What do you think?
Rate this book
Word by Word: The Secret Life of Dictionaries
Goodreads Choice Award
Nominee for Readers' Favorite Nonfiction (2017)Brimming with intelligence and personality, a vastly entertaining account of how dictionaries are made a must read for word mavens.
While most of us might take dictionaries for granted, the process of writing them is in fact as lively and dynamic as language itself. With sharp wit and irreverence, Kory Stamper cracks open the complex, obsessive world of lexicography--from the agonizing decisions about what and how to define, to the knotty questions of usage in an ever-changing language. She explains why small words are the most difficult to define (have you ever tried to define is ?), how it can take nine months to define a single word, and how our biases about language and pronunciation can have tremendous social influence. Throughout, Stamper brings to life the hallowed halls (and highly idiosyncratic cubicles) of Merriam-Webster, a world inhabited by quirky, erudite individuals who quietly shape the way we communicate. A sure delight for all lovers of words, Word by Word might also quietly improve readers grasp and use of the English language."
While most of us might take dictionaries for granted, the process of writing them is in fact as lively and dynamic as language itself. With sharp wit and irreverence, Kory Stamper cracks open the complex, obsessive world of lexicography--from the agonizing decisions about what and how to define, to the knotty questions of usage in an ever-changing language. She explains why small words are the most difficult to define (have you ever tried to define is ?), how it can take nine months to define a single word, and how our biases about language and pronunciation can have tremendous social influence. Throughout, Stamper brings to life the hallowed halls (and highly idiosyncratic cubicles) of Merriam-Webster, a world inhabited by quirky, erudite individuals who quietly shape the way we communicate. A sure delight for all lovers of words, Word by Word might also quietly improve readers grasp and use of the English language."
296 pages, Hardcover
First published March 14, 2017
1104 people are currently reading
34495 people want to read
About the author
Kory Stamper
2 books379 followersKory Stamper is a lexicographer (that is, a writer and editor of dictionaries) at Merriam-Webster (the dictionary). She has written and appeared in the "Ask the Editor" video series at Merriam-Webster, and has traveled around the world giving talks and lectures on language and lexicography. Her writing has appeared in a number of publications, including The Washington Post, The Guardian and The New York Times. A medievalist by training, she knows a number of languages, most of them dead. She drinks more coffee and owns more dictionaries than is good for anyone.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,758 reviews
May 7, 2024
Fascinating and funny. Loved it. 😊
I'm on BookTube again! Come find me at Hello, Bookworm📚🐛
ORIGINAL POST 👇
Click here to watch a video review of on my (old) BookTube channel, From Beginning to Bookend.
For many people, the dictionary is a relic once used by grandparents and is now, in its retirement, relegated to the dishonorable position of dust-covered doorstop. Lexicographers – those quiet, anti-social compilers of dictionaries – are, presumably, a thing of the past. Not so, proclaims Kory Stamper, longstanding lexicographer for Merriam-Webster. In this rousing debut that unveils the complicated craft of defining words and the science of unearthing the etymological origins of their meaning, Stamper proves the dictionary is a lexical reference that’s long been taken for granted.
Stamper sets the tone in her opening chapter, giving readers a first taste of what’s to come: a candid portrayal of the ins and outs of lexicography, delivered with sharp wit and exactitude. Recalling the day she was hired by Merriam-Webster, Stamper invites readers to the hushed confines and inelegant cubicles of the “modest two-story brick building” in Springfield, Massachusetts where word mavens work, in some instances for months at a time, to extricate the definition, pronunciation, and etymological origin of individual words. Such work requires a reverence for the English language not found in the average person.
Lexicographers spend a lifetime swimming through the English language in a way that no one else does; the very nature of lexicography demands it. English is a beautiful, bewildering language, and the deeper you dive into it, the more effort it takes to come up to the surface for air.
Wading through the English language to pinpoint the perfect definition of a word requires a noiseless work environment. The “weird sort of monastic” devotion lexicographers give to the English language, and their hallowed approach to the daily challenges of providing the public with an up-to-date dictionary, lends itself to a work space that demands people speak in whispers and celebrate their lexical triumphs with silent fist pumps. How else, Stamper asks, could a lexicographer be expected to determine the difference between the words measly, small, and teensy?
There’s nothing worse than being just a syllable’s length away from the perfect, Platonic ideal of the definition for “measly,” being able to see it crouching in the shadows of your mind, only to have it skitter away when your co-worker begins a long and loud conversation that touches on the new coffee filters, his colonoscopy, and the chances that the Sox will go all the way this year.
