• 60 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by melcene (3056 posts) -

News article today says:

Scrabble, one of the last bastions of grammatical purism in a world overrun by cell phone text abbreviations, is capitulating to the times.

The board game plans to add 3,000 new words to its official dictionary, including several slang terms like "thang" (9 points) and "grrl" (5 points) as well as pop culture touchstones, like Facebook and MySpace.

Turning the most heads is the inclusion of "innit," a condensation of "isn't it" that will earn you 5 points - and the undying hatred of any English majors who are playing along.


I'm... just dumbstruck.  Grrl?  Thang?  INNIT?!  Now granted, I haven't played Scrabble in forever.  Still, I think one of the reasons people play Scrabble is simply to show how much smarter they are than the other person.  But adding words like those certainly aren't going to help anyone feel smart.  Part of me wants to see the official word list, after they add 3,000 more words including those above.  Part of me is scared to even look.

As a semi-grammar-nazi myself, this does irk me, even if I don't play.  It's like sacrilege.
#2 Posted by ShaggE (6429 posts) -

Oh no they di'in't. 

#3 Posted by beej (1674 posts) -

God damnit! 'Grrl' really? Fucking really Scrabble?

#4 Posted by Jimbo (9805 posts) -

Ain't no thang, grrl.

Wait... proper nouns in Scrabble? Wtf?

#5 Posted by Claude (16255 posts) -

I'm holding out for the LOL version.

#6 Posted by Scooper (7882 posts) -

Grrl.












Wat.
#7 Edited by MattyFTM (14372 posts) -

Who cares about the scrabble dictionary. The OED is where it's at. And I'm pretty sure all those words have been in the OED for years. Stuff like lol and omg are definitely in there. Language evolves, and whether we like it or not, they are words. Language is defined by its use. 100 years ago people would have cringed at half of the words we use today and think of as good spelling & grammar. 

Moderator
#8 Posted by LordXavierBritish (6320 posts) -

No.

#9 Posted by AlexW00d (6240 posts) -

Why would you replace the I in 'girl' with another R? I really don't understand that.

#10 Posted by Azteck (7449 posts) -

Oh shiiiiiet son. Trippin'

#11 Posted by SMTDante89 (2569 posts) -
@AlexW00d said:
" Why would you replace the I in 'girl' with another R? I really don't understand that. "
This was what I first thought of when I saw "grrl" but it has three r's instead of two.
#12 Edited by CookieMonster (2416 posts) -

innit blad, am gunna murk you, yeh. fwagwan mandem.

#13 Posted by eroticfishcake (7783 posts) -

I don't remember the manufacturers of Scrabble being in charge of the English language. Sure, it's their game but I'm going to follow the Oxford English Dictionary in every game I play of Scrabble.

#14 Edited by Zidd (1843 posts) -

at least people with a shitty vocabulary can play scrabble without getting frustrated.

#15 Posted by Hailinel (24435 posts) -

The sound you are now hearing is my skull colliding with the wall in a repeated fashion until blood seeps out.

Online
#16 Posted by melcene (3056 posts) -
@MattyFTM said:
" Who cares about the scrabble dictionary. The OED is where it's at. And I'm pretty sure all those words have been in the OED for years. Stuff like lol and omg are definitely in there. Language evolves, and whether we like it or not, they are words. Language is defined by its use.  "
I did consider the OED, and I know that they've been adding more e- and text-related words.  March of 2011 they added OMG, LOL and FYI.  But keep in mind that the OED normally gives compelling reasoning for including a word.  What could compel Scrabble to include INNIT?
#17 Posted by Crescendo1897 (114 posts) -

innit 2 winnit



grrl
#18 Posted by Vexxan (4620 posts) -
@AlexW00d said:
" Why would you replace the I in 'girl' with another R? I really don't understand that. "
Because it sounds sexier...or something. Grrrrr!  :S
#19 Posted by MattyFTM (14372 posts) -
@melcene said:
" @MattyFTM said:
" Who cares about the scrabble dictionary. The OED is where it's at. And I'm pretty sure all those words have been in the OED for years. Stuff like lol and omg are definitely in there. Language evolves, and whether we like it or not, they are words. Language is defined by its use.  "
I did consider the OED, and I know that they've been adding more e- and text-related words.  March of 2011 they added OMG, LOL and FYI.  But keep in mind that the OED normally gives compelling reasoning for including a word.  What could compel Scrabble to include INNIT? "
It's a word that people use. That's what compelled them to use it. Innit is also in the OED. People use it and thus it is a word. It's that simple. Language is a collection of words that people use. If people use it, then it's a word. 
Moderator
#20 Posted by imsh_pl (3295 posts) -

