Posted on 11/29/2021 2:33:39 PM PST by Kaslin
Continuing a tradition that’s been going on since 2003, dictionary publisher Merriam-Webster announced their “Word of the Year” for 2021 this week. Another tradition they seem to be following is an attempt to stir up as much controversy and angst as possible by choosing a word that’s bound to get under the skin (pun intended) of as many people as possible so everyone will talk about their selection. So it will likely not come as much of a surprise that they selected “vaccine” for this year’s honors. Now all of the people who are debating on both sides of the mandates can have something else to remind them of a subject that many people would no doubt like to put in their rear-view mirror. (NY Post)
With an expanded definition to reflect the times, Merriam-Webster has declared an omnipresent truth as its 2021 word of the year: vaccine.
“This was a word that was extremely high in our data every single day in 2021,” Peter Sokolowski, Merriam-Webster’s editor-at-large, told The Associated Press ahead of Monday’s announcement.
“It really represents two different stories. One is the science story, which is this remarkable speed with which the vaccines were developed. But there’s also the debates regarding policy, politics and political affiliation. It’s one word that carries these two huge stories,” he said.
You can tell that Merriam-Webster was going for some controversial political hotness with this choice by looking at their first runner-up word. The one that just missed the cut was “insurrection.” If you think that was related to anything other than the January 6 riot you haven’t been paying attention.
Oxford English Dictionary went almost the same route, choosing “vax” for their Word of the Year. Of course, “vax” isn’t really a word, or at least it didn’t use to be. It’s just a shorthand, casual term for vaccinate. Last year, Merriam-Webster went with “pandemic.” You’re probably beginning to sense a theme here.
If you look at the history of M-W’s selections in this category, you can see the way they’ve evolved over time. When they started in 2003 they selected “democracy.” A nice enough choice, I suppose, but most people already know it, at least in America. The following year they went with “blog,” since those were just coming on the scene in a major way. In 2005 they chose “integrity,” which was nice enough.
But in 2006 they began going off the rails. That was the year they selected “truthiness,” in a nod to Stephen Colbert’s schtick. That was followed by the gamer non-word “w00t.” In 2012, likely in a nod to the election battle between Obama and Romney, they declared a tie between “socialism” and “capitalism.” By the time we reached the period from 2016 to 2019, the trend was set in stone. They chose “surreal” (an obvious reference to Trump’s election) followed by “feminism, justice” and “they.” (The last one is used as a pronoun for transgender people rather than its traditional use as a pronoun referring simply to two or more people of any sort.)
It would be nice if these dictionaries could actually use this uninspiring tradition to promote words that are not just applicable to current topics and conversations in a more neutral way, but ones that aren’t known to many people, helping to expand their vocabularies. For example, when I look back on 2021 and try to think of an appropriate nominee, I might have been tempted to pick “authoritarianism.” But that’s still going to be too divisive. So as my own submission I decided to go with “transmedium.” It’s definitely not in common use and it’s applicable to the currently newsy subject of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. (Nobody is out in the streets fighting over that.)
I’ll refrain from offering up my other alternate suggestions for Merriam-Webster to select. We do try to keep this site PG-13 at a minimum, after all.
Think that’s annoying? Stand by for Time Magazine’s “Life Form of the Year” award.
I would suggest, if they ever consider two-word phrases, that “moving goalposts” would resonate with just about everyone.
It’s not really a word if its definition can be changed for political purposes.
It’s a political tool. Not a word.
Per Merriam Webster:
” a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein)”
Did Fauci and Brandon get the nomination for Nobel Prize yet? I wonder if kamel-toe will get a ticket on next space flight
I was Hoping;
“DOMINION”,,,
.
Seems Spell check is
Ignoring DOMINION too.
Per my old Webster’s dictionary on my bookshelf:
vaccine: a preparation consisting of the living viruses of cowpox, used in vaccination; a preparation of microorganisms, either dead, or virulent and living or attenuated and living, that are administered so a to produce (or increase) immunity to a particular disease
Control the language and you control a lot more than that.
I dated a girl named Vaccine.
Long red nails. black leather skirt. Leopard skin boots.
Sold real-estate.
I looked up “bamboozle” in the dictionary and it said, “to deceive in the manner of Merriam-Webster.”
Ummm, that’s not really what she was selling...
Define real estate.
LOL
That’s why I call it a fauxinne every chance I get!
How about “hysteria”? “Absurd”? “Insanity”?
mask would have been a better choice, being attached at the hip to lockdown and chinese theft of PPE
What were they thinking.
Mandates would have been much better.
grab
“Merriam-Webster treats the phrases couldn't care less and could care less as synonymous, both meaning "not concerned or interested at all." "Couldn't care less" is the older and more obvious phrase grammatically, but it has been confused for so long that both are now defined.”
In other words they know it is grammatically wrong but they decided to endorse a dumbed down variation because ungrammatical people used it that way for so long, it’s become practically the norm.
How sad for our language and our culture--what's left of it.
The word “vaccine” wasn’t birthed in a day, or due to a single pandemic. The first known use stretches back to 1882 but references pop up earlier related to fluid from cowpox pustules used in inoculations, Sokolowski said. It was borrowed from the New Latin “vaccina,” which goes back to Latin’s feminine “vaccinus,” meaning “of or from a cow.” The Latin for cow is “vacca,” a word that might be akin to the Sanskrit “vasa,” according to Merriam-Webster.
Before this term was coined in the 1790's, it was commonly called "inoculation." At the time of Valley Forge, General George Washington was deeply divided on whether to inoculate his troops (who were dying of smallpox in droves) with the still experimental treatment. At that time, they were still using full strength smallpox virus which more often than not would kill the recipient (he eventually allowed it).
It wasn't until the eventual use of cowpox instead that it became safer to use.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.