I think it's fair to say that you could hear the collective roar of disapproval all the way from Croydon to Enfield and from Hillingdon to Havering as "thang", "Wiki", "grrl", "aloo" and "innit" were unveiled recently as the latest additions to the Collins Scrabble Dictionary. Linguistic mutability rarely causes such commotion. However, beyond the complaints about whether the terms above are mispronunciations or genuine neologisms, the stench of snobbery was so strong that it almost made me pass out when I read the news.
As a relatively newcomer to Scrabble - and irregular player to boot - I can't see what the fuss is about. The game is democracy at work. For starters it's not about how well you know your Thesaurus but how well you take advantage of the premium squares. That's why I, a non-native, can give a person born and bred in the UK a run for his or her money. Secondly, although proper nouns are not allowed, words that have other uses as common nouns are, for instance "John" and "john" (loo).
With this linguistic laxity in place, you would have thought that Scrabblists (did I just make up that word? Can I use it in my next game?) wouldn't think much of terms like "thang, "grrl" and "innit". But no, a fuss has been kicked up. Albeit a quiet one like when someone lets one drop on a crammed lift and all eyes alight politely and silently on the bald, portly, scruffy, short bloke when all the time it was the lady with the Dior dress and the Jimmy Choos who's stunk up the vertical transport. It's not just hoi polloi who fart, you know.
However, I can, up to a certain extent, understand the outcry about "thang" and "grrl". In the case of the former, what's to stop someone from taking this neologism to its next logical conclusion: "thingy". Six letters instead of five; we're talking triple-word squares here. With "grrl", the situation is more complicated. How do we know it's two "Rs" and not three or four? How about if someone like me, who is in the habit of rolling his "Rs" extends the number of letters to seven? That's all my tiles gone in one go.
With "innit", though, there should be space for more leniency. After all, this phrase (derived from "ain't it?") acts as a common denominator, a linguistic peace-keeper that comes to our aid whenever we forget what verb to use at the end of a sentence, as in "he comes everyday, doesn't he?", instead of "is he?", which wouldn't make sense. "Innit" solves that problem. Besides, it's the English response to the French "n'est-ce pas?" and the German "wahr nicht?". "Innit" is a social leveller.
But, obviously, because it's the province of the young and the great unwashed, it should be ignored. Well, I'll tell you what, I'll be using it next time I play Scrabble. Especially if I'm lumped with a "u" and an "x", as I have been in the past, much too often. After all, how many chances do you ever get to accommodate the word "uxorious" across the board?
© 2011
Next Post: “Sunday Mornings: Coffee, Reflections and Music”, to be published on Sunday 19th June at 10am (GMT)
If language doesn't change it dies.
ReplyDeleteEven language purists may shake that thang--when no one's looking.
Hello from South Beach . . .
I played a "pirate" game of scrabble once that consisted only of arrrrr and garrrrr and yarrrrr. You could put down as many rrrs as you had or wanted. Very fun. I've never heard of grrl or innit, but figured them out as I read your post. Hmmm, I say Hmmm. Well, if it scores more points. I like what Mim says. ;-)
ReplyDeleteI'm forwarding this post to all my Scrabble loving friends! We're hooked over here with a game on our Android phones called Wordfeud.
ReplyDeleteYou are always so clever my friend. Plus you always manage to put a smile on my face.
ReplyDeleteI stopped playing Scrabble years ago because my Mom is a killer-Scrabble (and Trivial Pursuit) player, hauling out obscure words that, when we rushed to the OED to challenge her were there, in black-and-white, for all to see. BUt, with words like "innit" and "Grrrrl" (yes, I added in the extra R's!) in my cache, this post has inspired me to challenge her again! :)
ReplyDeleteJudy, South Africa
Oooh, maybe it's time to get back into Scrabble again. I used to be like Judy's mom, but maybe my Scrabble friends have forgotten?
ReplyDeleteBelieve you me. I can't wait to test other players' patience when I place my five tiles across the Scrabble board spelling out the word "innit". And all legit, guv, right?
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments.
Greetings from London.
As an absolute avid Scrabblist I am wholy in favour of new words being added to our repertoire for the board - plus of course it proves that the language is so alive (ps I have only played once in Spanish and although I won I had the most awful brain ache and migraine after which proves that i am nowhere near being bilingual) How do you feel playing in Spanish and English?? Greetings from Mexico
ReplyDeleteI am not a native English speaker, but I have been taught in English right from primary school. Almost twenty-eight years of listening, speaking, reading and writing a language has made me quite proficient. I'm all for English being adaptive and inclusive, but "grrl"? I really have my reservations against this one.
ReplyDeleteI've always thought 'innit?' was the contracted form of 'isn't it?' and I notice (though I wouldn't say I mind!) when I hear it used in contexts where the longer form wouldn't be appropriate. But maybe that's just me.
ReplyDeleteAs for Scrabble, I understand why they have to update the dictionary to move with the times, but I do think they should consider whether the letters need re-valuing now that a V (which participates in precisely no two-letter words) is harder to play than an X (which may be used in AX, EX, XI, OX, or XU depending on your vowel of choice...)
Great post, Cuban. Yes, our language is ever-changing. I'd love to have been a fly on the wall when the linguists argued and philosophised about the new dictionary additions.
ReplyDeleteRachel, you're right, or, should I say half right. Because 'innit' was originally the contraction for "ain't it" which was the shorter form of "isn't it". However, according to what I've been told and what I've read "innit" stopped applying just to "isn't it" and became the shorter version of "hasn't it" as in: "He's got the dough, hasn't he?" ("He has the dough, ain't he?").
ReplyDeleteAnyway, as a non-native speaker, it's always hard to know what's right and what's wrong. I just go with the flow. :-)
Many thanks to you all for your comments.
Greetings from London.