Author Topic: dekko  (Read 5790 times)

rogue_mother

  • Glossologian
  • **
  • Posts: 1563
  • I CAN'T BREATHE!
    • View Profile
dekko
« on: April 26, 2014, 07:47:35 AM »
Dekko made an appearance in a puzzle recently, listed as a common word. I would like to suggest that it be classified as less common, on the basis that it is regional slang.
Inside the Beltway, Washington, DC metropolitan area

ensiform

  • Paronomaniac
  • ******
  • Posts: 444
    • View Profile
Re: dekko
« Reply #1 on: April 26, 2014, 10:29:19 AM »
I'm familiar with the word but it shouldn't be common.

Butcherbird

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: dekko
« Reply #2 on: April 26, 2014, 12:50:25 PM »
As with "stroppier" and for the same reason, I disagree. 

mkenuk

  • Eulexic
  • ***
  • Posts: 2136
  • Life? Don't talk to me about life.
    • View Profile
Re: dekko
« Reply #3 on: April 26, 2014, 01:01:39 PM »
I'm always surprised when Brit. slang words such as 'dekko' and 'stroppy / stroppier' slip through the net and get classified as 'common'. Yes, they should be 'downgraded' if they're unlikely to be familiar to educated native speakers in other parts of the English-speaking world.

By the same token, however, should words such as 'rube', 'lube' and 'snit', all frequent visitors to Chi and all defined by the COD as 'N. American, informal' also be re-classified?

MK

rogue_mother

  • Glossologian
  • **
  • Posts: 1563
  • I CAN'T BREATHE!
    • View Profile
Re: dekko
« Reply #4 on: April 26, 2014, 02:12:41 PM »
I'm always surprised when Brit. slang words such as 'dekko' and 'stroppy / stroppier' slip through the net and get classified as 'common'. Yes, they should be 'downgraded' if they're unlikely to be familiar to educated native speakers in other parts of the English-speaking world.

By the same token, however, should words such as 'rube', 'lube' and 'snit', all frequent visitors to Chi and all defined by the COD as 'N. American, informal' also be re-classified?

MK

In all the seven years that Chihuahua has been in existence, no one has ever questioned rube, lube or snit, except you, MK, and then only in passing. I think you have already answered your own question, but if you want to make an issue of it, by all means, start a thread.

Butcherbird, dekko and stroppier may be common in Britain and Australia, but the fact is, there are almost four times as many English speakers in the United States as there are in Great Britain and Australia combined. On that basis alone, if a word is not common in the United States, it is not common. The converse is not true, of course. Many words that are common in the United States are common nowhere else, and are rightfully excluded from the common category in Chihuahua.
Inside the Beltway, Washington, DC metropolitan area

cmh

  • Linguissimo
  • *****
  • Posts: 216
    • View Profile
Re: dekko
« Reply #5 on: April 26, 2014, 05:14:36 PM »
maybe the above could be worded a little less aggressively?

Butcherbird

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: dekko
« Reply #6 on: April 26, 2014, 05:33:48 PM »
Perhaps a bit stroppy?!  :-R

pat

  • Eulexic
  • ***
  • Posts: 2940
  • Rugby, England.
    • View Profile
Re: dekko
« Reply #7 on: April 26, 2014, 06:54:35 PM »
maybe the above could be worded a little less aggressively?

Perhaps the post would have appeared less aggressive had the poster not been an American defending the superiority (in terms of numbers of English-speaking people) of the US?

In all the seven years that Chihuahua has been in existence, no one has ever questioned rube, lube or snit, except you, MK, and then only in passing.

This hardly makes it a less valid questioning, especially given the assertion
The converse is not true, of course. Many words that are common in the United States are common nowhere else, and are rightfully excluded from the common category in Chihuahua.

My thoughts are that because these are short words that have probably appeared many times over the years, especially snit, people know them from playing Chi and have come to think that they're common words, or at least words not worth querying.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2014, 07:23:11 PM by pat »

Dragonman

  • Lexicomane
  • ***
  • Posts: 139
    • View Profile
Re: dekko
« Reply #8 on: April 26, 2014, 10:27:16 PM »
RM seems to have forgotten the English speakers in New Zealand and Canada.One of the joys of Chi is to learn new words,SNIT was not a word  known to me till I started to play Chi, now I rarely miss it.

Dragonman

rogue_mother

  • Glossologian
  • **
  • Posts: 1563
  • I CAN'T BREATHE!
    • View Profile
Re: dekko
« Reply #9 on: April 26, 2014, 11:51:10 PM »
Dragonman, I haven't forgotten New Zealand and Canada. I only mentioned Great Britain and Australia because they were singled out by Butcherbird in the other thread where she disagreed with my position. Canada is a special case, anyway. Canadians have vocabulary overlap with both the United States and Great Britain.