I assume the British version will reward bonus points for 'Queen'.

#21 Posted by melcene (3056 posts) -
@MattyFTM: You're right.  Apparently INNIT is a popular word in Britain.  But grrl is not in the OED.  
#22 Posted by MattyFTM (14372 posts) -
@melcene: Grrrl is in the OED, and has been in there since 2002.
Moderator
#23 Posted by BeachThunder (11866 posts) -
@Hailinel said:

" The sound you are now hearing is my skull colliding with the wall in a repeated fashion until blood seeps out. "

 Ah, yes, I believe that phenomenon is called "qyzjykx". That's 49 points, by the way.
#24 Posted by Ksaw (343 posts) -

WORDS WITH FRIENDS.

#25 Posted by Afroman269 (7387 posts) -

Fuck. That.

#26 Posted by TheDudeOfGaming (6078 posts) -
@ShaggE said:
" Oh no they di'in't.  "
Oh yeah, thats the stuff *grabs popcorn*
#27 Posted by PaulRevere (207 posts) -
@Ksaw said:
" WORDS WITH FRIENDS. "
This
#28 Posted by SlightConfuse (3963 posts) -

* i think i bllod vessl in my brain just popped
#29 Posted by dudeglove (7775 posts) -

...I guess the game's easier now, then?

#30 Posted by Underachiever007 (2468 posts) -
@Afroman269 said:
" Fuck. That. "
#31 Posted by gakushya (66 posts) -

Tell me, are you people even aware that the field of "linguistics" is the scientific study of language? Do you not consider at all the fact that smarter people than you are making decisions on things that they understand better than you do? Why do you trust an astronomer when he tells you what is or isn't a planet, but when a linguist tells you what is or isn't a word, you are incredulous? I think I'll follow advice on what is or isn't a word by people who can at least define the concepts involved.

#32 Posted by TyCobb (1966 posts) -

Well, this is bullshit. I will continue to play with proper words and forbid slang and Ebonics.

@BeachThunder said:

@Hailinel said:

" The sound you are now hearing is my skull colliding with the wall in a repeated fashion until blood seeps out. "

Ah, yes, I believe that phenomenon is called "qyzjykx". That's 49 points, by the way.

You forgot the 50 bonus points for using all 7 of your letters. =)

#33 Posted by believer258 (11820 posts) -

What-the-fuck-ever, man.

#34 Posted by AlexW00d (6240 posts) -

@gakushya said:

Tell me, are you people even aware that the field of "linguistics" is the scientific study of language? Do you not consider at all the fact that smarter people than you are making decisions on things that they understand better than you do? Why do you trust an astronomer when he tells you what is or isn't a planet, but when a linguist tells you what is or isn't a word, you are incredulous? I think I'll follow advice on what is or isn't a word by people who can at least define the concepts involved.

Thanks for bumping a 15 month old topic to be a condescending jerk buddy.

#35 Posted by Ulain (315 posts) -

@gakushya said:

Tell me, are you people even aware that the field of "linguistics" is the scientific study of language? Do you not consider at all the fact that smarter people than you are making decisions on things that they understand better than you do? Why do you trust an astronomer when he tells you what is or isn't a planet, but when a linguist tells you what is or isn't a word, you are incredulous? I think I'll follow advice on what is or isn't a word by people who can at least define the concepts involved.

I think we are aware "people" (read: morons) use words like innit and grrl, but are they really used commonly enough to be included in this?