Colonoscopies are just the beginning of Stamper’s comedic contributions. She blends sophistication with humor at every turn, making the act of reading about dictionaries an absolute delight. Stamper was drawn to the life of a lexicographer, she asserts, recounting an incident when she embarrassed her daughter in public:
“Are you taking pictures for work again?”
“Just one.”
“Oh my God,” [my daughter] moaned, “can you ever just, like, live like a normal person?”
“Hey, I didn’t choose the dictionary life – ”
“Just stop – ”
“ – the dictionary life – ”
“MOM –”
“ – chose me,” I finished, and she threw her head back and sighed in exasperation.
Many of Stamper’s amusing asides are delivered as footnotes, such as her reaction to the 1721 edition of Nathaniel Bailey’s An [sic] Universal Etymological English Dictionary, whose subtitle goes on for another two hundred and twenty-two words and garners Stamper’s facetious remark: They sure don’t title dictionaries like they used to.
facetious \ fuh-see-shuh s \ adj: 1: not meant to be taken seriously or literally 2: amusing; humorous 3: lacking serious intent; concerned with something nonessential, amusing, or frivolous.
It stands to reason that a person who specializes in defining words would demonstrate an exemplary understanding of the English language, and Stamper more than proves herself a talented wordsmith. Her use of ten-dollar words is employed in a friendly manner. Some words are defined in the footnotes, while others remain undefined and will, fittingly, send many readers running to the dictionary. While the procedure for compiling defined words into a viable resource is fascinating, Word by Word would not be as entertaining were it not infused with Stamper’s snarky personality.
The work of a lexicographer, however, requires that the person – rather, the lexicographer’s personality – be removed from the equation. “You must set aside your own linguistic and lexical prejudices about what makes a word worthy, beautiful, or right, to tell the truth about language,” Stamper explains, because writing definitions isn’t about making hard and fast rules for a word – as so many people are inclined to think – but rather, it’s an act of recording how words are being used in speech and, more importantly, in publications.
The common misperception that lexicographers are the definitive authority on the English language – whose definitions and pronunciations of words are akin to law ordained by divine beings – has resulted in more than a few letters being sent by confused or outraged individuals to Merriam-Webster’s physical and digital inboxes. Perhaps the most compelling example of this concerns the 2003 release of the Eleventh Collegiate dictionary in which the word “marriage” was redefined to include the sub-sense (a secondary meaning of a word): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage. This new sub-sense was added because in the late 1990’s, when revisions to the Collegiate Dictionary began, the issue of same-sex marriage was widely debated, prevalent not just in speech but also in nearly every major news publication.
Six years after its publication, one person noticed the new sub-sense in the Eleventh Collegiate dictionary’s definition of “marriage,” took offense to it, and launched a fiery write-in campaign that inundated Stamper’s inbox with hundreds of complaints and accusations against Merriam-Webster, along with numerous threats to harm Stamper. These angry letter-writers maintained a strident adherence to the misconception that lexicographers somehow shape language, culture, and religion. Further, they failed to understand that the very act of writing about gay marriage (regardless of the vehemence they assigned to the idea of same-sex couples being legally wed) worked to create citational evidence of the word “marriage” being widely used in relation to gay couples. In other words, the efforts made by the appalled letter-writers indirectly worked to validate that the word “marriage” had, in fact, been due for a revisal of its definition to encompass its many usages.
From dealing with irate letter-writers to spending months teasing out the proper definition of overly complicated words like “is” or “a,” the work of a lexicographer is thankless. Lexicographers don’t have their names assigned to the dictionaries on which they work tirelessly. And the English language, fluid in nature and ever changing, never stops demanding that dedicated word connoisseurs hunch over their desks and puzzle out the most effective definition to encapsulate a words new usage.
When the dictionary finally hits the market, there is no grand party or celebration. (Too loud, too social.) We’re already working on the next update to that dictionary, because language has moved on. There will never be a break. A dictionary is out of date the minute that it’s done.
Word by Word is a sublime romp through the secret life of dictionaries; a guaranteed rapturous read for word lovers, grammar fanatics, and linguists.
-
Kory Stamper makes regular blog posts about language and lexicography on her website.
I'm on BookTube again! Come find me at Hello, Bookworm📚🐛
ORIGINAL POST 👇
Click here to watch a video review of on my (old) BookTube channel, From Beginning to Bookend.
For many people, the dictionary is a relic once used by grandparents and is now, in its retirement, relegated to the dishonorable position of dust-covered doorstop. Lexicographers – those quiet, anti-social compilers of dictionaries – are, presumably, a thing of the past. Not so, proclaims Kory Stamper, longstanding lexicographer for Merriam-Webster. In this rousing debut that unveils the complicated craft of defining words and the science of unearthing the etymological origins of their meaning, Stamper proves the dictionary is a lexical reference that’s long been taken for granted.
