Page 1 of 2 12>
Topic Options
#31024 - 06/15/01 03:10 PM God save the OED
Masha
Ching Shih


Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 512
Loc: Chicago, IL, USA

Offline
Oh dear.

Doh has made it in.

I'm rather uneasy about this, but I can see the argument for inclusion. Of course, to use the definitions laid out by David Foster Wallace in his big ol' Harper's article, I am a prescriptivist. Somehow, "shopaholic" bothers me most. Luckily, since I will never, never, never be able to afford the new edition, I will remain content with my 1971 version (which was, by the way, the very best Valentine's present ever).

So what are your opinions on this rather huge development? What are your feelings on the OED as ultimate arbiter of English usage?

[Edited because, while I may believe that "D'oh" needs an apostrophe, others do not.]

[This message has been edited by Masha (edited June 15, 2001).]

Top
#31025 - 06/15/01 05:14 PM Re: God save the OED
Calico
Ching Shih


Registered: 04/16/01
Posts: 164
Loc: Austin, Texas

Offline
Interestingly,
Dan Castellaneta, the actor who plays Homer, said on a recent TV program that the scripts for the show never specified "doh!" as the expletive. Apparently Dan has watched many many early film comedians and got the line from a Chaplin-era comedy star. (sorry, don't remember the comedian's name. -doh!)

Top
#31026 - 06/17/01 10:39 PM Re: God save the OED
Anonymous Unregistered



I think adding "D'oh!" (with or without the apostrophe) to the OED is an abomination. The OED should be above daily and pedestrian slang, such as that found on TV shows like "The Simpson" (especially shows like "The Simpsons!), and leave that kind of thins to the paperback versions of Webster's. Yuck.
Top
#31027 - 06/18/01 04:56 AM Re: God save the OED
Joy
Ching Shih


Registered: 06/02/00
Posts: 322
Loc: London

Offline
I think it's good that 'd'oh' is in the OED. It's a reference work, it's somewhere that people can look up words to understand them, and learn their origin.

I'm sure there must be some people learning English who don't already know The Simpsons. And I doubt they will be common knowledge a hundred years from now, but people will still find the word 'doh' in books or movies, and want to know what it means.

But then, I think the descriptivist tradition of English dictionnaries is one of our languages' greatest strengths. English is what you make of it, it changes and moves all the time. It includes a great body of slang, some of it offensive, some of it lovely, all of it important.

It's nice for dictionnaries to contain some usage suggestions, but to leave out a word because it's not nice would be like an entomology book leaving out some bugs because they're icky.

Top
#31028 - 06/18/01 08:43 AM Re: God save the OED
kitten
Ching Shih


Registered: 06/05/00
Posts: 85
Loc: Toronto, ON

Offline
I'm currently reading Dictionaries: the Art and Craft of Lexicography. The author said it's tricky business trying to ascertain whether new fad words should be included. They may not be fashionable when it's finally released, or it may not be in use shortly thereafter. However, if the word's been in use for a long time (which d'oh I think, has), then it would probably be poor on the dictionary's editors parts to not include it, even if it is an abomination.

I wonder how long it will stay?

Top
#31029 - 06/18/01 01:38 PM Re: God save the OED
saskatchewan
Ching Shih


Registered: 10/02/00
Posts: 379
Loc: Waterloo, Ontario

Offline
It must be included. That's what I think. Three hundred years from now when people are trying to figure out where the word "dought' came from it will be of importance to them that the OED first included d'oh in 2001 but that 'doh' had been used as an expression for at least one hundred years previously.
Top
#31030 - 06/18/01 03:20 PM Re: God save the OED
Masha
Ching Shih


Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 512
Loc: Chicago, IL, USA

Offline
saskatchewan, you crack me up.

Now that I've seen others agree with me that "D'oh" needs an apostrophe, and considering Calico's informative post about the non-lexical versions of the word, I'm wondering if "D'oh" has been used in any "serious" writing. Is it solely a spoken term? Which opens up a whole 'nother can o' worms: Should dictionaries reflect strictly standard academic (i.e., written) usage, or should they reflect all usage--formal, casual, slang, silly--of the language?

And while I agree with Frogprof, I'm also curious about the class hierarchy of dictionaries. Webster's sits next to me at my magazine copy-editing job; does that mean that the sligtly tawdry choices of Web's are ok for the general magazine-reading public, but those of us in the know defer only to the grandmommy of them all (yes, I think of the OED as feminine, and I don't know why)?

[Edited because that's what I do.]

[This message has been edited by Masha (edited June 18, 2001).]

Top
#31031 - 06/26/01 08:50 PM Re: God save the OED
harper
Ching Shih


Registered: 01/01/01
Posts: 597
Loc: Chicago, Illinois

Offline
my word of the day e-mails are doing new OED entries this week. so far we've had "full monty" and "bad hair day." i'm not sure how i feel about this...
Top
#31032 - 06/27/01 11:54 AM Re: God save the OED
Calico
Ching Shih


Registered: 04/16/01
Posts: 164
Loc: Austin, Texas

Offline
I like doh without an apostrophe, but with an exclamation point.
I have no problem with it being added to the OED because (though I don't have an OED handy at the moment) I feel certain that ouch is in there, so... why not doh?

I would have a problem, however, if okally-dokally made it in.

[This message has been edited by Calico (edited July 05, 2001).]

Top
#31033 - 09/27/02 08:27 AM Re: God save the OED
Angiv
Ching Shih


Registered: 06/01/00
Posts: 1291
Loc: Scotland

Offline
How you feel about this will probably depend on how you feel about Ian Rankin. I'm a little perplexed that he's being quoted as a source for porcine and rubicund, but then, I'm not his biggest fan.
Top
Page 1 of 2 12>


Moderator:  Ria 
Hop to: