>>353>A language, its rules and words should be determined by the collective people who use it and not by academic institutions and scholars>FUCK OXFORD DICTIONARY
The OP is probably gone, someone bumped the thread. The ignorance I see still surprises me. It would have taken OP twenty seconds to look up how dictionaries, especially OED, are constructed.
The OED was a crowd-source attempt to catalogue every word in the English language, its etymology and its use/definition throughout the years. People were asked to send in words, their definitions and the context in which they appear, as well as the written work were they appear. Even today, dictionaries do not dictate how words are used, only dweebs say they do so they can argue semantics. Dictionaries reflect the language in use. For example, Merriam-Webster has "ya'll" in the dictionary because of its widespread use in the southern United States [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/y%27all
], while Oxford English Dictionary has the word "yeet" in it, because people use it/write it [https://www.lexico.com/definition/yeet
>Words do not arise from nothing and neither do their meanings. Linguists and academic definitions of language are used to determine the etymological origin of a word and thus it's original meaning. For a new meaning, a new word based on the rules of alphabets, language and their spelling/grammar a priori.
This "fugg uthority" idea on language is childish liberalism that is completely ignorant on the process of language and definition formation.
This is a bunch of hogwash, because language and its definitions are determined by its speakers/users, not by academics in ivory towers. That poster doesn't know what they're talking about.