Stamper sets the tone in her opening chapter, giving readers a first taste of what’s to come: a candid portrayal of the ins and outs of lexicography, delivered with sharp wit and exactitude. Recalling the day she was hired by Merriam-Webster, Stamper invites readers to the hushed confines and inelegant cubicles of the “modest two-story brick building” in Springfield, Massachusetts where word mavens work, in some instances for months at a time, to extricate the definition, pronunciation, and etymological origin of individual words. Such work requires a reverence for the English language not found in the average person.
Lexicographers spend a lifetime swimming through the English language in a way that no one else does; the very nature of lexicography demands it. English is a beautiful, bewildering language, and the deeper you dive into it, the more effort it takes to come up to the surface for air.
Wading through the English language to pinpoint the perfect definition of a word requires a noiseless work environment. The “weird sort of monastic” devotion lexicographers give to the English language, and their hallowed approach to the daily challenges of providing the public with an up-to-date dictionary, lends itself to a work space that demands people speak in whispers and celebrate their lexical triumphs with silent fist pumps. How else, Stamper asks, could a lexicographer be expected to determine the difference between the words measly, small, and teensy?
There’s nothing worse than being just a syllable’s length away from the perfect, Platonic ideal of the definition for “measly,” being able to see it crouching in the shadows of your mind, only to have it skitter away when your co-worker begins a long and loud conversation that touches on the new coffee filters, his colonoscopy, and the chances that the Sox will go all the way this year.
Colonoscopies are just the beginning of Stamper’s comedic contributions. She blends sophistication with humor at every turn, making the act of reading about dictionaries an absolute delight. Stamper was drawn to the life of a lexicographer, she asserts, recounting an incident when she embarrassed her daughter in public:
“Are you taking pictures for work again?”
“Just one.”
“Oh my God,” [my daughter] moaned, “can you ever just, like, live like a normal person?”
“Hey, I didn’t choose the dictionary life – ”
“Just stop – ”
“ – the dictionary life – ”
“MOM –”
“ – chose me,” I finished, and she threw her head back and sighed in exasperation.
Many of Stamper’s amusing asides are delivered as footnotes, such as her reaction to the 1721 edition of Nathaniel Bailey’s An [sic] Universal Etymological English Dictionary, whose subtitle goes on for another two hundred and twenty-two words and garners Stamper’s facetious remark: They sure don’t title dictionaries like they used to.
facetious \ fuh-see-shuh s \ adj: 1: not meant to be taken seriously or literally 2: amusing; humorous 3: lacking serious intent; concerned with something nonessential, amusing, or frivolous.
It stands to reason that a person who specializes in defining words would demonstrate an exemplary understanding of the English language, and Stamper more than proves herself a talented wordsmith. Her use of ten-dollar words is employed in a friendly manner. Some words are defined in the footnotes, while others remain undefined and will, fittingly, send many readers running to the dictionary. While the procedure for compiling defined words into a viable resource is fascinating, Word by Word would not be as entertaining were it not infused with Stamper’s snarky personality.
The work of a lexicographer, however, requires that the person – rather, the lexicographer’s personality – be removed from the equation. “You must set aside your own linguistic and lexical prejudices about what makes a word worthy, beautiful, or right, to tell the truth about language,” Stamper explains, because writing definitions isn’t about making hard and fast rules for a word – as so many people are inclined to think – but rather, it’s an act of recording how words are being used in speech and, more importantly, in publications.
The common misperception that lexicographers are the definitive authority on the English language – whose definitions and pronunciations of words are akin to law ordained by divine beings – has resulted in more than a few letters being sent by confused or outraged individuals to Merriam-Webster’s physical and digital inboxes. Perhaps the most compelling example of this concerns the 2003 release of the Eleventh Collegiate dictionary in which the word “marriage” was redefined to include the sub-sense (a secondary meaning of a word): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage. This new sub-sense was added because in the late 1990’s, when revisions to the Collegiate Dictionary began, the issue of same-sex marriage was widely debated, prevalent not just in speech but also in nearly every major news publication.
