<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: new words</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lailalalami.com/2003/new-words/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lailalalami.com/2003/new-words/</link>
	<description>Author of Secret Son and Hope and Other Dangerous Pursuits</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:34:24 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: dud</title>
		<link>http://lailalalami.com/2003/new-words/#comment-436</link>
		<dc:creator>dud</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:34:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lailalalami.com/2003/new-words/#comment-436</guid>
		<description>...and here's the UK equivalent. The Oxford English online has just opened its doors to twocker*,loungecore,hantavirus and wonderbra. Among others.

&lt;a href="http://dictionary.oed.com/public/help/Dict/Quarterly/0303.htm" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://dictionary.oed.com/public/help/Dict/Quarterly/0303.htm&lt;/a&gt;

How long does a new word have to be embedded in the language before it merits a dictionary entry? Or is it down to quantity,the number of citations? Is Webster's a bit more cautious than the OED?

Anyone know about this stuff?

*A twocker is one who Takes WithOut Consent(your car,for example).
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8230;and here&#8217;s the UK equivalent. The Oxford English online has just opened its doors to twocker*,loungecore,hantavirus and wonderbra. Among others.</p>
<p><a href="http://dictionary.oed.com/public/help/Dict/Quarterly/0303.htm" rel="nofollow">http://dictionary.oed.com/public/help/Dict/Quarterly/0303.htm</a></p>
<p>How long does a new word have to be embedded in the language before it merits a dictionary entry? Or is it down to quantity,the number of citations? Is Webster&#8217;s a bit more cautious than the OED?</p>
<p>Anyone know about this stuff?</p>
<p>*A twocker is one who Takes WithOut Consent(your car,for example).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dud</title>
		<link>http://lailalalami.com/2003/new-words/#comment-435</link>
		<dc:creator>dud</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2003 14:03:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lailalalami.com/2003/new-words/#comment-435</guid>
		<description>'..you're much too very very / to ever be in Mr Webster's dictionary'

Webster's can't be as hot as Cole Porter thought it was if they've got 'comb-over' down as a neologism. It's a good few decades old surely?
Maybe someone more web-literate than me can post a 60s image of soccer star Bobby Charlton who was the styles proudest exponent? ( On windy days it'd detach itself and he'd accelerate down the pitch with a foot-long skein of hair fluttering like a banner behind him.)

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8216;..you&#8217;re much too very very / to ever be in Mr Webster&#8217;s dictionary&#8217;</p>
<p>Webster&#8217;s can&#8217;t be as hot as Cole Porter thought it was if they&#8217;ve got &#8216;comb-over&#8217; down as a neologism. It&#8217;s a good few decades old surely?<br />
Maybe someone more web-literate than me can post a 60s image of soccer star Bobby Charlton who was the styles proudest exponent? ( On windy days it&#8217;d detach itself and he&#8217;d accelerate down the pitch with a foot-long skein of hair fluttering like a banner behind him.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
