Reply to post: OED

'Backronym' crowdfunds itself into Oxford English Dictionary



is full of semi-literate scum whose only point in life is display (in the soc!iological-sexual sense) of how 'down with the 'nets' they are.

On this principle, they shove any new word into the Shorter or Concise with no evidence of longevity, at the same time, ignoring words and patterns they dislike (their advice on the split infinitive is equivocal, but they clearly prefer not to accept it, even where it is the most natural choice).

There are many similar examples in terms of vocabulary, words long in common usage, but they don't feel they get that 'down with the 'nets' credibility they crave from them, so they are not listed.

Some of their 'experts' have even been pushing for acceptance of 'would of' as a valid alternative to 'would have' or 'would've'.

Much more.

They say 'descriptive not prescriptive'.

An objective view is 'descriptive when I want to seem cool and down with the 'net talk, pretty fucking clueless in general'.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019