Six years after its publication, one person noticed the new sub-sense in the Eleventh Collegiate dictionary’s definition of “marriage,” took offense to it, and launched a fiery write-in campaign that inundated Stamper’s inbox with hundreds of complaints and accusations against Merriam-Webster, along with numerous threats to harm Stamper. These angry letter-writers maintained a strident adherence to the misconception that lexicographers somehow shape language, culture, and religion. Further, they failed to understand that the very act of writing about gay marriage (regardless of the vehemence they assigned to the idea of same-sex couples being legally wed) worked to create citational evidence of the word “marriage” being widely used in relation to gay couples. In other words, the efforts made by the appalled letter-writers indirectly worked to validate that the word “marriage” had, in fact, been due for a revisal of its definition to encompass its many usages.
From dealing with irate letter-writers to spending months teasing out the proper definition of overly complicated words like “is” or “a,” the work of a lexicographer is thankless. Lexicographers don’t have their names assigned to the dictionaries on which they work tirelessly. And the English language, fluid in nature and ever changing, never stops demanding that dedicated word connoisseurs hunch over their desks and puzzle out the most effective definition to encapsulate a words new usage.
When the dictionary finally hits the market, there is no grand party or celebration. (Too loud, too social.) We’re already working on the next update to that dictionary, because language has moved on. There will never be a break. A dictionary is out of date the minute that it’s done.
Word by Word is a sublime romp through the secret life of dictionaries; a guaranteed rapturous read for word lovers, grammar fanatics, and linguists.
-
Kory Stamper makes regular blog posts about language and lexicography on her website.
July 2, 2018
In 2016 we had a memoir from the chief editor of the OED – The Word Detective – and now here's one from an editor at Merriam-Webster. Truly, dic-lit has never been so popular. Where John Simpson was personable and thorough – if a little sober, perhaps – Kory Stamper is all breathless enthusiasm; at times this means she comes across (quite wrongly) as more ingénue than expert, but she more than makes up for it with several brilliant case studies of how lexicography interacts with real people and a real, changing society.
This book is, I think, the better of the two. When Simpson talked about the challenges of redefining ‘marriage’, he was professionally calm and considered (‘The definition of marriage remains a hotly contested issue, and the lexicographer needs to remain absolutely neutral when crafting a definition…’). But Stamper takes you through not just the lexicographical issues, but also the personal ones – the direct abuse, the stress and anxiety of fielding relentless write-in campaigns from outraged conservatives:
The pitfalls around ‘marriage’ are well-known to people who are into lexicography (a smallish group, admittedly) – more fascinating to me was her revision of the word ‘nude’ following a 2015 BuzzFeed video, ‘Black Women Try "Nude" Fashion’. The sense in question is sense 3 of the online dictionary at Merriam-Webster.com: ‘having the color of a white person's skin’, designed to cover such things as ‘nude’ underwear.
As Stamper says, this wording ‘needlessly racializes something that doesn't need to be racialized’, and the women in the video are quite offended by it. But you can see the problem – it can't simply be written as meaning ‘the colour of a person's skin’ since, as it happens, most of the fashion industry is calibrated to whiteness, and it would be equally offensive to pretend this wasn't the case.
Stamper takes you through the various proposed revisions that went back and forth between her and other editors, along with her frenzied attempts to gather real-world use – snapping photos of nude eyeshadow in the supermarket with her daughter, ploughing through examples on Google Images – until she uncovered plenty of evidence that ‘nude’ can, in fact, often refer to darker skin tones. The final definition is:
This is a really good definition, better than the OED's from 2002 (‘Of a pinkish beige colour; flesh-coloured’), which just shows the importance and the interest in consulting more than one dictionary. Following the long, complicated process by which this def came into being is, for anyone interested in words, fascinating and instructive.
Though I'm not the biggest fan of Merriam-Webster's straight dictionaries, their editorial team has a special place in my heart just because of Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, which is not only by far the best usage guide ever published, it's one of the best books you can get on the English language full stop. Its editor, E. Ward Gilman, turns out to be the man who trained Stamper in the craft of defining. (She calls him Gil! This is the kind of thing that makes me starry-eyed and jealous!) His particular brand of calm, evidence-based descriptivism is an inspiration, and you can see it running through all of the Merriam-Webster output (in contrast to, for instance, the creepy prescriptivism of the American Heritage Dictionary).
Again, Stamper describes her journey towards this understanding in a very personal way, by recalling her reaction, as a newish lexicographer, to an email complaining that the word ‘irregardless’ had been entered into their dictionary.
I don't know if she's exaggerating her surprise for the sake of the anecdote, but it does make a nice starting point for her progression to being America's foremost expert on ‘irregardless’ – she was eventually the one wheeled in front of the camera, and unleashed on social media, to give its history and provenance whenever some new debate about it flared up. On a personal level, she says, she dislikes the word; but professionally speaking, there's no justification whatever for saying that it's not valid, or incorrect, or uneducated. And that's the point.
