
Merriam-Webster Adds 850 new words and definitions - happy-go-lucky
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/new-words-in-the-dictionary-march-2018
======
Aardwolf
"dumpster fire"

what makes this one worth its own entry? You could make a word for every type
of thing that can be on fire: "carrot fire", "chair fire", etc...

EDIT: I take my words back thanks to the replies. Learned that dumpster fire
has a non-literal meaning so it's actually worth it. Gee what a dumpster fire
this post is :)

~~~
theoh
Because it's an idiom that has come mean something figuratively, not
literally? Like "hot garbage". Plenty of info about the meaning of "dumpster
fire" online.

~~~
asdsa5325
Idioms don't belong in a _dictionary_ though.

~~~
CydeWeys
Why not? Since we're talking about definitions of words here, there's nothing
in the definition of "dictionary" that precludes idioms. Indeed, having common
idioms in a dictionary is useful, because you typically refer to a dictionary
when you _don 't_ know something, i.e. you also don't know if it's an idiom or
not. Better for the dictionary to tell you that it is an idiom (and what it
means) than to simply omit it. People typically go to dictionaries to figure
out the meaning of something they've just read or heard; whether or not
something is an idiom, they still need to know what it means.

------
larkeith
Most of the examples given are fairly unsurprising, but I'm unsure how to feel
about "embiggen" being in the dictionary.

On the other end of the scale, I'm amazed "demonym" was previously absent.

~~~
Spivak
Keep in mind that a dictionary isn't a manual on what does and does not
constite valid English but a reference for how words are _used_ by English
speakers and writers.

Whether you think it's good style or not to use embiggen if someone came
across a text with the word it is useful to have it's meaning readily
available.

~~~
posterboy
Prescription versus Description is a false dichotomy. Certainly, the choice of
words to include is prescriptive. Any other interpretation of the debate would
be paradox, because, a descriptivist would have to describe it as prescriptive
if many users think it's prescriptive. Getting out of that paradox requires
reasoning that would be absurd compared to the simple solution that they are
in fact being prescriptive whether they want to or not.

~~~
CrystalLangUser
That doesn’t make any sense. Descriptivism describes usage, not whether people
think it’s prescriptivist or not.

Each dictionary has their own standards for what constitutes enough usage to
be considered a word. Otherwise we’d have infinite dictionaries.

Dictionaries look at what many people say, and log those as words eventually.
They’re decidedly Descriptivist.

~~~
posterboy
They are prescriptive by extension, e.g. when describing usage from
prescriptive speakers.

Language is not inherently descriptive or prescriptive, it is a false
dichotomy, because language is acquired by copying, but it is is modified to
suit needs, so it is used prescriptive. If language was purely descriptive,
where did it first copy from? In a sense, I assume that language faculty is
inherently prescribed in a natural way. And in another sense, the words show
de-scription is copying (this doesn't work well in english, but in french e.g.
it would be quite literall "ecrire de ..."), and pre-scription is what was
written before it was copied. It's two sides of the same medal.

If they describe, somebody else will interpret that as prescription, whether
that was intended or not.

------
jasonjei
Merriam-Webster is ahead of the curve. I just checked _Oxford English
Dictionary_ online and don’t see entries for _cryptocurrency_ or _blockchain_.
I do see an entry for _Bitcoin_ on _OED_ , though.

------
comradesmith
I personally don't like the inclusion of mutli-word phrases such as dark
chocolate and dumpster fire. I feel like some of the new words don't yet have
solid enough meanings to warrant a dictionary definition.

I may be quite wrong..

~~~
CydeWeys
If I had to guess at their reasoning, it's because these phrases are greater
than the sum of their parts. Dark chocolate isn't just literally dark in
appearance, it has a higher percentage of pure cocoa. A dumpster fire isn't
literally just a dumpster on fire, it's a situation that's FUBAR.

So having definitions for these phrases has additional utility for readers in
a way that having definitions for "red firetruck" or "trashcan fire" does not.
Consider that many users of English dictionaries aren't entirely fluent in
English, and might be coming from a language where these metaphors are
different or non-existent. For instance, the German word for dark chocolate
(because German has compound nouns where other languages have phrases) does
not call it dark, it calls it bitter.

------
plessthanpt05
Where's the list? They mention far less than 850 words.

