Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikeleeorg | Hacker News Reader

That seems a little futile to me. It's like trying to ban "google" as a verb. Or "xerox."

NY Times' standards editor Phil Corbett can set whatever rules he wants for the paper, but his disdain for this verb isn't going to influence all of the blogs, the social media, and other publications in using it.

View on HN

I don't think he's trying to. I think he's saying that Twitter is not yet in the standard English lexicon and should therefore be postponed from appearance in the NYTimes. If at such time it does become as popular as Xerox or Google then perhaps they will reevaluate their stance. As far as his position on usage outside the NYTimes, he may personally dislike the world but professionally I don't think he cares either way.

I was at a wedding two weeks ago, filled with non-technical, non-Silicon Valley folks and in one of the songs before the wedding they ad-libbed in the word "tweet" for "call" or "write" or some other verb.

Everyone in the audience got the joke and laughed.

Though it should be noted that you only need just enough people to get the joke for a whole audience to laugh.

That's a good argument. I stand corrected.

So by getting into the standard English lexicon (whatever that is??), every speaker of English automatically understands the word "tweet"? Fascinating how these old timers achieved automatic updates.

What is the standard English lexicon, who maintains it, and why is it accepted as an authority? Why has it not been replaced by the internet yet?

You seem to be seriously confused on the meaning of "lexicon". The standard English lexicon is defined as the words and expressions a standard English speaker knows. If everybody understands "tweet", then it is part of the lexicon, and nobody can decide otherwise.

Interestingly enough, had he looked up "lexicon" in an English lexicon he would have found this out as well (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lexicon). ;)

What on earth is a "standard English speaker"?

It's not about his disdain for the word, it's about maintaining a vocabulary that alienates no one. As it is, even if it's been around for ages from our perspective, there are technophobes out there who have no idea what a tweet is. For their sake, it makes sense for NYT writers to abstain from using a word with less than 100% language penetration.

With that understanding I'd just like to inject my own personal feelings onto this matter. Technophobes are like a hindrance on mankind's progress. While I don't think it would be nice (or even advisable from NYT's own business perspective) to make them feel uncomfortable, the technophobes need to feel uncomfortable about it so that they can be pushed towards acceptance of the world around them.

No word has 100% language penetration, and if the NYT desires to simplify down their writing to the point at which almost everyone can read it, they're going to have to ban words like colloquialism and paleolithic as well.

If people don't understand a word, they should look it up.

So I don't understand tweet and I go to dictionary.com to find out what they're talking about and I get:

noun 1. a weak chirping sound, as of a young or small bird.

verb (used without object) 2. to make such a sound.

Leaves me with still no idea what they're talking about.

But they can't look up "tweet" in a standard English dictionary, at least not stating this kind of meaning - that is, an update on Twitter (don't hang me up on the specifics, Dane here.)

Yes, the question is not merely one of penetration, nor of avoiding arcane usage, but rather whether the word is standard English. There's no easy way to define that, which is why NYT employs someone to decide for its writers. Three criteria important for Corbett are mentioned in his missive: "Except for special effect, we try to avoid colloquialisms, neologisms and jargon. And “tweet” — as a noun or a verb, referring to messages on Twitter — is all three." Each criterion seems reasonable to me. Lots of words start off life as neologisms or colloquialisms and become standard. Corbett is just saying that 'tweet' in non-ornithological contexts isn't there yet. I think the argument is indefectible (one of my favorite standard English words, though it's not in the spell-check dictionary).

There's a line to be drawn somewhere. At one extreme, the content is buried by the obscurity (but precision) of the language used. At the other, the content is lost to words that are too general, that have essentially no meaning. It's like trying to highlight a certain point using a laser so fine it can't be seen, or a lantern that illuminates the entire area. (Obviously they just need a flashlight.) To maintain a balance between educated and readable, they have a standards editor.

Fair enough. "Disdain" was a poor word choice I made, so I stand corrected.

"Web search" and "photocopy" are perfectly fine alternatives. Neologisms have their place, and they enter common vernacular for a reason, but I can't help but cringe when a journalist is reporting on the "Twitter-sphere", getting worked up about how teens are "sexting", or anything like this. The Times is better than Fox News, and I expect more professionalism. I'm probably just crotchety, but I expect different levels of discourse from different mediums.

The comments here have entirely changed my mind (cheers for that). I totally agree with you now. I've also cringed at journalists using too much vernacular (so I was obviously being a hypocrite in my first comment; shame on me).

And you are absolutely correct - in professional reporting, clear language should always be used, not colloquialisms. It makes for much clearer and unbiased reporting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com