Outrage about dictionaries generally comes from a misunderstanding over what they do. Most dictionaries aspire to be neutral records of how language is used, whereas a lot of people see them as arbiters of correctness – gatekeepers for what is and is not acceptable. This gets it precisely backwards. If people use something, it will end up in the dictionary whether you think it's ‘illogical’ or ‘offensive’, or ‘a gross error’ or not. Just last month, I see that the OED added entries for ‘cromulent’ and ‘embiggen’, thus somewhat ruining the famous Simpsons joke. (They also created entries for ‘homoromantic’, ‘binge-watch’, ‘impactful’, ‘microaggression’ and ‘upskirt’, among 900 other new additions.)
For anyone looking for an introduction to these ideas, this is the perfect place to start – an entertaining canter through some of the eccentricities of this language, and a great reminder of the human personality and craft behind that dusty old Webster's Third propping your study door open. Irregardless of your views on language, there's a lot to learn here for anyone.
This book is, I think, the better of the two. When Simpson talked about the challenges of redefining ‘marriage’, he was professionally calm and considered (‘The definition of marriage remains a hotly contested issue, and the lexicographer needs to remain absolutely neutral when crafting a definition…’). But Stamper takes you through not just the lexicographical issues, but also the personal ones – the direct abuse, the stress and anxiety of fielding relentless write-in campaigns from outraged conservatives:
I took a deep breath, and began searching through my e-mail replies while half of my brain ran circles around my head, screaming in terror. […] I looked at the very first e-mail that came in after the article ran. It began: “Sirs: Your company decision to change the definition of the word ‘marriage’ to include the same-sex perversion is an utter disgrace.”
The pitfalls around ‘marriage’ are well-known to people who are into lexicography (a smallish group, admittedly) – more fascinating to me was her revision of the word ‘nude’ following a 2015 BuzzFeed video, ‘Black Women Try "Nude" Fashion’. The sense in question is sense 3 of the online dictionary at Merriam-Webster.com: ‘having the color of a white person's skin’, designed to cover such things as ‘nude’ underwear.
As Stamper says, this wording ‘needlessly racializes something that doesn't need to be racialized’, and the women in the video are quite offended by it. But you can see the problem – it can't simply be written as meaning ‘the colour of a person's skin’ since, as it happens, most of the fashion industry is calibrated to whiteness, and it would be equally offensive to pretend this wasn't the case.
Stamper takes you through the various proposed revisions that went back and forth between her and other editors, along with her frenzied attempts to gather real-world use – snapping photos of nude eyeshadow in the supermarket with her daughter, ploughing through examples on Google Images – until she uncovered plenty of evidence that ‘nude’ can, in fact, often refer to darker skin tones. The final definition is:
having a color (such as pale beige or tan) that matches the wearer's skin tones · nude pantyhose · nude lipstick
This is a really good definition, better than the OED's from 2002 (‘Of a pinkish beige colour; flesh-coloured’), which just shows the importance and the interest in consulting more than one dictionary. Following the long, complicated process by which this def came into being is, for anyone interested in words, fascinating and instructive.
Though I'm not the biggest fan of Merriam-Webster's straight dictionaries, their editorial team has a special place in my heart just because of Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, which is not only by far the best usage guide ever published, it's one of the best books you can get on the English language full stop. Its editor, E. Ward Gilman, turns out to be the man who trained Stamper in the craft of defining. (She calls him Gil! This is the kind of thing that makes me starry-eyed and jealous!) His particular brand of calm, evidence-based descriptivism is an inspiration, and you can see it running through all of the Merriam-Webster output (in contrast to, for instance, the creepy prescriptivism of the American Heritage Dictionary).
Again, Stamper describes her journey towards this understanding in a very personal way, by recalling her reaction, as a newish lexicographer, to an email complaining that the word ‘irregardless’ had been entered into their dictionary.
I rolled my eyes: obviously “irregardless” isn't a valid word, and so it wouldn't be entered into our dictionary. This correspondent had clearly just picked up any old crap dictionary, stumbled across an entry for the nonword “irregardless,” and assumed that we were at fault. Totally frustrating.
I drafted a reply that stated it wasn't in the dictionary, and to prove it, you can visit our website and search our online dictionary for the word, where you will find the following note…. Here I needed the language that we used at that point in time when someone looked up a word that wasn't entered in our online dictionary. I opened up the site, typed in “irregardless,” and promptly lost it: “irregardless” was entered in our dictionary. So great was my surprise that I actually said, out loud and at a normal volume, “You have got to be shitting me.”