If I came off as aggressive, that may indicate that I shouldn't post to the forum so close to my bedtime. I was responding in what I perceived as the same tone as Butcherbird's response, perhaps mistakenly. Alan has addressed the point very diplomatically fairly often, including here.

I don't disagree that words like snit, lube and rube should be considered. My point is that they won't be considered unless they are brought up, and the best way to bring them up is to open a topic devoted to them, not as a side remark in another topic.
Inside the Beltway, Washington, DC metropolitan area

Butcherbird

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: dekko
« Reply #10 on: April 27, 2014, 07:00:46 AM »
I do apologise if my tone wasn't to your liking, RM.  I honestly thought I was just voicing disagreement and backing it up with a reason.

As for singling out Britain and Australia, rather than listing all English speaking countries which may or may not be familiar with the words, I did in fact say (albeit tongue-in-cheek) "and perhaps other Empire colonies".

I think Alan is doing a fantastic job of keeping us all in our corners.  But I also think he makes his busy life more difficult having to differentiate between common and uncommon words.  But, of course, this is precisely what makes Chi unique and superbly challenging.  In the many other Target word games I play, all words are created equal.  Not nearly as much fun.

Love the word snit.  Even better than stroppy!

TRex

  • Glossologian
  • **
  • Posts: 1665
  • ~50 miles from Chicago, in the Corn (maize) Belt
    • View Profile
Re: dekko
« Reply #11 on: April 27, 2014, 08:14:27 AM »
Butcherbird, dekko and stroppier may be common in Britain and Australia, but the fact is, there are almost four times as many English speakers in the United States as there are in Great Britain and Australia combined. On that basis alone, if a word is not common in the United States, it is not common. The converse is not true, of course.

I find such 'reasoning' appalling.

If one were to add India (which has a huge number of English speakers), Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, South Africa, Kenya, Zimbabwe, and a few more countries in Africa, the West Indies, and the Atlantic (which tend towards English English for historical reasons) to the UK, Australia, New Zealand, there are far more English speakers outside the US even without adding in Canadians.

Alan W

  • Administrator
  • Eulexic
  • *****
  • Posts: 3985
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: dekko
« Reply #12 on: April 27, 2014, 04:56:19 PM »
People would possibly get less agitated about which words are classed as "common" if the terminology was different.

Suppose the words in the puzzle were either category gamma or category upsilon, where category gamma words are those that just about everyone who plays the game is likely to know. You think of a word - you know it quite well, so maybe it's a gamma. You play the word and find that it's upsilon. Looks like the word is not so well known everywhere. Either that or the idiot running the site has given it the wrong category. Either way, it's no big deal.

I'm probably repeating myself from earlier discussions, but if a word comes up in italics, it's not being insulted. There's no implication that it's a B-grade word, used only by a bunch of losers. It's just a category upsilon word, one that some players mightn't know... only we call it "rare" or not "common".

Also there's no intention to insult any nation, or block of nations, or linguistic-cultural tradition. Just as some people seem to have a feeling of loyalty to a word, that causes them to be incredulous that it isn't called "common", so it seems that sometimes people have an animus towards a word because of its origin. "Well, yes, of course I know that word, but it's an American word!"

In considering words that have variable usage around the world, I generally concentrate on the US and Britain. This is my reasoning: If a word's not common in the US, it's not "common" (in the Chi sense). If it's not common in the UK, it's not "common". If it's common in both countries, it's "common". English-speakers outside those two countries will probably know the word from books, magazines, TV shows, etc, even if they don't use the word themselves.

(If we were scoring words based on population figures, we would have to concentrate on Australian usage, since my website statistics show more users come from here in Oz than anywhere else. This might make things easier for me, but it wouldn't achieve what I'm aiming for.)

I'd be willing to change my idea of "common" words if someone could persuade me that it would improve the game. But my current feeling is that any broadening of the category would tend to defeat the purpose of having a "common" category.
Alan Walker
Creator of Lexigame websites

pat

  • Eulexic
  • ***
  • Posts: 2940
  • Rugby, England.
    • View Profile
Re: dekko
« Reply #13 on: April 27, 2014, 05:54:38 PM »

I'd be willing to change my idea of "common" words if someone could persuade me that it would improve the game.
No, no and no!
But my current feeling is that any broadening of the category would tend to defeat the purpose of having a "common" category.
Yes, yes and yes!

As has been said many times before, there will always be differences of opinion on the classification of some words. We're extremely lucky to be playing a word game where the creator interacts with us, listens to our suggestions and makes changes that he thinks appropriate, often after a good deal of research.

You can please... but you can never please all of the people all of the time.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2014, 06:37:28 PM by pat »

Butcherbird

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: dekko
« Reply #14 on: April 27, 2014, 06:03:27 PM »
Thank you for the incredible effort you devote to this wonderful site, Alan.  It is very much appreciated.  And I agree with everything you said.