?

Log in

No account? Create an account
here is where i live

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> Profile
> <3

me!
contact info
writing/art journal
flickr
youtube
last.fm
social networking and potential boning
okcupid
myspace
facebook

October 30th, 2003


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
11:23 pm - proper!
Poll #198789 my linguistic variation like..

which is the thing keanu reeves says all the time?

whoa
15(60.0%)
woah
10(40.0%)

(30 shots upside the head | en garde!)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:ardentdelirium
Date:October 30th, 2003 10:09 pm (UTC)

Re: also

(Link)
a) there is no definition for "woah" because IT IS NOT A WORD THEREFORE CANNOT BE CORRECT
b) then it doesnt matter that there is an example that says woah
[User Picture]
From:johnbot
Date:October 31st, 2003 11:20 am (UTC)

Re: also

(Link)
If that's the case, I can't say "hizzy"[1]. Words are invented all the time. Also, Keanu can use words that don't exist, because he is very, very stupid. On first glance, I was going to choose "whoa". However, Joey Lawrence says "whoa", whereas Keanu uses something that clearly has more of an H-iness at the end. To call that "whoa" would be more incorrect than saying that he used a word that may technically not exist in formal dictionaries.[2]

[1] I really shouldn't anyway, given that I make snow look tanned.
[2] Didn't dictionary.com say that IX was a word back when we were playing scrabble?
[User Picture]
From:ardentdelirium
Date:October 31st, 2003 11:22 am (UTC)

Re: also

(Link)
IX? Scrabble? what?
[User Picture]
From:johnbot
Date:October 31st, 2003 11:24 am (UTC)

Re: also

(Link)
When dan and I used to play scrabble, we'd use dictionary.com as the arbitor of any disputes. Go look up IX. I think it means 9. ;)
[User Picture]
From:ardentdelirium
Date:October 31st, 2003 11:40 am (UTC)

Re: also

(Link)
then why was it included as part of the reply to me? whose side are you one? and it doesnt count as an invented word when its just a misspelling of a real word.
[User Picture]
From:johnbot
Date:October 31st, 2003 11:44 am (UTC)

Re: also

(Link)
It was just an example of dictionaries being messed up.

Misspelling according to who? Is 'centre' not a word either because it's a variation?

I am on the side of me! I did vote woah though.
[User Picture]
From:ardentdelirium
Date:October 31st, 2003 12:59 pm (UTC)

Re: also

(Link)
misspelling according to any dictionary ever. centre is the british spelling and thus is acceptable in countries speaking the queen's english but yes, is a misspelling in the US.
[User Picture]
From:johnbot
Date:October 31st, 2003 01:03 pm (UTC)

Re: also

(Link)
Er, I wouldn't call "centre" incorrect in the US any more than "center" would be incorrect here, or "color", or any other US-butchered word. It's a spelling variation, but there's no requirement that you switch depending on the country you're in.
[User Picture]
From:ardentdelirium
Date:October 31st, 2003 01:09 pm (UTC)

Re: also

(Link)
but you are not a standard of anything (other than Johny-ness) so it doesnt matter if you wouldnt consider it correct.
[User Picture]
From:johnbot
Date:October 31st, 2003 01:21 pm (UTC)

Re: also

(Link)
Okay then, so who gets to decide? If it's the dictionary folk, they admit the existance of centre too, and other variations of the chiefly US versions. The point is, in language, "standards" are very shakey, because nothing is set in stone. Even all the crazy spelling rules have exceptions.
[User Picture]
From:kingnixon
Date:October 31st, 2003 11:45 am (UTC)

Re: also

(Link)
of course it counts! the word "pea" was originally a misinterpretation of "pease", they thought it was plural when it wasn't
[User Picture]
From:ardentdelirium
Date:October 31st, 2003 01:00 pm (UTC)

Re: also

(Link)
it doesnt count until its in the dictionary.
[User Picture]
From:johnbot
Date:October 31st, 2003 01:02 pm (UTC)

Re: also

(Link)
That's silly.. if that were the case, new words would never make it into the dictionary because we wouldn't be allowed to use them. The dictionary is a reflection of our language, not the other way around.
[User Picture]
From:ardentdelirium
Date:October 31st, 2003 01:07 pm (UTC)

Re: also

(Link)
no. dictionaries reflect the language, its true, however until a word enters the dictionary because its been used by millions of people in the same context, its not a word, its slang, a pop culture reference (such as 'doh') or, in the case of 'woah' a sign of the inability to spell correctly.
[User Picture]
From:johnbot
Date:October 31st, 2003 01:17 pm (UTC)

Re: also

(Link)
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=d%27oh

The selection of a word by an elite group of individuals to be in the dictionary is not the point in which it becomes an actual word. Words are often in widespread use by many millions of people before they're even entered in the dictionary (if they ever are).

According to the dictionary, 'word' is defined as:

A sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning and may consist of a single morpheme or of a combination of morphemes.

Nothing in that says that a word needs to be officially sanctioned to exist, but only that it has to communicate a meaning. If we couldn't call that group of letters a word, what would we call it? "Woah" isn't a sign of an inability to spell, as Dan quite clearly demonstrated that he can spell "whoa". However, to use "whoa" to describe what Keanu was saying would be incorrect, just as it would be incorrect to transcribe a speech by G.W. and use "nuclear".

> Go to Top
LiveJournal.com