I don't know if she's exaggerating her surprise for the sake of the anecdote, but it does make a nice starting point for her progression to being America's foremost expert on ‘irregardless’ – she was eventually the one wheeled in front of the camera, and unleashed on social media, to give its history and provenance whenever some new debate about it flared up. On a personal level, she says, she dislikes the word; but professionally speaking, there's no justification whatever for saying that it's not valid, or incorrect, or uneducated. And that's the point.
Outrage about dictionaries generally comes from a misunderstanding over what they do. Most dictionaries aspire to be neutral records of how language is used, whereas a lot of people see them as arbiters of correctness – gatekeepers for what is and is not acceptable. This gets it precisely backwards. If people use something, it will end up in the dictionary whether you think it's ‘illogical’ or ‘offensive’, or ‘a gross error’ or not. Just last month, I see that the OED added entries for ‘cromulent’ and ‘embiggen’, thus somewhat ruining the famous Simpsons joke. (They also created entries for ‘homoromantic’, ‘binge-watch’, ‘impactful’, ‘microaggression’ and ‘upskirt’, among 900 other new additions.)
For anyone looking for an introduction to these ideas, this is the perfect place to start – an entertaining canter through some of the eccentricities of this language, and a great reminder of the human personality and craft behind that dusty old Webster's Third propping your study door open. Irregardless of your views on language, there's a lot to learn here for anyone.
October 31, 2021
I absolutely adored it. It might not be for anyone who doesn't enjoy minutiae or who doesn't have a thing for words, but this was right up my alley.
April 3, 2017
4 stars
This totally satisfied my inner "word-nerd". Lexicographer/Merriam-Webster Dictionary-writer (and blogger/vlogger) Kory Stamper provides, with Word by Word, a humorous and fascinating look at the dying art of dictionary construction. It's not nearly as stuffy and dull as the subject matter might indicate.
This totally satisfied my inner "word-nerd". Lexicographer/Merriam-Webster Dictionary-writer (and blogger/vlogger) Kory Stamper provides, with Word by Word, a humorous and fascinating look at the dying art of dictionary construction. It's not nearly as stuffy and dull as the subject matter might indicate.
May 5, 2020
A priceless weapon in the war against linguistic pedantry. (But not much use to a professional linguist: it's mostly 101 and 201.)
Behold:
~ For fun, I'm going to list here all the words and phrases I've learnt from this book:
chaw
board book
scleroderma
cacafuego
kegger
brownnoser
lickspittle
lexophile
colloq
soap (= soap opera)
tweedy
(at) full tilt
blither
flop sweat
want ad
to deadpan
oriel (window)
echoic
fusty
glut
to bung
the heebie-jeebies
taupe
echoey
bugger all
minyan
sprachgefühl
advisedly
flash-fry
whoop it up
swank
a foil (~ contrast)
go/run to seed
finagle
get bent
whip-smart
cri de coeur
shake out
foofaraw
scare quotes
onymous
chancery
level best
a lick of
like gangbusters
transmission error (= scribal error)
issuance
foreignism
the whole (kit and) caboodle
solecism
ne plus ultra
of-the-moment
snoot (= snob)
poniard
dubiosity
complainant
button it, button your mouth/lip
yap (= mouth)
unthaw
no dice
fustigate
potamology, potamologist
Ebonics
uptalk
bête noire
pre-trial deposition
claims adjuster
cromulent
dog whistle
nebbish
down-home
meet (= suitable)
nutbar
ravening
neck and neck
a gas (= a delight)
epistemophilic
edge out
whiffle
sniffy
chisel in
squidgy
bear out
hazing
logophile
youngie
horndog
muckety-muck
spackle
hot rod
drivetrain
ga(c)k
ho-bag
copy (-> copywriter)
hangnail
fustian
give sb the side-eye
strains [of music]
cover one's ass
lightfaced, lightface
megillah
Do you even English?
