atw: Re: Youse
- From: Michael Lewis <michael.lewis@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:37:54 +1100
It will get into the dictionary when enough of your fellow language-owners
decide that it is part of the language.
Dictionaries describe the language as it is, assuming a level of consensus
amongst its owners / users. They don't describe the language as it might be
if proposed changes catch on!
- Michael
On 11 January 2012 14:18, Kath Bowman <Kath.Bowman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> You can invent a word, but you can’t get it into a dictionary! I have been
> trying to get ‘engageable’ into the Macquarie for a few years, without
> success.****
>
> Engageable – able to be engaged (in the military sense).****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers****
>
> Kath****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Michael Lewis
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 11 January 2012 12:01 PM
> *To:* austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* atw: Re: Youse****
>
> ** **
>
> Yebbut . . . The "nitwits" own the language along with everyone else; you
> don't need a licence to invent a new word!
>
> - Michael Lewis
>
> ****
>
> On 11 January 2012 12:27, Rebecca Caldwell <beckyakasha@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:****
>
> Fine! Badly worded on my part ;)****
>
> ** **
>
> I do not accept 'youse' as a word by any means, but meant that it was a
> 'real' word, and not just the incomprehensible pronounciation of a nitwit.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
Other related posts:
