<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Disinformation &#187; dictionary</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.disinfo.com/tag/dictionary/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.disinfo.com</link>
	<description>alternative views, news &#38; information—online, video and print</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:13:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Oxford English Dictionary Adds OMG And LOL In 2011 Edition</title>
		<link>http://www.disinfo.com/2011/03/oxford-english-dictionary-adds-omg-and-lol-in-2011-edition/</link>
		<comments>http://www.disinfo.com/2011/03/oxford-english-dictionary-adds-omg-and-lol-in-2011-edition/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2011 21:31:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pelliciari</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dictionary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Discourse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jargon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lingo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Linguistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OED]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Online Discourse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oxford English Dictionary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Slang]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Words]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.disinfo.com/?p=49833</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-49835" style="margin: 10px 20px;" title="42781174_7aae7bb0dc_z" src="http://disinfo.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/42781174_7aae7bb0dc_z-300x225.jpg" alt="42781174_7aae7bb0dc_z" width="255" height="191" />Mark Brown at <a href="http://www.wired.com/underwire/2011/03/omg-oxford-english-dictionary/">Wired</a> reports:</p>
<blockquote><p>The <em>Oxford English Dictionary</em> has announced the latest batch of  words and phrases deemed worthy of etymological conservation. From the  encyclopedia’s just-released 2011 edition, you’ll see <em>cream  crackered</em>, <em>wag</em> and <em>tinfoil hat</em>, as well as  internet-era initialisms like <em>LOL </em>and <em>OMG</em>.</p>
<p>“<a href="http://www.oed.com/public/latest/latest-update/">They help to  say more</a> in media where there is a limit to a number of characters  one may use in a single message,” says principal editor Graeme Diamond  on the dictionary’s website. With the rise of concise text messages and <a href="http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-04/26/twitwee-clock-tweets-your-tweets">140-character  tweets</a>, sometimes less is more. But there’s more to <em>OMG</em> and <em>LOL</em> than just textbox frugality, though, explains Diamond.</p>
<p>“The intention is usually to signal an informal, gossipy mode of  expression, and perhaps parody the level of unreflective enthusiasm or  overstatement that can sometimes appear in online discourse, while at  the same time marking oneself as an ‘insider’ <em>au fait</em> with the  forms of expression associated with the latest technology.”</p></blockquote>
<p>[Continues at <a href="http://www.wired.com/underwire/2011/03/omg-oxford-english-dictionary/">Wired</a>]</p>
&#8230;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-49835" style="margin: 10px 20px;" title="42781174_7aae7bb0dc_z" src="http://disinfo.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/42781174_7aae7bb0dc_z-300x225.jpg" alt="42781174_7aae7bb0dc_z" width="255" height="191" />Mark Brown at <a href="http://www.wired.com/underwire/2011/03/omg-oxford-english-dictionary/">Wired</a> reports:</p>
<blockquote><p>The <em>Oxford English Dictionary</em> has announced the latest batch of  words and phrases deemed worthy of etymological conservation. From the  encyclopedia’s just-released 2011 edition, you’ll see <em>cream  crackered</em>, <em>wag</em> and <em>tinfoil hat</em>, as well as  internet-era initialisms like <em>LOL </em>and <em>OMG</em>.</p>
<p>“<a href="http://www.oed.com/public/latest/latest-update/">They help to  say more</a> in media where there is a limit to a number of characters  one may use in a single message,” says principal editor Graeme Diamond  on the dictionary’s website. With the rise of concise text messages and <a href="http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-04/26/twitwee-clock-tweets-your-tweets">140-character  tweets</a>, sometimes less is more. But there’s more to <em>OMG</em> and <em>LOL</em> than just textbox frugality, though, explains Diamond.</p>
<p>“The intention is usually to signal an informal, gossipy mode of  expression, and perhaps parody the level of unreflective enthusiasm or  overstatement that can sometimes appear in online discourse, while at  the same time marking oneself as an ‘insider’ <em>au fait</em> with the  forms of expression associated with the latest technology.”</p></blockquote>
<p>[Continues at <a href="http://www.wired.com/underwire/2011/03/omg-oxford-english-dictionary/">Wired</a>]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.disinfo.com/2011/03/oxford-english-dictionary-adds-omg-and-lol-in-2011-edition/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Oxford English Dictionary Includes &#8216;Web Lingo&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://www.disinfo.com/2010/09/oxford-english-dictionary-includes-web-lingo/</link>
		<comments>http://www.disinfo.com/2010/09/oxford-english-dictionary-includes-web-lingo/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:42:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pelliciari</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dictionary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Language]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oxford English Dictionary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Slang]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Webspeak]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.disinfo.com/?p=36422</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignright" style="margin: 10px 20px;" title="OED" src="http://www.elloandfriends.uni-osnabrueck.de/wp-content/mu-plugins/bp-wikis/pmwiki-2.2.0/uploads/EarlyModernEnglish/Second_OED.jpg" alt="" width="250" height="170" />The Oxford English Dictionary is keeping up with the times, integrating &#8220;web slang&#8221; into the dictionary. Can&#8217;t kids just these slang words up online? <a href="http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-20/tech/web.oxford.dictionary_1_slang-oxford-english-dictionary-twitter?_s=PM:TECH">CNN</a> reports:</p>
