I just finished reading Cecil’s column, “Is a pregnant goldfish called a twit?”, and It kinda struck me - if there are, say, a couple hundred people who use the word “twit” to refer to a ‘pregnant’ goldfish, then doesn’t that make the meaning legit right there? Does a word have to be in a dictionary to be a word? IMHO, even if the word “twit” has no historical definition referring to pregnant goldfish, but some people now use it in such a sense because someone started an urban legend stating that that’s what “twit” means, it has therefore entered the English language and is now a term for a pregnant goldfish. Heck, Shakespeare made up words all the time - I say, if a twit wasn’t a pregnant goldfish before, it certainly is now!
Humpty Dumpty: It’s all a question of who’s to be master, me or the word.
The question is, I suppose, when does a word becomes “legit” for the language as a whole (that is, enters a dictionary) and when is it just an in-joke. Just because we here on the Message Boards agree to use the word “Texan” to mean a person from the state of Idaho… well, that wouldn’t mean that dictionaries would have to be revised to add a new meaning to “Texan.”
That’s the point, boudicca13, no one actually uses the word in that sense - certainly not ichthyologists, goldfish fanciers, or petshop owners. Pretty much the only place the word appears now is in on-line trivia lists.
If the day comes when pet shops display signs saying “twits for sale” in their windows, then you would have a point. Until then there’s no reason to consider it a valid word.
No, it doesn’t make it legit. If you find it in the next edition of a dictionary, that’s legit. For example, I know several people who say “flustrated” when they mean frustrated or flustered. If I found three hundred others who use it, it’s still not a word unless it’s in a dictionary. There’s a comic who has made a nice sideline out of “sniglets;” that is, things that aren’t words, but should be.
If I combined gordita and oro to get a Spanish sniglet for a gravid goldfish, the language police would get all huffy and box my ears. So I won’t.
That’s rather simplistic, AskNott. The editors of the Oxford English Dictionary do not make arbitrary decisions, although they are considered authoritative in matters of the English language. That the word ‘twit’ does not appear with the definition in question in the most recent edition does not establish (although it does provide evidence for) the proposition that the word has not acquired that definition fairly recently. Cecil, quite naturally, went through the same research steps that the editors of that work will no doubt go through* to establish that ‘twit’ will not turn up with that definition in the next edition of the OED.
*Unless, of course, the have the wisdom to regularly read The Straight Dope and can thus take advantage of the Herculean efforts of Cecil and his staff in doing their jobs for them.
(Wait a second, I’m not in Idaho, I’m in Massachusetts.)
I’ve always understood that dictionaries are descriptive, rather than prescriptive - they document current usage, rather than tell people what words they can and can’t use. Otherwise, technical terms (to name just one example) would never make it into the language.
That said, it should take more than one urband legend or a few hundred people on the planet using something incorrectly before it becomes an “official” (documented in the dictionary) meaning of a word. Otherwise, common mistakes (like confusing “it’s” and “its”) would become accepted usage, and that ain’t gonna happen.
So at what point does a word become official? Well, if you mean at what point does it go into the dictionary, I would maintain that you need to ask the people who put it in the dictionary. (Anyone have a contact at OED?) Otherwise, my two cents would be that it’s a word when it’s in widespread use, especially written, but is not arguably just an incorrect usage of an established word.
You all brought up some very good points; however…
I think many of you may have misunderstood what I meant. I’m talking about a word in the most basic sense of the term. Correct me (again) if I’m wrong, but I believe the definition of a “word” is a mixture of sounds that convey meaning. (Okay, I know there are more specific technical terms for “sounds,” but it’s been a while since I took that linguistics class, so please bear with me.)
If the word “twit” can convey the meaning of “pregnant goldfish” to several people who have been told (however incorrectly) that this is what “twit” means, then the mixture of sounds that become the sound “twit” now conveys a meaning to these people, and is therefore a word. I’m talking more in the philosophical sense of what a word is, not the rule-laden “it must be in the dictionary to be legit” sense.
I think it’s awfully limiting to say that a word is not a word unless it’s in the dictionary. If people have spoken it (or even just read it, I suppose), it’s a word.
Also, a few of you claimed that a very large number of people would have to use “twit” before it could be a word. But if you think about it, there are many highly obscure words in the dictionary that practically no one ever really uses. I would give some examples, but it is late at night and I don’t want to wake my hubby while rumaging around for Webster’s Dictionary (I, unfortunately, do not own a copy of the OED).
Okay, so I may have been joking around a bit on that last piece of the argument, but putting that aside: When you think of what makes for a word in these most basic terms, doesn’t that then make “twit” a word for a pregnant goldfish? Twit, in the fish-sense of the word may not have existed in the past, but once someone mistakenly proclaimed it so, it became as they proclaimed. (Did that make any sense? I need to get some sleep - it has been a long day:p )
Well, I guess we’d have to ask: to whom. Our prior dog had one bark for “Let me out” and another bark for “strangers at the door.” Does that make those barks “words”? My wife and I understand them, very clearly, but I doubt anyone else would without some training.
