# Save the words?



## k3ng (Aug 19, 2010)

A friend of mine brought this to my attention. It seems that the editors of the Oxford University Press and the Oxford English Dictionary are concerned that many words in the English language are disappearing from the average vocabulary.

They've come up with a scheme called 'Adopt a Word' or 'Save the Words'. They have a website savethewords.org which I haven't been able to access yet so I dunno what the whole thing is like, but I think I get the idea.

Basically they're trying to get people to adopt a word that they normally wouldn't use and integrate it into their day to day vocabulary.

This all seems fine, but I'm in two minds about the whole thing. For one, I actually think the simplification of language is a good thing. Most of language is used as a communicative tool, to get a point or emotion or thought across. With that in mind I don't see why the 'disappearance' of words like 'pessundate' or 'roinish' should be of any concern to us. Most of us don't even know these words to begin with so they can only deter the effectiveness of communication.

On the other hand though, thinking from a writer's point of view, I find that certain words evoke a certain beauty when used well. It's like icing on the cake. A little touch of glitter.

What do you think?

(If this fits better in the Debate section, feel free to move it)


----------



## caelum (Aug 19, 2010)

I think trying to force what words people say and what words they don't won't work.  Language will evolve and change in unexpected directions.

The literary community's words have always seemed to me a thing apart from spoken language.  There's lots of words that I write, whether in a story or even there, that I never use irl.  For instance: phantasmagorical.  If I were to say that in real life, I would probably get slapped, and deservedly so.


----------



## Mike (Aug 19, 2010)

This is the problem between verbal and written communication, especially with the simplifying of language to suit globalization. In verbal communication, you have to find common ground in a language so that both parties understand. If you're speaking with a foreigner, and communicating in a language that is not the mother tongue of this foreigner, the chances of using rare words and having them understood are minimal. On the other hand, if you're talking to a fellow writer, or nerd, or scientist, or whatnot...the jargon fits the parameters of the parties involved. 

In written communication, you are more at leisure to use less common words - if the other party does not understand the word you use, a dictionary is a simple answer. Of course, abundant use of little-known words will probably present a problem, creating a hierarchy, causing the other side to feel weighted, belittled, self-aware of its naivety. 

I think this save-the-words idea is a good one. Much like a word-of-the-day calendar. I think that many people aren't as eager to learn as they go through the experiences that Life presents to them after their 'formal' education. It takes an effort, a commitment. It's much easier to sit down and watch T.V..


----------



## mandax (Aug 20, 2010)

I've seen that site, and I liked that idea, though I don't think it's going to do too much.  It succeeds in making people aware that words are disappearing, and it made me think about what that could mean.  I'm not too concerned because like k3ng said, if you browse through that site, you probably won't recognize a lot of the words.  But an escalation of these disappearances could pose a problem.  We'll always need a variety of words, because even in regards to synonyms, often times there are subtle differences; life isn't so black and white to have one word for everything.

Oh, and I adopted "Amandation" because I saw it and freaked that my name was actually in a word.  Have I used it at all?  Nope.


----------



## Sam (Aug 20, 2010)

It always happens. You'll find the words which were prevalent five hundred years ago listed under "archaic" in your dictionary. Language evolves. That's what's so beautiful about it.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Aug 20, 2010)

All languages naturally evolve.  The advent of written language has slowed and even corrupted that process somewhat, but it's still going to happen.  I'm all for widening people's vocabularies, but not amount of work is going to "save" every word ever used.


----------



## Brendan M (Aug 20, 2010)

They'd be saved by us lot regardless.


----------



## JosephB (Aug 20, 2010)

What's all this hullabaloo about disappearing words? I don't want to start a donnybrook, but that's balderdash.


----------



## Motley (Aug 20, 2010)

Oh, I agree that language evolves and there is nothing wrong with that.

It's just sad that such delicious words as murklins (in the dark) and sceptiforous (bearing a scepter) get replaced with things like woot and leet.

I'm adopting murklins. It's awesome.


----------



## Patrick (Aug 20, 2010)

It's because the Yanks are constantly perverting our language.


----------



## garza (Aug 20, 2010)

Bad idea all 'round. As has been pointed out, languages evolve. It's like the French trying to fossilise the French language. I'm surprised somewhat that the idea originated at Oxford it sounds more like a prank got up by the rowdy crowd over at Little Shelford University.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Aug 20, 2010)

As long as ****, ****, **** and ***** are still words, it doesn't bother me. 