oenophile
staying power
snollygoster
trot sth out
jugate
remit (~ designated area of activity)
ostensive definition
snickerdoodle
piece (= female sexual partner)
bupkes
futz
chesterfield
davenport
settee
squab
precis
postpositively <-> prepositively
holdover
wheelhouse
fascinator
scuff
pant-hoot
pack in
miserere
gobs of
tromp
rhadamanthine
vecturist
ticker-tape
put sth to bed
sphygmomanometer
unrufflable
whelp
liner notes
mash note
linguistic reclamation (= reappropriation, resignification)
squonk
all wet
hedge (~ dodge)
gussy (up)
rando
beige (= vanilla)
deep waters
originalism
trick sth out
dickishness
when the rubber meets the road
truck in sth
buck against sth
au courant
blench
wend
beyond the pale
squiggly
arrant
imprimatur
passel
double-dome
pearl clutching
make it snow
have it in for sb
shit/turd-stirrer
burn the biscuits
dope slap
read sth into sth
wevs (= whatever)
obvi (= obviously)
noogie
jimmies
cosset
diddly-squat
herd cats
obelus
metathesis (NB stress)
anecdata
bubba
mush mouth
malamute
be cooking (with gas)
put one's oar in
brainpan
retronym
tired: beat, wiped, whipped, laid out, done in, dead
make the big leagues
hootamaganzy
jerkery
encomium
faff (about/around)
borborygmus
dead-cat bounce
rassle
unkenned
cultivative
that's/them's the breaks
like calls unto like, deep calls unto deep
jiggery-pokery
~ In case the above words haven't been fun enough, Stamper smites with sentences as well:
~ Brethren and sister...n(?) linguists! Have you ever shed blood and tears in the war of prescriptivism against descriptivism?
Well, even if so, you've shed nothing. The mighty go straight for the fire and brimstone:
...
The whole review is here:
https://choveshkata.net/forum/viewtop...
Behold:
~ For fun, I'm going to list here all the words and phrases I've learnt from this book:
chaw
board book
scleroderma
cacafuego
kegger
brownnoser
lickspittle
lexophile
colloq
soap (= soap opera)
tweedy
(at) full tilt
blither
flop sweat
want ad
to deadpan
oriel (window)
echoic
fusty
glut
to bung
the heebie-jeebies
taupe
echoey
bugger all
minyan
sprachgefühl
advisedly
flash-fry
whoop it up
swank
a foil (~ contrast)
go/run to seed
finagle
get bent
whip-smart
cri de coeur
shake out
foofaraw
scare quotes
onymous
chancery
level best
a lick of
like gangbusters
transmission error (= scribal error)
issuance
foreignism
the whole (kit and) caboodle
solecism
ne plus ultra
of-the-moment
snoot (= snob)
poniard
dubiosity
complainant
button it, button your mouth/lip
yap (= mouth)
unthaw
no dice
fustigate
potamology, potamologist
Ebonics
uptalk
bête noire
pre-trial deposition
claims adjuster
cromulent
dog whistle
nebbish
down-home
meet (= suitable)
nutbar
ravening
neck and neck
a gas (= a delight)
epistemophilic
edge out
whiffle
sniffy
chisel in
squidgy
bear out
hazing
logophile
youngie
horndog
muckety-muck
spackle
hot rod
drivetrain
ga(c)k
ho-bag
copy (-> copywriter)
hangnail
fustian
give sb the side-eye
strains [of music]
cover one's ass
lightfaced, lightface
megillah
Do you even English?
oenophile
staying power
snollygoster
trot sth out
jugate
remit (~ designated area of activity)
ostensive definition
snickerdoodle
piece (= female sexual partner)
bupkes
futz
chesterfield
davenport
settee
squab
precis
postpositively <-> prepositively
holdover
wheelhouse
fascinator
scuff
pant-hoot
pack in
miserere
gobs of
tromp
rhadamanthine
vecturist
ticker-tape
put sth to bed
sphygmomanometer
unrufflable
whelp
liner notes
mash note
linguistic reclamation (= reappropriation, resignification)
squonk
all wet
hedge (~ dodge)
gussy (up)
rando
beige (= vanilla)
deep waters
originalism
trick sth out
dickishness
when the rubber meets the road
truck in sth
buck against sth
au courant
blench
wend
beyond the pale
squiggly
arrant
imprimatur
passel
double-dome
pearl clutching
make it snow
have it in for sb
shit/turd-stirrer
burn the biscuits
dope slap
read sth into sth
wevs (= whatever)
obvi (= obviously)
noogie
jimmies
cosset
diddly-squat
herd cats
obelus
metathesis (NB stress)
anecdata
bubba
mush mouth
malamute
be cooking (with gas)
put one's oar in
brainpan
retronym
tired: beat, wiped, whipped, laid out, done in, dead
make the big leagues
hootamaganzy
jerkery
encomium
faff (about/around)
borborygmus
dead-cat bounce
rassle
unkenned
cultivative
that's/them's the breaks
like calls unto like, deep calls unto deep
jiggery-pokery
~ In case the above words haven't been fun enough, Stamper smites with sentences as well:
Lexicography moves so slowly that scientists classify it as a solid.
