# urbandictionary.com



## Alxmrphi

I have noticed some stuff (only thing I can name here now is this thread) ..
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=223523

Well, my point is, what is this forum (all of us)'s view on this site, if we do not allow chatspeak and shorthand, and proper English is always called for, then can we allow an explanation to be valid if an entry appears on a site like urbandictionary.com

It has entries like "dis" meaning "this", and by no stretch of the imagination is it standard English.

We can rule out any validations anyone might claim to be "usable" English here, that comes from this website or one similar.

Right?


----------



## lsp

With the proliferation of American pop culture exports, people hear and need explanations for things that often can only be found there.


----------



## maxiogee

Alex_Murphy said:


> Well, my point is, what is this forum (all of us)'s view on this site, if we do not allow chatspeak and shorthand,



Check out the sticky at the top of the EO thread.

"For the English Only forum, chatspeak and SMS abbreviations are forbidden, 
other than as topics of discussion. Do not write "u" for "you" etc. Members 
are required to make their best attempt to write in standard English in this forum. "​
I think that the "topic for discussion" covers it.


----------



## Chazzwozzer

Alex_Murphy said:


> I have noticed some stuff (only thing I can name here now is this thread) ..
> http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=223523
> 
> Well, my point is, what is this forum (all of us)'s view on this site, if we do not allow chatspeak and shorthand, and proper English is always called for, then can we allow an explanation to be valid if an entry appears on a site like urbandictionary.com
> 
> It has entries like "dis" meaning "this", and by no stretch of the imagination is it standard English.
> 
> We can rule out any validations anyone might claim to be "usable" English here, that comes from this website or one similar.
> 
> Right?


Since when "What's up?" is classified as chatspeak and threated as OMG, cuz, 2nite etc.?

If another way of expressing ROFL was asked and it was discussed, well, you'd be right, I might say. (Still, I believe discussing but not using them would be OK, since every learner of English should possibly see them on the Internet. I mean this. )

Urban Dictionary provides useful definition of words and phrases used in daily life. They don't neologise or make up phrases, they simply define already existent slang/informal terms. (Not only in English, even! It helped me for Romanian the other day. See here.)

It's not if they are "usable", but if they are "used"

I saw "dis" and "dat" were being used by some natives on the Internet, so what I should have done was simply to go and check for the meaning on Urban Dictionary. I learned what they meant but never used. It's simple as that.


----------



## maxiogee

Chazzwozzer said:


> Urban Dictionary provides useful definition of words and phrases used in daily life. They don't neologise or make up phrases, they simply define already existent slang/informal terms.



Well, we'll see.
The entries for UrbanDictionary are provided by ordinary people, just like us - folks with web-access. That's all the credentials they have.

I've submitted a word which I came up with a few years ago and will see what happens. Only myself and a handful of e-friends use it … at the moment  so we'll see if it is accepted.


----------



## Chazzwozzer

maxiogee said:


> Well, we'll see.
> The entries for UrbanDictionary are provided by ordinary people, just like us - folks with web-access. That's all the credentials they have.


I would never expect street words being defined by Oxford editors because they are not those who use these words but ordinary people. Just because they are provived by ordinary people like us, does it mean we should never trust their definitions? It sounds absurd since we're also one of them here after all.



maxiogee said:


> I've submitted a word which I came up with a few years ago and will see what happens. Only myself and a handful of e-friends use it … at the moment  so we'll see if it is accepted.


Well, Tony, I don't get why you want to prove this. I mean what happens if they publish it and what happens if they don't? Then will you say: "See! Urban Dictionary published my neologism, so Chazz is wrong! We should never trust that site" or "Oh, man! They didn't accept that, so we can fully trust them." Either makes no sense, sorry.
By the way:
Urban Dictionary - Terms of Service
_Should Urban Dictionary suspect that a user has submitted misleading, incomplete, libelous, slanderous, or deliberately inaccurate information, Urban Dictionary reserves the right to prevent that user from submitting further definitions._


----------



## cuchuflete

Alex_Murphy said:


> Well, my point is, *what is this forum (all of us)'s view on this site*, if we do not allow chatspeak and shorthand, and proper English is always called for, then *can we allow an explanation to be valid* if an entry appears on a site like urbandictionary.com



That site, which I often use and sometime quote, is simply a collection of user opinions.  I've put a few definitions in there myself.