Also, who the fuck is blindly trusting astronomers with information without doing a little further research if it sounds fishy? Same thing applies here, please don't throw out stupid analogies like that. I mean, are you busy using these "words" when you're not trying to school us, and trying to enforce it? I thought not.

#36 Edited by AjayRaz (12426 posts) -

daaaamn grrl what a necro

#37 Posted by diz (918 posts) -

Isn't this really about spelling and not grammar though?

#38 Posted by NTM (7344 posts) -

So basically, humanities future for correct speech is established from SMS language?

#39 Posted by laserbolts (5319 posts) -

Lulz

#40 Posted by gakushya (66 posts) -

@Ulain said:

@gakushya said:

Tell me, are you people even aware that the field of "linguistics" is the scientific study of language? Do you not consider at all the fact that smarter people than you are making decisions on things that they understand better than you do? Why do you trust an astronomer when he tells you what is or isn't a planet, but when a linguist tells you what is or isn't a word, you are incredulous? I think I'll follow advice on what is or isn't a word by people who can at least define the concepts involved.

I think we are aware "people" (read: morons) use words like innit and grrl, but are they really used commonly enough to be included in this?

Also, who the fuck is blindly trusting astronomers with information without doing a little further research if it sounds fishy? Same thing applies here, please don't throw out stupid analogies like that. I mean, are you busy using these "words" when you're not trying to school us, and trying to enforce it? I thought not.

It's not an analogy. If a professional journalist needs to say something about something which falls under the domain of science, they will always consult an expert (in theory anwyays). If its about medicine, they will ask a doctor, if its about phsyics, they will ask a physicist, if it has something to do with animals a biologist or zoologist will be quoted. When it comes to language, a linguist is not consulted. Seriously professional journalists just make shit up about language, and its often wrong.

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=833

Check out this article from the Language Log (the blogger is a computational linguist). The point being made here is that

The principle we see at work here is that writers think fact-checking is never needed on any point that is broadly about language.

And there are countless examples.

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3479

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=199

Politics will accuse each other of short sentences and incomplete grammar, when they do the exact same things.

#41 Edited by gakushya (66 posts) -

@Ulain said:

I think we are aware "people" (read: morons) use words like innit and grrl, but are they really used commonly enough to be included in this?

I never said people who use the word "innit" are morons. That's harsh. No I don't think that. I've studied the history of two languages, Japanese and English, and also historical linguistics, and the pattern always repeats; some group of pedants protesting and bitching against some emergent word or colloquialism demanding that we use something this way or that. ALWAYS. Seriously. Since the emergence of language, there has always been some person bitching about how others speak. I'm not kidding. Every point in time in the history of the English language, someone has identified a specific trend that somehow represents the downfall of the language. If these morons took some time to study how language works in a technical and social sense, they will realize that language will never devolve and loose the beauty or sophistication they identify. Barring the fact that these claims always evaporate the moment you ask the accuser to form their proclamations in a technical way that can be verified, language just doesn't work that way. It's not a system that becomes simpler or less expressive over time. No. How can you possibly claim that English has declined and devolved since the Shakespeare days when you don't even know the basic methodology for analysing languages to begin with?

Most of the time Grammar Nazi's do not have a linguistic rational for their accusations, its just norm enforcement. You are grossly offended by someone doing something that appears to be breaking the conventions and customs that you have internalized. You think someone gets angry over "youre" because there is an inherent linguistic mistake? No. They get angry because you are violating what they take to be a cultural law (manifested in language in this case), and humans always instinctively react to these sorts of transgressions with indignation and aggression.

#42 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

I'm so gonna play "grrrrrl" as every word possible and get the hell out of that Scrabble bonus.

#43 Edited by ArtisanBreads (3806 posts) -

Grrl really? Sweet lord.

@Video_Game_King said:

I'm so gonna play "grrrrrl" as every word possible and get the hell out of that Scrabble bonus.

Toss Z's on all them thangzzzzz

#44 Posted by gakushya (66 posts) -

@AlexW00d said:

@gakushya said:

Tell me, are you people even aware that the field of "linguistics" is the scientific study of language? Do you not consider at all the fact that smarter people than you are making decisions on things that they understand better than you do? Why do you trust an astronomer when he tells you what is or isn't a planet, but when a linguist tells you what is or isn't a word, you are incredulous? I think I'll follow advice on what is or isn't a word by people who can at least define the concepts involved.

