# The future of Lol?



## Cathy Rose

So, where do you all think this (expression?) is headed?  Will it be another RADAR, SCUBA, or SNAFU?  Is it destined to become part of our lexicon?  I get many emails from former students who range in age from 16-30, and there are very few that do not include the expression at some point.  My own children (ages 33 and 28) use it in writing their emails, and one of them has a degree in English literature.  I'm going out for awhile, but when I get back I'd like to see a definitive answer from the big guys. LOL.


----------



## ewie

I can tell you where I'd _like_ to see it headed. LOL ~ _not_.
The funny thing is, Cathy, that you might have expected it to have developed into a fully-fledged verb by now, given that it's used (probably) several billion times a day on th'internet, in emails, texties, etc.
There's the rub, though. It's only used in _writing_. Oh yeah, you do occasionally get some smart-arse o) _saying_ it, but it requires a fair bit of context-building etc. to get across that you mean _laugh-out-loud_ rather than _loll_. If that same smart-arse wants to use it as a 'proper' verb, I always write it _LOL_, so it goes:_ I LOL, I LOLled, I am LOLling, etc. _Which ain't pretty.

Erm, that's it. For now.
LOL, ewie _[that's 'Lots of love, ewie' ~ I thought it meant that for *decades*]_


EDIT: Ooh ooh ooh, there's more: I think perhaps another problem it has in making the transition from three-letters-shoved-together-on-screen to fully-functioning verb is that it has _so very little meaning_. From my own experience of it, the thing it probably means LEAST often is 'I laughed out loud'; what it seems to mean MOST often is 'I can't think of what to say next / I'm too nervous to use a full-stop / I am clearing my throat'. It's more 'conventional symbol' than ... erm ... _semanteme_ (I think that's the word: I mean a unit of language that conveys a meaning).


----------



## cuchuflete

lol
Lol?
lol
Lol

Prior threads have dealt with this abbreviation (for lolipop? for lolapalooza? for languishing over linguistics?).  One of those asked if chatspeak terms were used in spoken English.  I wouldn't be shocked to hear it from some people
who might augment their vocabulary by 20% when using it.


----------



## ewie

LATE EDIT: After reading the previous 4 threads (nice short ones).
Yes, I _have_ heard folk *saying* 'LOL' ... but *only* 'LOL', as a kind of feeble exclamation, translatable as _"Oh, that was a joke, wasn't it?"_:

_~Have you got much on today?_
_~No, just my bra and pants._
_~LOL._

i.e. *NOT: *_Mr.Bernard Levin was such a witty chap that I frequently found myself lolling at him for hours on end._

etc.


----------



## Cathy Rose

Bless your hearts.  We're in complete agreement, then.  So, when we see it on the forum do we ignore it and hope it goes away by itself, or do we say, "Dear Gentle Poster, please do not use the non-word LOL."?
Cathy


----------



## Dimcl

Cathy Rose said:


> Bless your hearts. We're in complete agreement, then. So, when we see it on the forum do we ignore it and hope it goes away by itself, or do we say, "Dear Gentle Poster, please do not use the non-word LOL."?
> Cathy


 
I'm for the gentle reminder.  The rules don't allow "chat-speak" or "texting-speak" and that's what this is.  It's listed as an abbreviation in many dictionaries but we don't allow much in the way of abbreviations on the forum either, do we?  And you know what happens when we ignore things... dummm de dum dum dummmmm...


----------



## iskndarbey

I'm not sure why we would expect it to turn into a verb; it's used almost exclusively as an interjection. In spoken language it seems unlikely to replace 'ha', since that is, after all, what it means. (Well, rather a short intake or expulsion of breath, somewhat similar to a snort, in response to a humorous remark or situation which we have no good means of expressing in English orthography, thus necessitating the circumlocution 'LOL' when trying to write exactly the way you speak, as in an instant messaging program.)


----------



## Loob

Cathy Rose said:


> Bless your hearts. We're in complete agreement, then. So, when we see it on the forum do we ignore it and hope it goes away by itself, or do we say, "Dear Gentle Poster, please do not use the non-word LOL."?
> Cathy


 
Two different issues, I think.