Some of the material is useful; some is utter nonsense.  It's one of thousands of resources we can consult, hopefully with our eyes open.   Validity is neither supported nor opposed because something is published at that site.

I've seen mistakes in supposedly 'authoritative' sites as well.
There is no need for any official or even informal WR posture about the urban dict.  Use it if it's helpful to you.  Sometimes take what you see there with a grain of salt.

The total lack of stylistic limitations at another site has nothing whatsoever to do with the way we conduct discussions here.


----------



## Alxmrphi

What people have seemed to attack me for here, is bashing this site as useless, of course I think it is an important site, to help people like Saoul with his job etc etc!! Of course it is

My complaint was..

If someone asked for other ways to ask "What's up".... and someone entered in a dictionary entry, that was disagreed with, but credited as being true, by a site that qualifies "dis" as a subsequent translation for "this"... how would we all feel, I totally disagree with the previous topic (as I've made known) but just because an entry was posted (Chazzwozzer, this isn't about just you, no offense at all to you! This is just an example) but posting and challenging a natives arguements based on the content of this chatspeak website..... we can't allow this to enter in as English we accept on an English only forum... you know we just can't!!!!!!

(I am not saying it is a great source of help to _*some*_ people who come here, but not the majority by any stretch of the imagination)

- Alex.


----------



## Kelly B

I'm not quite certain that I understand the question, but I'll try to answer anyway. Please let me know if I've missed the point.

It is fine to explain or suggest slang or colloquial expressions, _if _that is clearly what the question writer would like to know. _How can I sound like a native/what would a native say?_ is not the same question as _What is the right way to say it/How should I answer this on an English test? _Both kinds of questions are valid, and deserve discussions and answers. Slang and colloquialisms are interesting topics of discussion.

In the thread you chose as an example, I think your objection to the answers from the urban dictionary was very useful. This is _not _because slang answers aren't allowed, but rather because I, like you, wouldn't interpret those expressions the same way that dictionary explained them. Maybe the dictionary is right for certain regions, but the expressions couldn't be used that way everywhere.

You should not, however, use obviously non-standard English as a writing style for general topics. This means that writing a post this way is not acceptable:

wassup, newbie? my answer to u on dis question about dat english word is 
[... ]
u r welcome, ur buddy Alex

If a non-native speaker is not specifically asking about slang, then the reply should be as close to proper English as you are able to achieve, given your language level (and your typing skill).


----------



## Alxmrphi

Yes, that is basically the point, I was thinking of it in the way that opening a post or replying to a proper English question, and then saying

"What you on?" .. I think this... blah blah blah...

And then defending that it's right to say "What you on?" as another way of saying "What's up?/How are you?" because it is on a slang dictionary.

I was just wondering if there was a consensus between the mods on if this is allowed or not?

I'm not being too petty am I? Honest answers please.


----------



## lsp

I see its value in explaining what an unfamiliar slang term means, not to offer ways to express ideas in slang. Does that speak to your point, Alex?


----------



## Jana337

Alex,

I do not moderate in EO but let me tell you what is common in the German forum, for example: Whenever someone comes up with a slang translation without an appropriate warning, others immediately point out that it is not standard German and that a learner should ignore it unless he/she is advanced enough to be interested in slang. I think this is fair towards learners. They are tested on standard German, and we do not want to confuse them, do we? I would be quite unhappy if someone claimed that a term was standard German just because it is on a slang dictionary that anyone can edit.

Needless to say, threads dedicated to slang terms are welcome. There is no danger for the learners as long as they know what is going on.

Consensus: We have never tried to hammer out a consensus but I believe that the above is just common sense. Moreover, when I correct your "what you on", "should of" and "aswel" (I know, they cannot all be labelled "slang"), I am acting as a forera, not as a moderator. Corrections are not a part of my job description.

Jana


----------



## Alxmrphi

Yeah but you like to be helpful, and give me exercises to try and better my Italian, that is not part of your job description but a glimpse into your personality, which is very nice.

I just checked... when did it get moved to EO? It started in IE.. I get emails and link through there to the thread, I didn't realise it was in EO.

But, what you said.. this..


> Whenever someone comes up with a slang translation without an appropriate warning, others immediately point out that it is not standard German and that a learner should ignore it unless he/she is advanced enough to be interested in slang. I think this is fair towards learners. They are tested on standard German, and we do not want to confuse them, do we? I would be quite unhappy if someone claimed that a term was standard German just because it is on a slang dictionary that anyone can edit.



