w00t

[Cariad]

I never thought I'd live to see the day the word (and I use the word 'word' very loosely) w00t spelled with 2 zeros, would be a dictionaries word of the year. (http://www.m-w.com/info/07words.htm)

[ethics]

Hey, every language evolves due to culture. :)

[BigDeputyDog]

w00t!!! :happy:

BDD... :{)

[Cariad]

Evolves? lol <-- another new entry I believe :) this isn't evolving, this is r younguns dictating how we speel thngs cos they dunt no how 2 speeel thgs propley

[MemphisMark]

I remember when it was a big deal that "ain't" made it in the dictionary.

[joseftu]

Maybe you remember when you first saw it, Mark?

Ain't is old--much older than you are. Its first appearance in print is from the late 17th century--and it was common in the 17th and 18th centuries, and quite acceptable as standard usage (for "am not"). It was only much later, as it came to be associated with the Cockney dialect, that it began to be frowned upon.

This is so often the way that language develops--it's not the "correctness" of the word (if there could really be such a thing in the abstract) that changes, it's the "correctness" of the people who use it...as is probably the case with w00t, too!

[Fiona]

I believe Mark said what he meant. I also remember when it got into the Dictionary. Not to say it wasn't used, even commonly, in print. But I remember distinctly when it was added as "slang."

[ethics]

Regardless, I would never use that word in my writing at any professional level. Unless, I was quoting someone, of course.

[joseftu]

No, I'm really afraid you guys must be misremembering, although of course I can't be sure--especially because there really isn't any such thing as "the dictionary."

But the oldest print dictionary I have on my shelf is a Webster's Third (not at all rare) from 1916. Ain't is there, right between ain and Ainu.

My OED is the same text as the first edition (1928), and ain't is there, too.

I'm fairly certain that it was included in every single dictionary from that era--and earlier, and later.

Unless you two are much older than I think, you definitely don't remember when the word ain't was first added to any dictionary.

[MNeedham73]

Found here: (http://www.bartleby.com/61/63/A0156300.html)

Ain't has a long history of controversy. It first appeared in 1778, evolving from an earlier an't, which arose almost a century earlier as a contraction of are not and am not. In fact, ain't arose at the tail end of an era that saw the introduction of a number of our most common contractions, including don't and won't. But while don't and won't eventually became accepted at all levels of speech and writing, ain't was to receive a barrage of criticism in the 19th century for having no set sequence of words from which it can be contracted and for being a “vulgarism,” that is, a term used by the lower classes, although an't at least had been originally used by the upper classes as well. At the same time ain't's uses were multiplying to include has not, have not, and is not, by influence of forms like ha'n't and i'n't. It may be that these extended uses helped fuel the negative reaction. Whatever the case, criticism of ain't by usage commentators and teachers has not subsided, and the use of ain't is often regarded as a sign of ignorance. •But despite all the attempts to ban it, ain't continues to enjoy extensive use in speech. Even educated and upper-class speakers see no substitute in folksy expressions such as Say it ain't so and You ain't seen nothin' yet. •The stigmatization of ain't leaves us with no happy alternative for use in first-person questions. The widely used aren't I? though illogical, was found acceptable for use in speech by a majority of the Usage Panel in an earlier survey, but in writing there is no acceptable substitute for the stilted am I not?

[Fiona]

No, I'm really afraid you guys must be misremembering, although of course I can't be sure--especially because there really isn't any such thing as "the dictionary."

But the oldest print dictionary I have on my shelf is a Webster's Third (not at all rare) from 1916. Ain't is there, right between ain and Ainu.

My OED is the same text as the first edition (1928), and ain't is there, too.

I'm fairly certain that it was included in every single dictionary from that era--and earlier, and later.

Unless you two are much older than I think, you definitely don't remember when the word ain't was first added to any dictionary.Not arguing that it was in A dictionary darling... but perhaps it wasn't in all the common versions. Perhaps we were dictionary deprived. ;) I had a 29 volume set as well as Oxford and Webster's - it wasn't there when I was little.

I'll concede it was in some dictionary... even a common dictionary. If you want to argue further... like Bill Engvall says, "upstairs, naked."

[joseftu]

I guarantee that it was there--certainly in Oxford and Webster's...without a doubt. In all common versions for the past century at least.

Richard Bailey is pretty funny about the broader subject (http://www.umich.edu/news/MT/NewsE/09_05/words.html) and has this to say about the specific:

"Ain't ain't a word ‘cause it ain't in the dictionary." My students tell me that year after year and it's one of the few things they remember having been taught about the English language. They think bad words don't get in the dictionary. But they do. And they should. Ain't is certainly a word, and it has a long if not always respectable history. We have documentation for it back to 1778.

(snip)

Ain't is a sure enough a word, and it's in every dictionary. Good ones tell you that it's more common (and more widely accepted) when it functions as be rather than have. "He ain't too smart" is "better" than "She ain't got her book. "
If you can find a dictionary, in your house or any other, with any date on it, that does not include ain't, I'll buy you a cookie of your choice, and a milkshake!

But naked might be the only way to argue it (certainly preferable!). :)

[Arc]

Regardless, I would never use that word in my writing at any professional level. Unless, I was quoting someone, of course.

Ain't that the truth! (See--sure you would!) ;)

[ethics]

In a resume? Work email? Essay for school? Nope! Here and informal settings, absolutely. ;)

[Arc]

In a resume? Work email? Essay for school? Nope! Here and informal settings, absolutely. ;)

For a published article such as an opinion piece or some story tellling--quite appropriate---as in my example being just one legitimate hypothetical example.

[Fiona]

If you can find a dictionary, in your house or any other, with any date on it, that does not include ain't, I'll buy you a cookie of your choice, and a milkshake!

But naked might be the only way to argue it (certainly preferable!). :)What I find amazing is that you are willing to take the position that a very clear and concise memory of mine is wrong, because of your sources. There were entire conversations, games and memories revolving around this issue. I'm certain, also that I did not make them up, that we did not look in the wrong place in the book, nor were we on drugs. I do not think those dictionaries are still around. But If I find them you will be the FIRST to know! As I'll be chucking the volumes at you. :P :kissmy:

[joseftu]

I've got lots of early memories like that which later turned out to be wrong. Strong, clear, but wrong. We're all susceptible to urban legends and popular excitements, and at the time, they're totally believable. No offense intended!

(And the cookie offer still stands! :))

[Fiona]

I've got lots of early memories like that which later turned out to be wrong. Strong, clear, but wrong. We're all susceptible to urban legends and popular excitements, and at the time, they're totally believable. No offense intended!

(And the cookie offer still stands! :))No cookies for you! Next!