Forwarded article: LINGUISTIC SURVIVAL OF THE . . . FITTEST?

[salovesh at NIU.EDU]

The following article was selected from the Internet Edition
of the Chicago Tribune. To visit the site, point your browser
to http://chicagotribune.com/.
----------- Chicago Tribune Article Forwarding----------------


Article forwarded by: Mike Salovesh

Return e-mail: salovesh at niu.edu

Article URL:  http://chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/article/0,2669,SAV-0007050063,FF.html

Comments:
I've asked the Chicago Tribune to forward their July 5, 2000 editorial.
Here 'tis . . .

mike  <salovesh at niu.edu>
PEACE !!!

---Forwarded article----------------
LINGUISTIC SURVIVAL OF THE . . . FITTEST?



  English is a living language, and the once staid old wordsmiths at
our nation's publishing houses these days are working 24-7 to get
jiggy with it. Their handiwork can be seen every year in the fistful
of new words and slangy expressions that find dubious immortality on
the pages of latest-edition dictionaries.

Among the 100 or so entries making their etymological debut next month
in the new edition of Random House Webster's New College Dictionary
are my bad! (mea culpa), arm candy (attractive escort) and gaydar
(ability to spot a homosexual).

    Media and the technological revolution can be thanked for
influencing a good number of this year's additions, from dotcom (a
company doing business solely or mostly on the Internet) to
clicks-and-mortar (pertaining to a dotcom that also has traditional
stores or offices) and wetware (the human brain).

Some, like Webmaster, have earned sufficient stature and staying power
as to merit inclusion into a tome as august as the dictionary.

Others words began in linguistic la-la land and, while cute--i.e.,
mouse potato (person who spends too much leisure time at the computer)
or ED (erectile dysfunction for those in a rush)--that is where they
should remain. Chalk it up to a few senior moments, brief lapses in
memory or bouts of confusion.

Press releases touting the pending new edition actually boast that
these words "are not found in any other college dictionary."

Good. Or, to use another suddenly legitimate expression, way good.

Let's hope gatekeepers at other language pantheons have the good sense
to avoid similar Beavis and Butt-head standards for deciding which
words have earned a rightful spot amid the fine print of more than
200,000 entries, and which should be left in peace to die a slow but
sure death.

A look back to Random House's new words of the 1990s shows a mixed bag
of ephemera (scrunchy, a ponytail holder) and words that have a better
chance of weathering the test of time (Web site, carjacking.) How many
people will look back in five years at this year's fashionista and
think, "That's so Y2K."

What's a word have to do to gain a little respect? Random House's
five-member editorial board, with access to more than 7,000
publications, monitors how often a word is used by following its
livelihood across all forms of media, from the Internet to magazines
to, apparently, the number of mentions on "The Simpsons."

By that measure, next year the English-speaking public no doubt may
look forward to the official induction of whazzuuuuup!? and
fuhgeddaboudit.