McDonald’s seems to have prevailed in turning dictionaries from descriptive to descriptive-of-only-what-we-want, by getting Merriam-Webster to drop the term “McJobs” — at least from its list of new words in the new edition of the dictionary.
I’m torqued by McDonald’s here. I’m really torqued at M-W.
(via BoingBoing)
78 view(s)
An update at BoingBoing:
Terry sent a letter to the dictionarians and got this back: “You’ll be glad to know that we have not removed the entry for McJob from Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition (which is available on-line by subscription at http://www.Merriam-WebsterCollegiate.com). Although we did alter some marketing text on our main Web site that quoted the entry, the dictionary itself remains unchanged.”
I’m pleased by that, but still unhappy that the “marketing text” was changed under McD’s pressure.
The sad thing in all of this is the fact that McD’s failed to understand the concept of “Common Usage”. They may be able to sue and keep people from putting the word “McJob” in the dictionary, but there is nothing they can do to stop the “Common Usage” of the Word. The Meaning is already out there and is understood throughout the nation (and maybe internationally as well).
Besides, the only thing worse then a “McJob” is a “Wall-MartJob” (I should go and trademark that).
M-W reasserts it’s not dropping the definition from its dictionary.
The article also notes:
McJob” is similarly defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary and Webster’s Dictionary, published by Random House.
The OED definition, which cites a 1986 story in The Washington Post, is: “An unstimulating, low-paid job with few prospects, esp. one created by the expansion of the service sector.”
Now, are they going to put it back up on their web page?
(via BoingBoing)
Postscript: McJobs
På måndag förmiddag den 10 november såg jag notiserna om att McDonald’s protesterat mot att amerikanska lexikon-utgivaren Merriam-Webster’s tagit med…