Textspeak (including LOL) as a subject of discussion - perfectly OK.

Textspeak (including LOL) as part of an input to a discussion - not acceptable.

Your question was an example of the former, it seems to me.

Hehehe.


----------



## ewie

Cathy Rose said:


> Bless your hearts. We're in complete agreement, then. So, when we see it on the forum do we ignore it and hope it goes away by itself, or do we say, "Dear Gentle Poster, please do not use the non-word LOL."?
> Cathy


Ah dear gentle Cathy Dear, it barely even _registers_ with me any more, well, no more than do commas, full-stops etc.: it's become as banal as punctuation ... only less useful than that.
So I ignore it 99.9% of the time. I might add (i.e. I _will_ add) that whenever I 'meet' someone new on th'internet, I always ~ i.e. whenever I remember ~ make a point of telling them that I *only ever* use 'LOL' when I *really genuinely physically* laugh out loud at something ... this does happen occasionally, honest.


----------



## Gwan

Even my mother lols, so I think it's here to stay. And humorously, a French guy once told me that I wouldn't understand French texts because they use words like "lol". He had no idea what it stood for when questioned! I lolled.


----------



## Chiquita.inglesa

I must say I think 'LOL' is definitely going to stay the distance. Take the example of Homer Simpson's "D'oh!" and it's inclusion in some stupid, previously respected dictionary. Usage will equate to recognition. Eventually. Although if anyone talks about it as an example of language evolving with it's speakers and its present use, I will definitely not 'LOL'. This is not what I call progress.


----------



## cuchuflete

Loob said:


> Two different issues, I think.
> 
> Textspeak (including LOL) as a subject of discussion - perfectly OK.
> 
> Textspeak (including LOL) as part of an input to a discussion - not acceptable.
> 
> Your question was an example of the former, it seems to me.
> 
> Hehehe.



Hehehe? That should be shesheshe, in the interest of Pullitikal keerrectitude.

When I put on the moderator hat, I delete LOLs at first sight.  In forums where I shouldn't be wearing such headgear, I just groan and report-a-pest (is that a verb?) with the red triangle.  

As Loob says, it's fine to discuss such things, but they are not to be used casually.
They are a danger to minors, learners, and other civilized folk.  _Cf_. gonna.

There.  Now I've had a good rant.


----------



## brian

I don't see what the big problem is with "lol" in informal e-mails, chatboard, etc.  To me, the semantic value of the "word" (dare I say) has extended beyond its "laugh out loud" roots and into an almost logographic area reminiscent of smilies or punctuation marks. In other words, when I see "lol," I don't say to myself [lōl] or [lawl] or "el ō el" or "laugh out loud"; rather, I get a similar sensation as when I see , , etc.

I don't think it's linguistically fair to always compare written (internet) language with spoken language, as there is obviously a certain void in internet language that in some sense we feel must be filled; and things like smilies and, in my opinion, "lol," help to fill this void. Whether or not people actually _say_ "lol" (or variations thereof) does not seem very relevant to the question of its acceptability 'round these parts.

To put it another way, I disagree that "lol" is a replacement for a full stop. Instead, it has almost become a new punctuation mark in its own right. The role of the exclamation mark is to allow the reader to get a sense of how exactly the author is expressing his sentence, from what angle, with what kind of emotion. "Lol" and smilies are very similar, I think. 

P.S. My mod hat is in the other room for now. LOL!


----------



## Mez3000

Cathy Rose said:


> So, where do you all think this (expression?) is headed? Will it be another RADAR, SCUBA, or SNAFU? Is it destined to become part of our lexicon?


 
This topic must be on alot of people's minds. Only yesterday, a radio program had people calling in with examples of people they knew who used terms like lol and rofl as words in everyday speech.

One man even called to discuss his 40 year old sister that uses the terms instead of actually laughing!

Personally, I have no objection in using the terms whn using instant messaging applications - I may even stretch it to emails, but I am no fan of using them in everyday speech - YKWIM?