------
aries1980
Can someone explain to me why the “life hack” should be written separately
instead with a hyphen as “life-hack”?

~~~
dredmorbius
One ... guide on the topic:

[http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/misc.html#analretentive](http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/misc.html#analretentive)

~~~
aries1980
Got it, thanks!

------
PostThisTooFast
Seemed fine until the end, where metaphors have been mistaken for new words.
Example: "dumpster fire."

Webster's continues its descent into stupidity.

~~~
igravious
> continues its descent into stupidity

Nice figurative use of the word _descent_ there.

Would you also object to "train wreck" used metaphorically being catalogued in
the dictionary? Are these not useful phrases for a language learner? How about
"danger money"? How about "white lie"? "Red line"? Where is your red line when
it comes to these things?

Anyway maybe dictionaries don't only enumerate bare words. Who made that rule?
Lexicographically why make a distinction between single word nouns and multi-
word noun phrases? Also, would you ban phrasal verbs. We're allowed to
enumerate "set" but "set down", "set up", "set upon", "set aside", … all these
are _verboten_ or are they A-OK?

~~~
posterboy
The problem is, what constitutes a word? Speaking as a native speaker of
German: If it's idiomatic, make it a compound word, as with "setup",whereas
"set up" is an oxymoron.

Of course compounds are no solution either unless you want to have
runonsentence-monstrosities. English speakers recognized that and treat
compound nouns as noun phrases. So it depends a lot on the _feeling_ of a
word. If it is recognizable as a single entity that cannot be split up into
constituent parts, then it's a word. Otherwise it is a phrase. And phrases
typically don't belong in a wordbook. Otherwise you there would be really no
end to it. Wiktionary has a rule to include everything with at least three
notable usage examples; And it has another rule not to include "sum of part"
phrases. So a lot of discussion revolves around whether something is sum of
parts, which is quite subjective. A dumpster really is just something where
something is dumped. I can only guess that "dumpster fire" proliferates
because it rhymes with dumb. Hot garbage certainly is sum of parts if garbage
is readily understood figuratively. Dumpster fire on the other hand just has
too many syllables to be recognized as a single entity. It's really just sum
of parts, still though, it's a heap of trash that's set on fire deliberately
and quite well contained.

The term philology is quite suitable as analogue to philosophy, because it is
not an exact science. So there are experts who have quite a good feeling for
language. They need to release new words every now and then to stay relevant.
And to keep the words relevant. By their own definition, I guess, those
dictionaries are a dumpster fire.

~~~
rspeer
If you think the phrase "dumpster fire" is the sum of its parts, then you
don't know what it means.

And if you don't know what it means, a dictionary can help.

~~~
posterboy
I think I pretty clearly showed that I understand what it means. The
individual parts, each in a particular sense, dumb-store-burning, explain the
sense rather well. If this is not readily obvious to a recipient, then it's
misused and no dictionary can help that, if enough misuse occurs. But don't
get me wrong, I have a dictionary under my pillow (my phone). On the other
hand, obscurity might be intentional, so popularization (by inclusion in a
dictionary and making a big fuzz about it in the news no less), will only
drive the invention of new obscure terms. Which is probably a delight for
every dictionary editor. And I choose to largely ignore it and fuel the topic
with flame bait, probably because the term in question is negative in
principle, eliciting negative emotions.

~~~
rspeer
You've shown that you misunderstand the term. Your misunderstanding includes
nonsense examples like "those dictionaries are a dumpster fire". Nobody else
would say that.

The "dumb-store-burning" thing is something you made up and you've already
managed to convince yourself it's the real definition.

Folk etymologies are never a good way to define a term, but this one is
particularly weird and out of nowhere.

~~~
posterboy
> Nobody else would say that.

calibrate your sarcasm detector, it's broken.

I know what a dumpster fire is in the broadest sense, a shit show, a farce,
perhaps a tire fire that is toxic and impossible to extinguish.

The rhyme on dumb I think is certainly effective. Sure, it's my own
observation.

> you've already managed to convince yourself it's the real definition

I prefer to speak with authority and leave my guesswork implicit. Mistakes I
make then are problematic. I'm not above mistakes, so the assumption that I
might be wrong is implicit as well. That's only fair, in fact it seems the
only way to speak with conviction if the other site asserts authority in the
same way. I call it ''objective'', when I can avoid making ad-hominem
arguments -- like you do. Rhetorical question: Are you enjoying that?

