Web 2.0..
Frankly, I do think that some of the ‘words’ tracked by the Language Monitor group (or website) only loosely fits the definition of the word ‘word’ (if you follow my meaning through this convoluted linguistic minefield…)
Ok, let’s start at the beginning.
In the beginning was the Word.. Sorry couldn’t resist that. My aplogies.
Let’s try again.
The The Global Language Monitor (an incorporated company operating out of Austin, Texas) has been tracking new words in English since 2003.
Last week Wednesday, the 10th of June 2009, the English language passed the 1 000 000th word mark, with the millionth word being ‘Web 2.0′.
It beats other contenders such as ’slumdog’ and ‘jai ho’.
The GLM makes use of software to track word usage not only online but in global media. For a word to ‘make it’ into the English language, it needs to have 25,000 citations with the necessary breadth of geographic distribution, and depth of citations.
That may all be very well, but I just can’t help feeling that some of the words are not really WORDS as such, but rather amalgamations of existing words which then take on a new meaning.
For example, the question was raised why ‘twitter’ was not part of the race to be the millionth word, and the answer was that ‘twitter’ is already a word, it has just acquired a new meaning today. Well, sorry, but ‘web’ is also already a word…. It is only through its use in conjuction with the number 2.0 (also already existing, not so?) that it acquires a different meaning.
So I am not fully convinced.
Be that as it may, SOME words I do agree are new, such as the word n00b (commonly used by games and other technical geeks to describe those annoying new people who ask stupid questions on forums and other websites without bothering to try and find out the answers first by reading through existing threads and sites).
N00b is apparently the only word with two numbers in the English Language (yes, it is spelt EN-ZERO-ZERO-BEE and not EN-OH-OH-BEE), but what about L33T (leet)? After all, n00b is a word from leet speak, not so?
An interesting point about the word ‘LEET’ is raised on Wikipedia, where it says that:
“a common characteristic of Leet is changing its grammatical usage to be deliberately incorrect”
So sometimes it is spelt l33t, sometimes 1337, and even in binary, 10100111001, to avoid ‘detection’. So even though the usage of the word ‘leet’ might actually be more than n00b, in terms of its MEANING, in terms of actual references it therefore slides way under the rader of 25 000 mentions…
Predictably, most ‘formal’ linguists are making up their own sets of words (most of which unprintable) as comment on the GLM’s results. They say that there is just no way to accurately measure these words and that Paul JJ Payack is just running the race for the ‘millionth word’ as a publicity stunt for his new book.
Be that as it may, my favourite ‘new’ word just has to be ‘misunderstimate’ - a bushism of note (and isn’t ‘bushism’ a new word too)?
Tags: citations, geographic distribution, glm, global language, global media, leet, word usage