This is absolutely exactly what I am talking about, fine and fair, nothing wrong with a bit of slang, but for others who might (in a formal situation) say a slang thing, thinking it is proper English, that was my concern.


----------



## Chazzwozzer

Alex_Murphy said:


> If someone asked for other ways to ask "What's up".... and someone entered in a dictionary entry, that was disagreed with, but credited as being true, by a site that qualifies "dis" as a subsequent translation for "this"...


Not subsequent translation, but slang way of saying this as everyone can clearly see on the top of the site: "Urban Dictionary is a slang dictionary with your definitions." It's not just _this _either. It also means "to disrespect" which I rarely hear on TV shows and learnt its meaning on Urban Dictionary. Since you've always exmplified "dis" I think you should check this out:


> It's American, black English slang really, and it's been around since about 1980. And what's happened, it's come to be used as a full verb. You can say now 'I dissed him' - to diss, I dissed him - or 'stop dissing her'. And that's the interesting thing, that it's the prefix that's become the verb! It's a most remarkable development.
> -Professor David Crystal


 Never used instead, but would never confuse when somebody used. I learnt it long time ago on Urban Dictionary. Now do I make myself clear about it?




Alex_Murphy said:


> how would we all feel, I totally disagree with the previous topic (as I've made known) but just because an entry was posted (Chazzwozzer, this isn't about just you, no offense at all to you! This is just an example) but posting and challenging a natives arguements based on the content of this chatspeak website..... we can't allow this to enter in as English we accept on an English only forum... you know we just can't!!!!!!
> 
> (I am not saying it is a great source of help to _*some*_ people who come here, but not the majority by any stretch of the imagination)


Alex, I think you've missed a point. Urban Dictionary is not a "chatspeak website" it's a "slang dictionary". Why don't you just go and check "chatspeak" on Urban Dictionary and see what they think?


> A disgrace to the English language.





> Chatspeak, aka netspeak. This is a form of speech in which one shortens words and replaces the letter "s" with the letter "z" in an effort to save time and look cool. Chatspeakers also rarely use capitalization or correct punctuation.
> 
> Chatspeakers are generally looked down on by people who can actually spell and who have enough self-respect to type out a real sentence.
> 
> Chatspeak can never be considered 'literate.'


I believe Urban Dictionary would be very helpful to any non-native who knows nothing about chatspeak and abbreviations, which you hate, when reading a post of yours, like this:


Alex_Murphy said:


> that's where all those stupid (IMHO) entries from urbandictionary come from






Alex_Murphy said:


> This is absolutely exactly what I am talking about, fine and fair, nothing wrong with a bit of slang, but for others who might (in a formal situation) say a slang thing, thinking it is proper English, that was my concern.


On the thread about "What's up", this was what I said:


> I think you can also say "What you on?" and "What it do/does?" which are very coloquial.


 And it was yours:


> How be you today? (very coloquial)


 I posted these two because I've heard it used by my American friends several times. I also pointed out that they are coloquial just like you did. Then you quoted my post and:


> These are not other ways of saying "What's up?"


 Until you said that, I didn't check Urban for these two expressions because I was already told that they were "What's up?" by my friends. What should have I done else when you claimed they were wrong? Of course I gave you the links to Urban. This was one of them and if you had checked, you would have known that it was actually used in the States and meant "What's up?". You might have never heard it as a British, but this does not mean it is wrong and even while you say _How be you today?_ can mean What's up, which I cannot even find a definition or etymology about neither on Urban nor on Google. Aren't you concerned if someone uses How be you today? in his formal speech?

Please don't get me wrong and tell me if I've said something wrong, it's just how I can clear myself best with my not-so-well English. I've always valued and respected your contributions to the forums, but this time unfortunately I disagree.

P.S: I actually deleted this post and sent it via PM, then Alex and I decided to publish the messages here so that people can see it has ended.

Ekin


----------



## Alxmrphi

Wow, you absolutely tore my arguement apart!
 I am amazed, your post was so well written, and I can happily say, you are right and I am wrong.

 I now see where you are coming from, through your explanation of course, as you can probably see why I thought I was right, if someone read those other expressions there and posted it as a guess at a possible other way to say "what's up?", which wasn't the case.

 Good work!


----------



## Chazzwozzer

I'm happy that this case is ended, at least for me and Alex, I'd also like to thank Alex for being such a nice and smart guy.

Ekin


----------