----------



## ewie

Mez3000 said:


> One man even called to discuss his 40 year old sister that uses the terms instead of actually laughing!


So presumably for her, Mez, it means _I'm too lazy/ladylike to laugh_ rather than the usual _I'm not sufficiently amused to laugh_ ... ?


----------



## nzfauna

Personally, I only ever use lol whilst typing emails or in chat.  Never in any other written language, and definitely not in spoken language.


----------



## ewie

brian8733 said:


> To me, the semantic value of the "word" (dare I say) has extended beyond its "laugh out loud" roots and into an almost logographic area reminiscent of smilies or punctuation marks. In other words, when I see "lol," I don't say to myself [lōl] or [lawl] or "el ō el" or "laugh out loud"; rather, I get a similar sensation as when I see , , etc.


I see what you're saying, Brian ~ similar to what I was saying before about 'conventional symbols'. But I feel literally physically compelled [i.e. nothing of the kind] to disagree with you. In my own (erm) internet usage I find that because such things as  actually _*are*_ symbols-rather-than-words, they don't interrupt the flow of the conversation: my brain just 'interprets' them in the same way it interprets .,!? and co. Perhaps there _will_ come a day (though I doubt it) but for the moment my brain can't get past the *word* 'LOL' ~ it keeps on _reading_ /loll/ rather than 'skimming' _mild amusement, absurd hilarity, nervous tic, furball_, or whatever.


----------



## iskndarbey

Chiquita.inglesa said:


> I must say I think 'LOL' is definitely going to stay the distance. Take the example of Homer Simpson's "D'oh!" and it's inclusion in some stupid, previously respected dictionary. Usage will equate to recognition. Eventually. Although if anyone talks about it as an example of language evolving with it's speakers and its present use, I will definitely not 'LOL'. This is not what I call progress.



Take a moment to consider the fact that the past 10-15 years are literally the first time in human history that we have used written language to communicate with each other in real time exactly as we would in a spoken conversation, without the benefit of reflection and editing.

Seen in this context, it hardly seems so surprising that the written language that's developed over the centuries falls short in certain ways. It's already notoriously bad at rendering many emotions and tones of voice without the use of explanatory words. (I rarely add 'he said sarcastically' or 'he said indignantly' to the end of my spoken sentences, but if someone were to write a novel based on my life, they would have to be included.)

All of these innovations -- acronyms, smilies, abbreviations, unorthodox capitalization and spelling, etc. -- are attempts to transfer the written medium into a new context where it had previously not been possible to use it. That's what I call progress.


----------



## LV4-26

My sister writes Lol in her emails to me (we're  both French and she's (slightly) older than I am.
I've always found it strange. Once, I tried to insert a Lol in one of my replies to her but I never did it again because it felt so odd.
Conversely, I use ^^ or  without any problem.


----------



## Packard

There is no future for LOL.  There is a present and a past.  The term is so over-used and so hackneyed that it has gone beyond cliche to oblivious.  It is there at the end of the post but is has virtually no meaning at all.

I propose a toast for the demise of LOL.  


Cheers! LOL!


----------



## sam's mum

I personally find it difficult to laugh anything other than out loud. Otherwise it's called a smile. So should LOL be shortened to L? Discuss.


----------



## coiffe

I think LOL is here to stay and proliferate for 40 years and not evolve to "L", even though you'll see just about anything in texting -- brb, bbiab, idk, idc, afk, wtf ....... it's here to stay. I don't know anyone who speaks it aloud, but in texting, it's here to stay. Maybe there is an auditory class that stabilizes and perpetuates the form. "SOL" hasn't changed, "EOL" hasn't changed, and maybe even "ROI" is in the same class. Maybe "DUI" too. Although these latter aren't just text, the human brain may class them all together. "ROFL" is semantically in the same class but it's not three letters, so I don't think it gets class support. But as the others are members of a class, so to speak, I think they'll be around for a long time. After all, even "SOS" is still around.


----------



## sam's mum

I have no idea what all these things mean! (apart from _SOS)_ _SWALK _and _NORWICH _is about all I remember!


