
Why 'Cool' is still cool - otoolep
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/22/opinion/why-cool-is-still-cool.html
======
wodenokoto
I wonder if the rise of these words that relates to the senses is more due to
the proliferation of books, which in turn could give more room to more casual
writing.

Unrelated, I have always been fascinated with how fuck has managed to stay
both vulgar and popular for 100's of years.

------
kevin_thibedeau
I once got derided by a gen-Y'er for describing something as "neat".
Apparently that word isn't groovy anymore to describe something that's swell.

~~~
seandoe
This is pretty neat: [https://youtu.be/Hm3JodBR-vs](https://youtu.be/Hm3JodBR-
vs)

~~~
adenadel
This is the first thing that comes to mind when I hear "neat".

------
alextgordon
"Cool" is like "OK", or "nice". They're moderate words with a moderate tone.

Words like "awesome" are somewhat hyperbolic. They have a short existence
because they become predictable and passé.

"Cool" never lost its impact because it never had one in the first place. It's
just cool.

Compare:
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12503686](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12503686)

~~~
urs2102
Do you think it's possible that words with similar sentiments are more likely
to have a longer existance?

Take the word "dope" right now, which is often used as a synonym for "cool".
What's the likelihood of a word like that breaking into the mainstream and
lasting?

~~~
tlrobinson
Right now? Pretty sure "dope" has been slang for "awesome" (not necessarily
the same as "cool") since at least the 90's.

~~~
coldtea
Dictionary puts it's at "80s onwards", but it should also be present in the
70s.

------
XJOKOLAT
On the subject of language overuse:

So ... why does everyone start a sentence with "So". Both verbally and in
written media. This has bugged me for quite a while.

I've also been indoctrinated into it's use. It definitely assists conversation
but ...

"Exactly" is another one (in London anyway). Recently "exactly" has come to
mean absolutely anything. E.g. "I don't know what you're talking about but
I'll say 'exactly' and nod my head as a lead in to what I want to say' or just
to be sounding like I'm still in the conversation"

Weird how words like these become viral.

Mild rant over.

~~~
OJFord
I'm not quite sure what you mean be 'exactly'? I thought at first you meant
e.g. "I'm not exactly sure what you mean" \- but you mention at the start?
(Also London, just haven't noticed I suppose).

Regarding the use of 'So..' to lead in a sentence: this is an hideous
Americanism that must be stopped from further penetrating our borders at all
cost. I exaggerate, of course. But it is an Americanism; I do not like it.

~~~
arjie
"Exactly. Leading 'so' is a terrible thing, but I think the proliferation of
the stand-alone 'day of' is worse."

That 'exactly' is used to acknowledge what someone said and then to lead in to
a related but different thing. Or sometimes as just the acknowledgement.

Leading 'so' seems to me to be a softener. "So...that's not what I meant, but
it's reasonable", "So...here's what I've got. Tell me what you think",
"So...we've got a problem.". I don't think anyone uses leading 'so' to say
something positive except to ironically lower expectations. "So...we just
signed a million-dollar contract".

It gives people a chance to realize that something else is coming that's not
wholly positive, I think. I don't really know. It's something I've picked up
in SF and I use it all the time even though I'm fully conscious of how strange
it sounds.

~~~
XJOKOLAT
I understand why they are used, but the extent troubles me.

I hear it so often sometimes that it's like a flashing command-prompt in a
conversation.

------
jonathankoren
I've got a theory that "suck" is going to have staying power. It wasn't that
long ago (say 30 years) that it was considered vulgar, while now it's quite
tame. The advantage of suck is that it fills the niche of succinctly being the
opposite of cool.

------
DarkTree
I'm curious if anyone knows in what direction a language evolves over time.
Does it grow randomly with the addition of words/phrases, or is their a system
of 'natural selection'? The American English language is certainly growing as
new words become commonplace, but will other words die out completely? The
reason for this question is because I wonder if languages become more
efficient over time. For instance, what will the American English language be
like in 100 years? Will it just be larger, or will it be more precise? It
would be interesting if we create more and more precise words over time so
that we actually stop using less precise words, making the language ultimately
as efficient as possible. I guess it depends on so many things, like
dialect/region/age/etc.

~~~
striking
Languages grow simpler over time, in my view. I'm not an etymologist, but in
my experience, long phrases that are used often are replaced with simpler
ones. This isn't just in English, it's the same in Polish.

And if you don't trust my anecdata, look up the German and Japanese language
reform. I don't speak much of those, but they have stronger ruling bodies over
their language, making it easier to track change in language. It appears the
reforms slowly make the language simpler, based on feedback from the populace.

~~~
Retra
Replacing long phrases with fewer words is not "simpler" in any measure of
language simplicity I've ever heard. In fact, "simple" usually means _fewer_
words and variety, and thus, longer sentences for covering more complex
concepts.

An explosion of jargon and slang doesn't make a language simple, it adds
layers and layers of exclusivity and nuance.

~~~
yongjik
That's debatable. As a learner of English as a foreign language, I (and my
classmates) had a much harder time understanding "simple" words.

Throw a word like "rotate", and it's just a matter of memorizing what the word
means. Throw in a "simple" word like "turn", and it has a gazillion different
meanings for every situation. It's a total nightmare for language learners.

~~~
Retra
Have you read Simple English?

'Turn' has many meanings because it has been used _too often_ for reducing the
number of words in sentences. You only have two choices when you want to do
this: invent a new term (and totally confuse everyone) or use a related term
(and let tome of the existing meaning bleed through.) Both of which make the
language more complex.

------
milkey_mouse
Side note: as a teenager, I'm pretty sure this "on fleek" phrase everyone's
touting as "the new cool phrase all the kids are saying" is a red herring to
spot when people are trying too hard to be cool or something. I've never heard
anyone say that in real life.

------
inanutshellus
Initially I thought "cool" might have its staying power because it's the
baseline... the first word to really encapsulate a concept (perhaps defined as
"innovatively unique")... and the others are just knock-offs trying to
redefine the standard.

but I'm pretty sure "hep" would be considered a synonym of cool that predates
it.

So why didn't "hep" become the everlasting "cool" word?

~~~
zem
because, as per the article's theory, "hep" is not a sensory metaphor

------
rgbrgb_
Interesting. Just the other day I read this article
([http://www.itsnicethat.com/articles/cool-stunts-
creativity-1...](http://www.itsnicethat.com/articles/cool-stunts-
creativity-18-feet-and-rising)) that bemoaned the overuse of the word.

------
shurcooL
I guess I could've come up with a worse nickname when I was 12.

------
dmd
That's heavy, man.

~~~
dmd
edit-reply: Kinda wondering if anyone replying is actually understanding what
I meant, or if you're just markov-chaining BTTF.

~~~
mccracken
Well it was my favourite movie as a kid, so it was just a knee-jerk reaction

~~~
dmd
This isn't reddit.

~~~
mccracken
Doesn't mean HN has to be serious 100% of the time.

------
mjkunc
In other words, the Times is yelling at clouds.