Although, it's quite sad that the English language has started to devolve somewhat. It's one of the most beautiful things ever created, but the way people speak is all going to hell too. _Yes you were_ has become _yes you was_ in my house...a dagger through the heart.

I'd save _Abhorrent_, _Semblance_ or _Fugue_. 

The winner is probably _fugue _because that's the noise my sister makes when she sneezes as well.


----------



## Fox80 (Aug 20, 2010)

> On the other hand though, thinking from a writer's point of view, I find that certain words evoke a certain beauty when used well. It's like icing on the cake. A little touch of glitter.
> 
> What do you think?


I think you are absolutely right. I am saddened by the lack of respect for the English language, the most verbose of all languages. Here are three of my nominees:

-verisimilitude (having the appearance of being truthful)
-salubrious (healthy)
-sanguine (confident; literally, "full of blood")

All of which I actually use in conversation and prose, only to be asked "what does THAT mean?" If you have a petition, I'll sign it.


----------



## k3ng (Aug 20, 2010)

The thing is I don't equate the so called 'disappearance' of words as English devolving. Bad grammar and poor word usage and context are certainly different things. That's just crappy English to begin with. 
The problem for me is that the line exists between spoken and written word which is why I don't know what to think of the idea that words are going extinct.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Aug 20, 2010)

Me neither K3ng but I haven't heard one person use any of the beautiful words some people here wish to save in a long time. I guess that's different than a language becoming more simple, but many people aren't taking advantage of its versatility, which is definately sad 

Nothing to worry about though, it tends to sort itself out. I'll never stop using the words I love, extinct or not. There'll always be older dictionaries, because every house has one surely. This will only happen if a new dictionary is put together, so I simply wont buy it...unless the thought police actually exist, or if they literally make some words illegal.


----------



## Fox80 (Aug 20, 2010)

Lyric parodies?
"Don't go 'round tonight/'cause there's bound to be a fight/there's a bathroom on the right"
"The ants are my friends/they're blowin' in the wind..."


----------



## garza (Aug 20, 2010)

The people who assemble the dictionaries do not decide what words ought to go in there. Writers decide that. The people who make the dictionaries constantly research word use in books, magazines, newspapers, broadcasts. Frequency of use determines whether the word goes in. Context determines the definitions assigned. 

The modern dictionary is the result of a long slow process that continues. Something like the OED takes years to prepare, and because the language will have changed by the time the job is finished, supplements are needed, and, eventually a new edition. I've used the Oxford Concise from childhood, starting with the first edition. I'm presently using the ninth edition, published in 1995 and out of date. I need to upgrade to the 11th edition, and will soon. 

When a language stops evolving it's dead. English is a long way from being dead.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Aug 20, 2010)

_The people who assemble the dictionaries do not decide what words ought to go in there. Writers decide that._

I didn't say they did if you were referring to my comment Garza.


----------



## garza (Aug 20, 2010)

Well, I thought I replied. I guess I pushed the wrong button. 

What I said was, I'm sorry, I thought that's what you meant, or at least what you thought. Many people do believe that dictionary editors make it all up when in fact a dictionary is simply a reflection of current usage.


----------



## Bruno Spatola (Aug 20, 2010)

I agree with everything you said, I wasn't offended or anything but I do know how dictionaries are made. The English language will always evolve, but I don't want words I love to be _written out _in a newer edition because they weren't being used enough.


----------



## garza (Aug 20, 2010)

That's why I still have three earlier editions of the Oxford Concise.  We have to get used to the world moving on. I remember how unhappy I was when Studebaker stopped using the 1950-1951 body design with the bullet nose after only two years. It was a design I thought could last forever.  Nothing lasts forever.


----------



## The Backward OX (Aug 21, 2010)

It takes the French - Citroën in particular - to come up with car designs that last forever. Look at the 2CV and the Light Fifteen. Ooh la la.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Aug 21, 2010)

I have the compact edition of the OED, with a full edition like that one can become a reader for them and submit words one comes across that are not in the dictionary, citing sources and what you think it means. Submissions are then considered by a committee in alphabetical order. It seems that they get through an average of two or three letters a year, so some letters are further out of date than others.


----------



## garza (Aug 21, 2010)

Olly - It's a long, slow, process, but the result is an anchor for the language that keeps evolution from turning into revolution. How handy is the compact edition? I've thought of getting one.

Ox - I'll see your 2CV and raise you the VW Karman Ghia, an underrated classic - German engineering and Italian design. And from the same people, the Porsche 911.