----------



## loladamore

Whilst admittedly much shorter than "laughing out loud", LOL is not much shorter than "haha", is it? I wonder why it became so popular?
The idea of saying LOL instead of actually laughing seems ridiculous, but then again, we do sometimes say "Ha ha" instead of actually laughing. Hmm. There seems to be no need for it in spoken English but that has never stopped language change before, has it. We have plenty of new words we don't "need".

I'm sure LOL has a long life ahead in written texts and it remains to be seen as to what impact it will have on spoken English, or indeed, on other languages where, it seems, people are already familiar with and use LOL on t'internet.


----------



## ewie

Packard said:


> I propose a toast for the demise of LOL.
> 
> Cheers! LOL!


 
_clink!_

I wish you hadn't started us on this, CathyR, I could go on for hours. LMFAO. [see *HERE*]
What I dislike about it so much (ok: _one of the things_) is that's such a *lie*. If, every time someone typed or texed _LOL_, they *really were laughing out loud*, the world would be _such_ a jolly jolly place, the atmosphere would be thick with the constant sound of laughter.
The next time you're in a public place and you see some young whippersnapper hunched over his mobile with a face like Boris Karloff On A Bad Day, you can almost be certain he'll be typing _LOL ..._


----------



## sokol

Incidentally, do you all know that you English already have infested the whole of Europe (would be my guess) with your LOL?

I fear it is quite impossible to get rid of it now, it's too late for that. And even if you'd ever manage (not very likely) to ban this non-word from English it might be borrowed back into English from another language.

So I think yes, LOL seems to be here to stay.
(And that's different with other elements of internet and chat speak which might be the rage for a few months, or even years, and then quickly are forgotten; LOL has been around much too long to go this way, I think.)


----------



## Toadie

loladamore said:


> Whilst admittedly much shorter than "laughing out loud", LOL is not much shorter than "haha", is it? I wonder why it became so popular?
> The idea of saying LOL instead of actually laughing seems ridiculous, but then again, we do sometimes say "Ha ha" instead of actually laughing. Hmm. There seems to be no need for it in spoken English but that has never stopped language change before, has it. We have plenty of new words we don't "need".
> 
> I'm sure LOL has a long life ahead in written texts and it remains to be seen as to what impact it will have on spoken English, or indeed, on other languages where, it seems, people are already familiar with and use LOL on t'internet.


You're 100% correct, that it's not harder at all to type "haha" instead of "lol", but like others have said, "lol" does not usually mean that you are literally laughing.  It's word thrown in for emphasis, and cannot usually be defined.  It's gotten to be very similar to the word "like".  It's something that you just get used to using.  It doesn't mean anything, most of the time, but once you get used to using it, it is literally difficult to leave it out.


On the topic of pronunciation and using it in spoken language, lots of people at my school say "lawl".  I've noticed on German Counter-Strike servers that people often write it "löl".  That just goes to show that more and more people are not thinking of it as "laugh out loud", but its own word with its own meaning.  The O is changed to Ö because that's how it's pronounced.


----------



## Anathulia

The use of LOL is acceptable in emails and text messages. However, I think that there is no place for this expression in any form of academic writing. I agree with Packard that this term is extremely overused. I also think that this term should stay as a form of communication between friends. Just imagine a corporate email with the term 'LOL' in its contents!


----------



## Toadie

Definitely.  Kind of like how you wouldn't say "like" every 5 words in a corporate email


----------



## loladamore

That's interesting about *löl*, Toadie. It seems that it's *ΛΟΛ* in Greek, *лол* in Russian and *是* in Chinese, but I could be wrong there.
Does anyone know if the lol here is the kind we are discussing? I can't make much sense of the rest of it, I'm afraid.

I hadn't realised it was so widespread! Definitely here to stay, then.


----------



## sokol

loladamore said:


> That's interesting about *löl*, Toadie.



May I intervene here?
Usually LOL in German is pronounced /lol/*), no 'ö' involved. Some of my fellow Austrians however, as our nation begins with an 'ö' in German, like to convert it into /löl/ to remind our fellow German foreros and chatters that German is not spoken in Germany only (or that Austrians too are people; or something like that - is a little bit like with the British and Americans, or Scots and the English).