My wife and I decided to use the word “pineapple” to mean “I’m bored as shit, let’s get the hell out of here.” Thus, if we were at someone’s house, one of us bringing up the topic of “pineapple” (as in, “Remind me, dear, we’re out of pineapple juice”) had a hidden meaning to us. Does that mean that the word “pineapple” has a new meaning? Well, it did for US… but I’d be very surprised to find that in the dictionary any time soon.
Cecil is using the term “word” in the broadest sense of a mixture of sounds that conveys “generally accepted meaning.” A few hundred people who believe internet email do not constitute “general acceptance.” Those people are loonies anyway, since they also presumably believe their other emails: that the Great Wall of China is the only manmade structure that can be viewed from the moon, but BTW there was no moonlanding; etc)
I dunno folks. It seems to me that if you want a word to be accepted as a word, both by plain folks and the OED, then the word has to be used as a word, not merely defined and considered as a word. In other words, if you want “twit” to actually mean “a pregnant goldfish”, then a lot of people have to actually use the word when talking about pregnant goldfish. You’d need it used regularly in articles on the subject and referred to by aquarium enthusiasts and popping up as a matter of course on websites and in texts. Just saying that some people think that " a twit means a pregnant goldfish" doesn’t cut it.
boudicca, a ‘significant number’ can vary widely depending on the topic. If there are only 100 professional workers in the field of, say, ice deposits on Jupiter, and 60 of them refer to a seasonal variation in the size of such deposits as a ‘lingwing’, then ‘lingwing’ belongs in the dictionary.
You’ll notice that Cecil, after unsuccessfully perusing the word experts, went next to the goldfish experts. And since none of them had heard of this use of the word, he declared it officially incorrect.
New words can be coined, of course. If thousands of people, decieved by the e-mail, descended upon pet stores looking for ‘twits’, that usage might become ‘mainstream’. However, with thousands of pet shops and hundreds of thousands of goldfish bowls in the world, it will take a very widespread movement to establish this. More likely, only a few people will ever use the word this way in a goldfish-breeding context, and after it fails to express their meaning, it will die out. (Not certainly, but very probably.)
[[New words can be coined, of course. If thousands of people, decieved by the e-mail, descended upon pet stores looking for ‘twits’, that usage might become ‘mainstream’. However, with thousands of pet shops and hundreds of thousands of goldfish bowls in the world, it will take a very widespread movement to establish this. More likely, only a few people will ever use the word this way in a goldfish-breeding context, and after it fails to express their meaning, it will die out. (Not certainly, but very probably.)]]
Except… there is NO SUCH THING as a “pregnant goldfish.” There is a “ripe” goldfish, but the eggs are not fertilized until after they are laid.
No, but here’s some stuff from Merriam-Webster (I, too, am not classy enough for OED, and have grown rather fond of M-W) that applies. Also, I’m sorry that I can’t provide a link. The following is from their unabridged subscription site, and I didn’t see it on the public site.
There’s also some very interesting perspective about the living nature of English and the impossibility of including all words in spoken use, but I’ve already made this my longest quotation ever, and am not happy with the record. I really wish I could link to the site so that only the interested would have to read it all.
The important thing to take away is that, at least in the case of M-W, published use seems to be a deciding factor. They say that they review electronic sources, but don’t indicate whether this includes goofy lists or glurge.
PS. If anyone’s worried, I contacted M-W before excerpting from the subscription site.
If I might be so bold, I think I’ve spotted a flaw in Cecil’s reasoning on this one.
I read the column and then the associated G’Dope thread and one question screamed out at me. I kept thinking someone’s bound to raise it soon but no one ever did. It concerns this statement from Cecil:
Whilst your version of the OED may weigh a hundred pounds, I would suspect that the full OED would weigh much more than that. It consists of 20 large-size hardback volumes, and each volume is few inches thick. There’s over half a million words in there.
I don’t have access to the full OED at the moment (you usually have to go to University libraries and stuff to access it) so I can’t check whether “twat” is in there but I would be interested to know whether Cecil was using the full OED.
I’m not saying a “twat” is a pregnant goldfish. All I’m saying is that you can’t legitimately say you’ve checked the OED unless you’ve checked the full OED.
My brother has a “condensed” OED that is supposed to have the complete text of the “full” OED, except that each page is printed at a quarter size, four “miniature” pages for each “paper” recto and verso, and it comes with a magnifying glass to read it. This “condensed” OED comes in two volumes. Perhaps that’s the one Cecil has?
Jojo: the huge multivolume set of the OED is available in two photoreduced forms: an earlier 2-volume version which imposes four pages on one, & the more recent single-volume edition which has 9 original pages to each page. I have the 2-volume edition plus the 1986 Supplement. Cecil is correct to say that the word “twat” only has the usual definition there; ditto “twit”. Cecil’s quotations from the dictionary & its citations are certainly from the full OED–they match exactly.
Perhaps it’s just coincidence, but possibly the inspiration for all the nonsense about “twat” is that Robert Browning famously misunderstood the word’s meaning & it thus ended up in a poem of his.
And if my grandmother had balls, she’d be my grandfather.
Cecil’s research methods called into question, indeed.
Although there are times when Cecil orders his staff to help with some drudgery research checking, but calling Cecil’s research methods into question is like… like… ::::waves hands frantically::: je ne sais quoi, either heinous or outright silly.
(Notice how I avoid using any of the tw-words to describe those who make such accusations.)