Thanks for bumping a 15 month old topic to be a condescending jerk buddy.

You know what, you broadcast your uneducated oversimplified views on language, you promulgate myth and miseducation, and so, yeah, you deserve to be scolded. If this were a discussion about numbers, we would be using the methodology of mathematics, if this were about javascript we would be asking the programmers, if we were discussing diets we might ask a nutritionist. But when it comes to language, things are suddenly right or wrong, and suddenly everybody knows why. Don't see why this is a social problem worth addressing? Well, fine. It's not like anything I do is going to convince you.

#45 Posted by Veektarius (4785 posts) -

@gakushya: I think you deserve to be scolded for getting on a high horse. You could address your points without pulling it out of the stable.

#46 Posted by PeasantAbuse (5138 posts) -

@gakushya said:

@AlexW00d said:

@gakushya said:

Tell me, are you people even aware that the field of "linguistics" is the scientific study of language? Do you not consider at all the fact that smarter people than you are making decisions on things that they understand better than you do? Why do you trust an astronomer when he tells you what is or isn't a planet, but when a linguist tells you what is or isn't a word, you are incredulous? I think I'll follow advice on what is or isn't a word by people who can at least define the concepts involved.

Thanks for bumping a 15 month old topic to be a condescending jerk buddy.

You know what, you broadcast your uneducated oversimplified views on language, you promulgate myth and miseducation, and so, yeah, you deserve to be scolded. If this were a discussion about numbers, we would be using the methodology of mathematics, if this were about javascript we would be asking the programmers, if we were discussing diets we might ask a nutritionist. But when it comes to language, things are suddenly right or wrong, and suddenly everybody knows why. Don't see why this is a social problem worth addressing? Well, fine. It's not like anything I do is going to convince you.

#47 Posted by TheHT (11155 posts) -

grrl?!

is that growling and then having a heart attack?

#48 Edited by Ulain (315 posts) -

@gakushya said:

@Ulain said:

I think we are aware "people" (read: morons) use words like innit and grrl, but are they really used commonly enough to be included in this?

I never said people who use the word "innit" are morons. That's harsh. No I don't think that. I've studied the history of two languages, Japanese and English, and also historical linguistics, and the pattern always repeats; some group of pedants protesting and bitching against some emergent word or colloquialism demanding that we use something this way or that. ALWAYS. Seriously. Since the emergence of language, there has always been some person bitching about how others speak. I'm not kidding. Every point in time in the history of the English language, someone has identified a specific trend that somehow represents the downfall of the language. If these morons took some time to study how language works in a technical and social sense, they will realize that language will never devolve and loose the beauty or sophistication they identify. Barring the fact that these claims always evaporate the moment you ask the accuser to form their proclamations in a technical way that can be verified, language just doesn't work that way. It's not a system that becomes simpler or less expressive over time. No. How can you possibly claim that English has declined and devolved since the Shakespeare days when you don't even know the basic methodology for analysing languages to begin with?

Most of the time Grammar Nazi's do not have a linguistic rational for their accusations, its just norm enforcement. You are grossly offended by someone doing something that appears to be breaking the conventions and customs that you have internalized. You think someone gets angry over "youre" because there is an inherent linguistic mistake? No. They get angry because you are violating what they take to be a cultural law (manifested in language in this case), and humans always instinctively react to these sorts of transgressions with indignation and aggression.

Tl;DR. No, seriously.

How's that for proper linguistic skill, bud?

19 Posts and you're using it to undermine and insult your fellow forum-goers. You're off to a good start :)

@PeasantAbuse: My thoughts exactly.

#49 Posted by eskimo (476 posts) -

Just because something is in the OED doesnt mean its ok to use in scrabble. Just like they have rules against using abbreviations and slang, they should have a rule against using bullshit internet words.

#50 Posted by Bribo (599 posts) -

Did they add "1337"?