I've never seen a German using 'löl', to me this is purely Austrian, and only used by some while the majority might use 'lol' here in Austria too, for all I know.

*) Not that is actually pronounced very often. As in English, LOL mainly is used in its written form, but occasionally also may be spoken.


----------



## HistofEng

I lot of people on the internet are now saying "lolz" and a variation of that, "lulz" to pluralize it.


----------



## coiffe

sokol said:


> May I intervene here?
> Usually LOL in German is pronounced /lol/*), no 'ö' involved. Some of my fellow Austrians however, as our nation begins with an 'ö' in German, like to convert it into /löl/ to remind our fellow German foreros and chatters that German is not spoken in Germany only (or that Austrians too are people; or something like that - is a little bit like with the British and Americans, or Scots and the English).
> 
> I've never seen a German using 'löl', to me this is purely Austrian, and only used by some while the majority might use 'lol' here in Austria too, for all I know.
> 
> *) Not that is actually pronounced very often. As in English, LOL mainly is used in its written form, but occasionally also may be spoken.



löl -- I don't know whether to laugh or scream. I guess I'll just say ... LOL


----------



## bibliolept

I must be a snob, then. I honestly think that I can count on the fingers of one drunken wood-shop teacher's hand the number of times I've used either LOL or a smilie. From my perspective, using those symbols is a sign of defeat, an admission that I was unable to make my meaning clear using words.


----------



## Toadie

That's odd, because I don't think I've ever played on an Austrian server in Counter-Strike, and I've known some Germans (and really known that they were German) that have said "löl".


----------



## Packard

*löl 
*
It looks like a dog. Two eyes. A nose. And floppy ears. This is not a "LOL", this is an illustration.


----------



## ewie

loladamore said:


> Does anyone know if the lol here is the kind we are discussing? I can't make much sense of the rest of it, I'm afraid.
> 
> I hadn't realised it was so widespread! Definitely here to stay, then.


Hi Lola.  Yes, I have it on good authority that that is indeed a genuine _LOL_.  The page is 'a Persian blog where everything is in Persian (Farsi) except the word "lol" in front of a funny title which means "different brides, different reactions".'  
I had no idea it was that widespread either ~ I suppose this bodes well for its future (regardless of how that might strike you).


----------



## Cathy Rose

Ewie, dear, please, not in front of the children. It only encourages them.  This thread should die a natural death. RIP.  (Is that allowed?)


----------



## sokol

Toadie said:


> That's odd, because I don't think I've ever played on an Austrian server in Counter-Strike, and I've known some Germans (and really known that they were German) that have said "löl".


Counter-Strike is a gamer community - I am not active there (or any similar pages), LÖL might be an inside joke there, or whatever.
What I am absolutely sure though is that I _personally _never encountered a German using it.



Cathy Rose said:


> Ewie, dear, please, not in front of the children. It only encourages them.  This thread should die a natural death. RIP.  (Is that allowed?)


I second that!

Please Rest In Peace, and leave it at that, or else this thread might develop in a promoting-the-use-of-LOL-(alternatively-LÖL) thread, and we hardly want that, now do we?


----------



## ewie

Like a dog returning to its own vomit

_no, ewie, leave it_


----------



## Phil-Olly

I've always understood this as an instruction:

"Go on - laugh out loud.  Admit it, it's funny, isn't it?  You may be reading this text in a public library, but what the heck!  LOL!!"


----------



## katie_here

Does this word travel over languages, like the word Ok!.   Do non english speakers use it?


----------



## Grop

Hello, I don't remember if that was said earlier, but this word is present in French too. As Ewie suggested in post 2, it may express embarassement instead of "how funny".

(Of course this is only used in written form, and often considered as uneducated teenager's talk).


----------



## gasman

and I always thought it meant "lots of luck" sarcastically!


----------



## Toadie

katie_here said:


> Does this word travel over languages, like the word Ok!.   Do non english speakers use it?


