OMG are abbreviations, not acronyms (unless they’re pronounced “see-oh,” “loll” and “ohmug,” respectively).
It was wrong for me to only use the word acronym. I should have said acronyms and initialisms which are both forms of abbreviations.
LOL can be pronounced as a word (especially in the term LOLcats, lolspeak etc).
There are also words that are in between initialisms and acronyms such as JPEG and CD-ROM.
LOL can be pronounced as a word (especially in the term LOLcats, lolspeak etc).
There are also words that are in between initialisms and acronyms such as JPEG and CD-ROM.
Guess what I read about on twitter today - OED traces OMG back to 1917 - Seems it's not such a modern problem after all
Well, it traces "O.M.G." with periods (6 characters) back to 1917. Our familiar three character "OMG" it traces to 1994.
OMG whut?
Only 1994?? But that's like.. yesterday.
See, this is where providing a link and citing relevant bits from a news article would have come in handy. Doing this would have a) helped make your point more clear, and b) prompted you to remember that it was not, in fact, Webster's which had recently added these bits of linguistic shorthand and jargon, but rather the OED.
And if you wish to speak of "good english skills" or "people being to lazy" or "[t]he old english language isn't broken," then perhaps you might do well to overcome your own laziness and apply those good English skills by putting a few seconds' worth of time and effort into reading what the people posting in this thread are telling you (in perfectly satisfactory non-broken English) before you respond again with yet another variation upon your original theme of "no, this is wrong!"
Guess what I read about on twitter today - OED traces OMG back to 1917 - Seems it's not such a modern problem after all
Well, it traces "O.M.G." with periods (6 characters) back to 1917. Our familiar three character "OMG" it traces to 1994.
OMG whut?
Only 1994?? But that's like.. yesterday.
Hate to break it to you, but that was 16 years ago.
Romanes eunt domus!
I have to agree somewhat with the OP, though - I'm not a big fan of words like LOL, OMG, etc. being considered legitimate usage. Acronyms and abbreviations are fine in certain contexts, but if I'm writing a technical document, I'm going to use proper English at all times. (Of course, in technical documents, there's going to be jargon, but for the sort of documentation I have to occasionally write, it's minimal.)
This might be why I've never been interested in being on Twitter.
Given my penchant for hysterical overreaction, this reminds me of the final scenes of Threads, where the English language has completely deteriorated into guttural grunts and one-syllable words. Of course that film had this thing in it called World War III, but still.
Romanes eunt domus!
I have to agree somewhat with the OP, though - I'm not a big fan of words like LOL, OMG, etc. being considered legitimate usage. Acronyms and abbreviations are fine in certain contexts, but if I'm writing a technical document, I'm going to use proper English at all times. (Of course, in technical documents, there's going to be jargon, but for the sort of documentation I have to occasionally write, it's minimal.)
This might be why I've never been interested in being on Twitter.
Heh, me neither, TT. Maybe to friends, but in general, I can't see myself using them much. I feel too proper for that and I guess it goes with my upbringing with both my parents being teachers at certain points in their lives and having it drilled into me. As for twitter, exactly. I'm much too wordy to be reduced to shorthand.
Brevity and shorthand are two different things. It's entirely possible to be textually economical without being forced to resort to TLA shorthand. Most of what I see when using Twitter is written in plain English.I have to agree somewhat with the OP, though - I'm not a big fan of words like LOL, OMG, etc. being considered legitimate usage. Acronyms and abbreviations are fine in certain contexts, but if I'm writing a technical document, I'm going to use proper English at all times. (Of course, in technical documents, there's going to be jargon, but for the sort of documentation I have to occasionally write, it's minimal.)
This might be why I've never been interested in being on Twitter.
Heh, me neither, TT. Maybe to friends, but in general, I can't see myself using them much. I feel too proper for that and I guess it goes with my upbringing with both my parents being teachers at certain points in their lives and having it drilled into me. As for twitter, exactly. I'm much too wordy to be reduced to shorthand.
Last night I suddenly remembered how when I was a kid I kept coming across articles in reader's digest, the newspaper editorial etc.. about how the English language was going to hell in a handbasket because of the word "yeah". "yeah" was now used ALL the time and didn't people realize the world would come to an end if we didn't use proper English, why was it so acceptable, blah blah.. and yes it ended up in the dictionary shock, horror.
Both are abbreviations, that is, shortened forms. The second type are generally called "initialisms," though some sources (like Merriam-Webster) say initialisms are a type of acronym.
--Justin
Brevity and shorthand are two different things. It's entirely possible to be textually economical without being forced to resort to TLA shorthand. Most of what I see when using Twitter is written in plain English.I have to agree somewhat with the OP, though - I'm not a big fan of words like LOL, OMG, etc. being considered legitimate usage. Acronyms and abbreviations are fine in certain contexts, but if I'm writing a technical document, I'm going to use proper English at all times. (Of course, in technical documents, there's going to be jargon, but for the sort of documentation I have to occasionally write, it's minimal.)
This might be why I've never been interested in being on Twitter.
Heh, me neither, TT. Maybe to friends, but in general, I can't see myself using them much. I feel too proper for that and I guess it goes with my upbringing with both my parents being teachers at certain points in their lives and having it drilled into me. As for twitter, exactly. I'm much too wordy to be reduced to shorthand.
Yeah. It may be because I tend to follow a lot of journalists and the like, but most of what I see on Twitter is actually very good English. I generally try to avoid shorthand unless absolutely necessary when tweeting, myself.
Brevity and shorthand are two different things. It's entirely possible to be textually economical without being forced to resort to TLA shorthand. Most of what I see when using Twitter is written in plain English.I have to agree somewhat with the OP, though - I'm not a big fan of words like LOL, OMG, etc. being considered legitimate usage. Acronyms and abbreviations are fine in certain contexts, but if I'm writing a technical document, I'm going to use proper English at all times. (Of course, in technical documents, there's going to be jargon, but for the sort of documentation I have to occasionally write, it's minimal.)
This might be why I've never been interested in being on Twitter.
Heh, me neither, TT. Maybe to friends, but in general, I can't see myself using them much. I feel too proper for that and I guess it goes with my upbringing with both my parents being teachers at certain points in their lives and having it drilled into me. As for twitter, exactly. I'm much too wordy to be reduced to shorthand.
True enough. I guess what I'm saying is I tend to be long-winded and I haven't been able to wrap my mind around leetspeak or text speak. I just personally can't get myself to do it.
That's the point, though, isn't it? Just because they are being recognized as proper words doesn't really mean anything. Shit and fuck have been recognized as proper words but are generally reserved for usage only in certain contexts. The fact that OMG is in the dictionary doesn't mean it will suddenly (or ever) be acceptable to write something like, "OMG, the results were statistically significant," in the next peer-reviewed research paper.
As time goes on the language will change naturally, as it always has done. The dictionary documents the change, it doesn't enforce it.
I agree. I don't think the dictionary in English has ever meant to be a list of "this is what the English language should be" (I think the French might have such a system but I read about that ages ago so I can't remember the details).
The English dictionary is a collection of words giving their meanings and a stated general spelling. So if LOL is used often enough that people will want to know what it means, it has a place in the dictionary.
Similar threads