----------



## Sam (Aug 21, 2010)

garza said:


> I'm presently using the ninth edition, published in 1995 and out of date. I need to upgrade to the 11th edition, and will soon.



I have the computer version of the eleventh edition and it has some neat little toys. There's a voice-over for those words that are hard to pronounce (said by both male and female). There's also an option to search for a phrase instead of a word. So, if you know that the word you're looking for means "to make something bad better", you type that into a search box and it comes back with a list of words which mean that. In this case, the one I'm looking for is "ameliorate". 

Pretty handy.


----------



## The Backward OX (Aug 21, 2010)

garza - I grant you German engineering is good. It was possible, once under way in both the Karman*n *Ghia and the original Hitler's Revenge, to change gears _sans_ clutch.

I s'pose you've heard the one about the American who said, "Hey, lookatthis. There's a spare motor in the trunk."


----------



## The Backward OX (Aug 21, 2010)

Sam W said:


> There's also an option to search for a phrase instead of a word. So, if you know that the word you're looking for means "to make something bad better", you type that into a search box and it comes back with a list of words which mean that. In this case, the one I'm looking for is "ameliorate".


 
Sam, didn't I mention the online Reverse Dictionary to you years ago, that does the same thing for free?

If it wasn't you, no matter. Everyone else, here it is: OneLook Reverse Dictionary


----------



## Gumby (Aug 21, 2010)

Mermaid on the breakwater said:


> It's because the Yanks are constantly perverting our language.


 
It's what we do... get over it.  :tongue:


----------



## garza (Aug 21, 2010)

Ox - I deliberately left off the terminal 'n' in Karmann just to see if you were paying attention. The Karmann Ghia was built on the same platform as the sedan and you are right about clutchless shifting. I had two of the Ghia's, and the second one had the 1,600 cc engine with the optional dealer-installed 356 kit that just about doubled the horsepower, giving it the same performace as a Porsche 356 but at lower initial cost. 

One question about that free reverse dictionary. It's not from Oxford, is it? I haven't checked it out yet but I will.

Sam - I'll also have to check out the electronic version of the OCD. Even if I get that, though, I'll still want the actual book in by hands. Old fashioned, that's me.


----------



## garza (Aug 21, 2010)

I looked at the reverse dictionary. It relies on multiple sources, and has one bad, bad, feature. It employs a wiki, apparantly, to handle feedback. If I type in a phrase, I can tell it that the most ridiculous words returned are the best, and this becomes part of its search paradigm. If the feedback is not monitored by a human, or at least massively crosschecked, then a lot of very wrong results will be obtained and very few good ones. 

When the fellows at Little Shelford get on to this...

I'll have to part with a few of my treasured portraits of Her Majesty to get the OCD electronic version, but it should be worth it.


----------



## qwertyman (Aug 21, 2010)

Diloricate - to rip a sewn piece of clothing.


I'm going down the pub to practice.



Mmmmmn , might write a 'bodice diloricater' when I get back.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Aug 21, 2010)

Having a written language slows change down dramatically mind, I remember reading a study of an Amazonian tribe over a 20 year period during which more than 50%, i think it was, of their proper nouns changed. I guess you can see it when you see how quickly slang words for things change.


----------



## qwertyman (Dec 29, 2015)

I've just discovered savethewords.org was abandoned by Oxford Press in 2013!

Nobody told me! I've been diloricating up and down the country to vast audiences to no avail.  

Nobody knows what it means.  I was arrested in Richmond Park for diloricating with a faulty brake light. 

Am I rambling?


----------



## bazz cargo (Dec 29, 2015)

Not so much rambling as digging up the dead. Hi Ya Qwerty, how ya been?

And all the very best in the new year...


----------



## dither (Dec 29, 2015)

Well for what it's worth,
i say leave the words alone.
Simplifying equals dumbing down.

Words are there to stretch the minds and intellects of those who would be stretched.

Leave be i say.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 29, 2015)

> the Yanks are constantly perverting the language


 Now that was a conversation.  I missed those good old days.

And the guy who said this: 





> I s'pose you've heard the one about the American who said, "Hey, lookatthis. There's a spare motor in the trunk."


----------



## qwertyman (Dec 30, 2015)

bazz cargo said:


> Not so much rambling as digging up the dead. Hi Ya Qwerty, how ya been?
> 
> And all the very best in the new year...



Hi Bazz, seasons greetings. How are things in Wiltshire? 

Speaking of digging up the dead, I 'spect you were out thrashing the stones with mistletoe on solstice morn?


----------