<blockquote><p>Are years of e-mails, text messaging and status updates finally  affecting the written word?</p>
<p>#nokidding.</p>
<p>The venerable Oxford  American Dictionary has added a ginormous (adj., not included) list of  words inspired by the interweb (noun, included).</p>
<p>The next time you  look up a word, expect to see lots of abbreviations, webspeak and  casual slang.</p>
<p>The New Oxford American Dictionary has added cultural slang in the  past, but never as aggressively as it has in the latest edition.</p>
<p>Its  big brother, the less frequently updated Oxford English Dictionary, is  also going through major changes.</p></blockquote>
<p>Continues at <a href="http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-20/tech/web.oxford.dictionary_1_slang-oxford-english-dictionary-twitter?_s=PM:TECH">CNN</a> &#8230;</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignright" style="margin: 10px 20px;" title="OED" src="http://www.elloandfriends.uni-osnabrueck.de/wp-content/mu-plugins/bp-wikis/pmwiki-2.2.0/uploads/EarlyModernEnglish/Second_OED.jpg" alt="" width="250" height="170" />The Oxford English Dictionary is keeping up with the times, integrating &#8220;web slang&#8221; into the dictionary. Can&#8217;t kids just these slang words up online? <a href="http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-20/tech/web.oxford.dictionary_1_slang-oxford-english-dictionary-twitter?_s=PM:TECH">CNN</a> reports:</p>
<blockquote><p>Are years of e-mails, text messaging and status updates finally  affecting the written word?</p>
<p>#nokidding.</p>
<p>The venerable Oxford  American Dictionary has added a ginormous (adj., not included) list of  words inspired by the interweb (noun, included).</p>
<p>The next time you  look up a word, expect to see lots of abbreviations, webspeak and  casual slang.</p>
<p>The New Oxford American Dictionary has added cultural slang in the  past, but never as aggressively as it has in the latest edition.</p>
<p>Its  big brother, the less frequently updated Oxford English Dictionary, is  also going through major changes.</p></blockquote>
<p>Continues at <a href="http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-20/tech/web.oxford.dictionary_1_slang-oxford-english-dictionary-twitter?_s=PM:TECH">CNN</a> &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.disinfo.com/2010/09/oxford-english-dictionary-includes-web-lingo/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>California Schools Ban The Dictionary</title>
		<link>http://www.disinfo.com/2010/01/dictionary-banned-from-california-schools/</link>
		<comments>http://www.disinfo.com/2010/01/dictionary-banned-from-california-schools/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:03:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>JacobSloan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Censorship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dictionary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[school]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.disinfo.com/?p=20878</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://disinfo.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/webster-300x199.jpg" alt="webster" title="webster" class="alignright size-medium wp-image-20885" width="225" />The <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jan/25/oral-sex-dictionary-ban-us-schools">Guardian</a> reports that schools in Southern California have removed the dictionary from classrooms because it contains dirty words. No, really. I think this is how civilizations collapse:</p>
<blockquote><p>Dictionaries have been removed from classrooms&#8230;after a parent complained about a child reading the definition for &#8220;oral sex.&#8221;</p>
<p>Merriam Webster&#8217;s 10th edition, which has been used for the past few years in fourth and fifth grade classrooms (for children aged nine to 10) in Menifee Union school district, has been pulled from shelves over fears that the &#8220;sexually graphic&#8221; entry is &#8220;just not age appropriate.&#8221;</p>
<p>The dictionary&#8217;s online definition of the term is &#8220;oral stimulation of the genitals&#8221;. &#8220;It&#8217;s hard to sit and read the dictionary, but we&#8217;ll be looking to find other things of a graphic nature,&#8221; district spokeswoman Betti Cadmus told the paper.</p></blockquote>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://disinfo.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/webster-300x199.jpg" alt="webster" title="webster" class="alignright size-medium wp-image-20885" width="225" />The <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jan/25/oral-sex-dictionary-ban-us-schools">Guardian</a> reports that schools in Southern California have removed the dictionary from classrooms because it contains dirty words. No, really. I think this is how civilizations collapse:</p>
<blockquote><p>Dictionaries have been removed from classrooms&#8230;after a parent complained about a child reading the definition for &#8220;oral sex.&#8221;</p>
<p>Merriam Webster&#8217;s 10th edition, which has been used for the past few years in fourth and fifth grade classrooms (for children aged nine to 10) in Menifee Union school district, has been pulled from shelves over fears that the &#8220;sexually graphic&#8221; entry is &#8220;just not age appropriate.&#8221;</p>
<p>The dictionary&#8217;s online definition of the term is &#8220;oral stimulation of the genitals&#8221;. &#8220;It&#8217;s hard to sit and read the dictionary, but we&#8217;ll be looking to find other things of a graphic nature,&#8221; district spokeswoman Betti Cadmus told the paper.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.disinfo.com/2010/01/dictionary-banned-from-california-schools/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