Yes, many speakers of other languages use "lol", although not nearly as many as English speakers.


----------



## gaer

I realize that I am very late in this discussion, but I do use "LOL" (when answering) when something I have just read makes me explode with laughter while sitting in front of the computer screen.


----------



## Packard

*Background and Context:*

I avoided using "fax" for many years and always referred to "faxes" as "facsimiles", and the machines as "facsimile machines".  I stopped using "facsimile" when it caused more confusion than it was worth (by which time fax machines were nearly obsolete).

"Fax" is clearly a part of the English language.

But what of "LOL"?  It is nearly universally understood, and when I Googled "LOL" I got 325,000,000 hits (vs. 625,000,000 for "fax").


*Question:*

I can avoid "LOL" almost indefinitely (unlike "fax" which is part of the business language), but is "LOL" a legitimate part of the English language now much as "fax" is?


----------



## L. T. Gray

Hi Packard! I'd say that there's at least a few respects in which LOL isn't legitimate English in the way that "fax" is. The big one is that LOL is, to the best of my knowledge, almost never used in speech, unless the speaker is being ironic. In fact, I'd speculate that it may never become a real, serious  spoken word since it serves no purpose in a spoken conversation: if you find something funny, you can _actually laugh out loud_, and you don't need an acronym* to tell the other person that you just did. Even if LOL becomes part of spoken slang, it'll never rise to the heights of mainstream acceptance enjoyed by, say, "cool".

*If you want to be a purist, LOL is an initialism, unless you actually pronounce it _Lowell_.


----------



## xqby

What do you mean by "legitimate"? Clearly people do use and understand the acronym; beyond that I'm not sure what you're trying to discuss here.



L. T. Gray said:


> In fact, I'd speculate that it may never become a real, serious spoken word since it serves no purpose in a spoken conversation: if you find something funny, you can _actually laugh out loud_, and you don't need an acronym* to tell the other person that you just did.


 
I'm sure I've heard it said before. "I loled when he sent me that picture." Something of the sort.


----------



## Doofy

My sympathies on "fax."  I never used "facsimile," but to be contrarian, I specified that my cover sheet did not count in the total number of pages faxed. 

I agree it is not logical for LOL to become a spoken word, but I wouldn't bet against it.  I've heard people say "LOL" as a joke, but I can see it becoming more widely adopted...maybe even with a subversive meaning like, "I'm laughing even though that's not really funny."  In the early going, Internet coinages seem pretty insistent...As in the "L337" phenomenon, users will intentionally use a once hip but now outdated word/spelling to show they are hip!


----------



## ewie

Moderator thing: Hello, Mr.P.  I've merged your thread with an old one on the subject, which I'm sure I hope you'll find enlightening exhausting edifying useful in some way.  Of course, reading all the previous posts isn't _obligatory_ in any way, but folks might like to do so anyway.


----------



## Packard

xqby said:


> What do you mean by "legitimate"? ...


 
For starters you don't get your post deleted by a mod for writing "LOL" (which can still happen today--but not to me LOL!!!)


----------



## L. T. Gray

xqby said:


> I'm sure I've heard it said before. "I loled when he sent me that picture." Something of the sort.



Good point. When I wrote my post I was thinking of LOL as an interjection rather than a verb. 



xqby said:


> What do you mean by "legitimate"? Clearly people do  use and understand the acronym; beyond that I'm not sure what you're  trying to discuss here.


 
I can't speak for Packard, but by "legitimate" I'm not talking about "good" or "bad", I'm just talking about the extent to which LOL is lexicalized--that is, the extent to which it's integrated into English _as a word_, the way fax, scuba, and radar are. And I do think that, um, wordhood is a matter of degree... but I won't derail this thread with my pontifications on linguistics.


----------



## Packard

L. T. Gray said:


> ... but I won't derail this thread with my pontifications on linguistics.


 
We live for pontification within these fora--where else could we behave like this?

I am not saying that LOL is good or bad, as you noted, but that is belongs in the dictionary, and whether we like the term or not we accept it as a "word" (perhaps considered slang or sub-standard).


----------

