Fail
Fighting words
January 14, 2010 17 comments
Last week, the American Dialect Society announced that it had chosen tweet as its Word of the Year 2009 and google (v.) as its Word of the Decade. It’s a fair cop in the latter category, where nominees also included blog, 9/11, text (v.), and war on terror, defined by the ADS as “A global effort to prevent terror and terrorists”. (Eh?) So yes, the lowercase verb google is a reasonable choice. (I was first made aware of it by William Gibson’s Pattern Recognition (2003); the American Dialect Society had already nominated it as WotY in 2002.)
But tweet as Word of the Year? Srsly? Surely sexting (according to the full list of nominations [pdf], consigned delicately to the “Most Outrageous” category) is more enjoyable in every way? Myself, I would have voted for Benjamin Zimmer’s nomination “fail (used as a noun or interjection)”, which at least won the “most useful” category. (Though if it was decided that fail was the “most useful” word of the year, what quality enabled tweet to beat it to the overall prize? Sheer annoyingness?) I would have even liked to see fail duke it out in the Word of the Decade contest: after all, in so many ways the years 2000 to 2009 were made of fail.
What were your words of the year and decade, readers?
Meh.
Both entry and reaction.
I like “meh” for the decade, but “bromance” for the year. Mostly because neither of them refer to the internet or mobile communication. If I absolutely have to go with social technology language then I’d say “web” and regret that “flashmob” is so last year.
So, this is totally off topic, but I’d like the observations of Stephen and others on this sentence.
“Among the dead in Haiti, tragically, are at least 14 UN staffers.”
Found here
Are other people reading this in the way that I am? That the dead in Haiti aren’t necessarily tragic but for the fact that 14 UN staffers are among them?
It’s always understandable that people find the deaths of people who might be closer to themselves more tragic. I suppose UN staffers is presumed to equate to US Americans in this case. Which seems odd. It really is an unfortunate phrasing but I would be charitable and read it with a silent “extra” before the “tragically”.
Word of the decade for me would be “denial”. Holocaust deniers at the start, climate change deniers at the end, and a steaming shitload of all sorts of denial in between.
Surely the word of the decade is “unspeak”?
John –
I wouldn’t suppose the TPM writers are presuming this.
Rather more charitably, I might wonder if “tragically” is supposed to be serving an illocutionary purpose, signalling a certain discomfort with sharing a sad detail – simply stating a detail about something horrific may feel too blunt. The reason I suggest this? I was having a conversation not so long ago and slipped in a “tragically”, even though I immediately thought back to my close study of Unspeak and felt ashamed that I had thus indulged in an act of unspeak, for the situation was not tragic; it was just that I felt a need to indicate my recognition that the topic was imbued with sadness and pathos and, though not irony, some of the coincidences and narratives of life itself.
(Oh, and excuse the McCarthyite use of “some” there.)
I literally had not thought of “unspeak”, but it is a compelling candidate?
But Nomad’s nomination of meh is very powerful too.
sw—
Yes, I agree with this analysis of the example in question. (But do you mean perlocutionary?)
Yes!
Yes!
The usually reliably terrible Cracked.com suggested that “Crash” be the word of the decade, and the more I think about it, the less I disagree.
But maybe that’s just because I hate the nounification of “fail” so much.
I vote for: friend/unfriend.
Social networking has led to new forms of interaction between people, and we’ve nicely repurposed the word “friend” to suit. Old word, new concept, new use.
Well, I’m afraid I have evidence that disproves your illocutionary (perlocutionary?) thesis.
The whole email I wrote them, minus greetings and sign-off: “You know, beyond what I’m sure are your disagreements with my view that the UN has been playing a neocolonial role in Haiti in recent years, I was disgusted by this sentence by Kurtz: “Among the dead in Haiti, tragically, are at least 14 UN staffers.”
Really? The dead in Haiti aren’t tragic, but the fact that 14 UN staffers might be among them is? That’s certainly how that sentence reads, with “tragically” being a modifier of the clause “Among the dead in Haiti.”
Probably unintentional, but still disgusting.”
The entire response (minus greetings and sign off):
“There is an extra measure of tragedy when those killed are there, away from their own homes, trying to help others. I’m sorry you can’t see that.”
Sorry, though, didn’t mean to totally hijack the thread!
I enjoyed the ADS definition of the ‘war on terror’. They chose to leave the actor and action unspoken, juxtaposed with a clear statement of purpose.
In other words, ADS is honoring a prime example of Unspeak by unspeaking itself. A global effort is an American effort, left unspoken because we all understand that America is the world. And of course, any worthy exertion must be ‘war’. All that remains is to say why it is necessary.
I can’t believe this hadn’t occurred to me before, and I know I’m late but.Word of the decade:
WTF.
…I had heard it used before 2000, but back in those days it would have been considered a lowly TLA and probably would have need written W. T. F. I humbly submit that the Internet Decade has rendered it a word in its own right, and that it’s at least as common as “google.”
“have been”, not “have need.” WTF, fingers.
Yes! WTF is extremely useful. Does anyone actually speak it aloud, I wonder, and if so, how?
I think “lol” is probably the most used IM acronym in use today closely followed by btw wtf omg and cba
“Dubya-tee-eff”. Stress is to taste, of course.