Australian WOTY vote
« previous post |
Macquarie Dictionary is soliciting votes for its 2025 Word of the Year choice — the shortlist is here.
Several of the shortlist items are new to me, probably because Australia, so I'm not going to vote.
But it's an interesting set, as always.
Philip Taylor said,
November 16, 2025 @ 4:51 pm
I could find only three words in the entire list, or five if I include the two with hyphens — the others were all phrases or longer. If I owned a copy of the Macquarie Dictionary, I would consult it to see how they define "word".
J.W. Brewer said,
November 16, 2025 @ 5:08 pm
Green's Dictionary of Slang has cites for "bird dog [verb]" back to the 1940's, but they're all American. The senses that the Australian gloss is close to are not attested until the 1970's,* but that was a while ago now. Maybe it has just recently immigrated to Australia, or maybe there's a recency-illusion thing.
*The earliest cites are for a WW2-era sense of "dancing with a [superior's/upper-classman's] girl" that's a new one on me.
Mark Liberman said,
November 16, 2025 @ 5:09 pm
@Philip Taylor:
This issue has been extensively discussed — see Ben Zimmer, "The 'Word of the Year' need not be a word", 11/23/2011, or Jesse Sheidlower in Slate on the 2004 selection — so you're 20 years behind the curve…
Philip Taylor said,
November 16, 2025 @ 5:41 pm
Oh come on, Mark, you cannot seriously believe that "Australian sushi" or "BAL rating" (for example) are words qua words, let alone "ate (and left no crumbs)". Humpty Dumpty might assert it, but I cannot believe for one second that you would.
Richard Rubenstein said,
November 16, 2025 @ 5:59 pm
Huh, I was expecting Philip to object to "because Australia".
JPL said,
November 16, 2025 @ 6:48 pm
"In the recent midterm elections, the Democrats ate." This use of the word (lexeme) 'eat' has been a feature of African American usage in the south, at least, for some time. It seems prominent in discussions of performances in sports, music, dancing or any other performance. This usage is not restricted to past tense form, but any form of 'eat' can be used in this way. I would say that it's not a new word (lexeme), but a new sense for an existing lexeme, a metaphorical one. The phrase "and left no crumbs" is not a necessary part of this use of 'eat', but an optional stylistic addition, and other phrases of emphasis could be used. Similar expressions would be "cleaned up", or, in reference to a musical performance, "killed" ("Buhaina killed", said after a strikingly great performance).
JPL said,
November 16, 2025 @ 7:01 pm
I forgot to mention that the appropriate context for this usage would typically be a competition or comparison, so if a musician is seen to prevail in a cutting contest, "eat" would address that aspect more than "killed" would. Not only did Buhaina eat, he ate and cleaned up.
David Morris said,
November 16, 2025 @ 7:29 pm
If 'six-seven' wins comprehensively, they can announced that 'six-seven ate'.
HS said,
November 16, 2025 @ 8:10 pm
"Huh, I was expecting Philip to object to "because Australia"."
Actually, I was going to object to it. Or rather, not object as such, but raise it as a query. I've seen Language Log commenters use this construction on several occasions so I presume it must be a thing in American English, but to me, a middle-aged speaker of New Zealand English, it seems completely bizarre and sticks out like a sore thumb. It was the very first thing I noticed when reading this post. How long has it been around, how widespread is it in America, and has it been previously discussed on Language Log?
I also noticed the "that one finds themselves frequently thinking about", under the entry for "Roman Empire". Again, this seems completely bizarre to me. I would naturally say "that one finds oneself frequently thinking about" (or more likely "that people find themselves frequently thinking about"). I appreciate of course that the use of English pronouns is changing, particularly with the rise of singular "they", and that this has been much discussed here on Language Log in the past, but if I were ever to use a form of "they" with "one" (which I wouldn't) I think I would say "that one finds themself frequently thinking about". Do other people find "that one finds themselves frequently thinking about" natural?
Nit-picking aside, what actually interests me about this list of Words of the Year is how unfamiliar they seem to me. Australian and New Zealand English are often considered similar, especially by people from the northern hemisphere, yet virtually all these "words" are completely unfamiliar to me. Or maybe I'm just getting old….
But on the question of whether these are "words", I have some sympathy with Philip Taylor. I don't personally mind short, distinct, non-compositional lexical items being described casually and informally as "words" for something like a Word of the Year competition, but a number of these entries seem pretty marginal to me, especially "ate (and left no crumbs)". To me this seems more like a metaphor or proverb or something, rather than something that I would ever consider an appropriate entry for a word of the year. What next, "a rolling stone gathers no moss" as a "word"?
AntC said,
November 16, 2025 @ 10:08 pm
@HS but to me, a middle-aged speaker of New Zealand English, it seems completely bizarre and sticks out like a sore thumb.
… Or maybe I'm just getting old….
I'm a later than middle-aged New Zealander. (Not sure I can claim to be a 'speaker' of NZE: the first half of my life was in UK, but the complained-of construction is much more recent than when I left.)
"Because X" (where X is a bare noun, not the start of a clause) is perfectly cromulent. You're not getting old; you do need to get out a bit more. Have you read a newspaper or magazine recently?