~ Brethren and sister...n(?) linguists! Have you ever shed blood and tears in the war of prescriptivism against descriptivism?
Well, even if so, you've shed nothing. The mighty go straight for the fire and brimstone:
In a letter to his publisher, E. B. White, the second half of the famous Strunk and White responsible for the best-selling writing guide The Elements of Style, beautifully expresses the modern complaint against descriptivism:I have been sympathetic all along with your qualms about “The Elements of Style,” but I know that I cannot, and will-shall not, attempt to adjust the unadjustable Mr. Strunk to the modern liberal of the English Department, the anything-goes fellow. Your letter expresses contempt for this fellow, but on the other hand you seem to want his vote. I am against him, temperamentally and because I have seen the work of his disciples, and I say the hell with him.
Descriptivists, those anything-goes hippies: we have seen their work, and right-thinking people everywhere say to hell with them.
Now, as a lexicographer, you are one.
...
The whole review is here:
https://choveshkata.net/forum/viewtop...
May 27, 2017
I liked this book a lot, but I do have to admit that it was a dense one and it appeals to a sparse group of people. This book needs to be read slow to be enjoyed in a more satisfying manner . I liked how the author made us feel her love for the English Language and how she applied that to her job as editor of one of the most know dictionaries out here . If you consider yourself a logophile , then this book is definitely for you. Not the most exciting one but full of a minutiae of information that will leave you thinking ... why don't I work there ? .
April 7, 2018
The book you didn't even know you wanted to read! Who would have thought a book about dictionaries and lexicographers could be so completely enjoyable and immensely entertaining! I would not have immediately gravitated to a book like this, imagining that it would be much too dry, and better suited for hard-core word nerds and academics! But when a few GR friends gave it glowing recommendations, using words such as ‘comedic’ , ‘fascinating’, and ‘candid’ in their reviews, I was intrigued. I mean, I hadn’t even heard of the term lexicographer before! I knew I had to AT LEAST read a chapter or two to see what it was all about. I admit I fully expected I’d get bored quickly and figured I’d get a little practice with the art of ‘skimming’. Boy, was I wrong…
The author, Kory Stamper, may be a word-nerd of the highest order, but she's a hip and funny one! She had no qualms (see the fancy word I used there?) poking fun at the lexicographer personality, at amusing origins of words, and at misconceptions around words believed to be ‘made-up’ and as such not belonging in the dictionary.
“Irregardless” is a made-up word that was entered into the dictionary through constant use; that’s pretty much how this racket works. All words are made-up: Do you think we find them fully formed on the ocean floor, or mine for them in some remote part of Wales?
Kory opens the reader’s eyes to the realization that a dictionary is less a judge of ‘good and proper english’ , as it is a living record of the actual words in use in a society, and the varied, ever-changing meanings applied throughout that society’s culture over time.
You can trust the reviews that this book is truly not just for hard-core word-nerds. Anyone with even a mild interest in the English language will enjoy Kory’s entertaining stories from the world of lexicography, and her informal and candid approach.
“Who thought that “pumpernickel” was a good name for a dark rye bread? Because when you trace the word back to its German origins, you find it means “fart goblin,” and now you cannot help but blench and giggle whenever you see pumpernickel.”
While there's a sprinkling of moments that are slower and dig a smidge deeper than you might have wanted to delve into, overall the book's entertaining moments are frequent, and you’ll be surprised when you reach the end that it came upon you so fast.
Audio Notes: Kory narrates the audiobook herself, and does an outstanding job! Her vibrancy and passion shine through in her narration, and you get a wonderful sense of her appreciation for the funnier side of her job and of all things English language in general.
Trigger alert: there are some swear words written/talked about in the book.. Because of course, those same words are in the dictionary too, right ?! :)
The author, Kory Stamper, may be a word-nerd of the highest order, but she's a hip and funny one! She had no qualms (see the fancy word I used there?) poking fun at the lexicographer personality, at amusing origins of words, and at misconceptions around words believed to be ‘made-up’ and as such not belonging in the dictionary.
“Irregardless” is a made-up word that was entered into the dictionary through constant use; that’s pretty much how this racket works. All words are made-up: Do you think we find them fully formed on the ocean floor, or mine for them in some remote part of Wales?
Kory opens the reader’s eyes to the realization that a dictionary is less a judge of ‘good and proper english’ , as it is a living record of the actual words in use in a society, and the varied, ever-changing meanings applied throughout that society’s culture over time.
You can trust the reviews that this book is truly not just for hard-core word-nerds. Anyone with even a mild interest in the English language will enjoy Kory’s entertaining stories from the world of lexicography, and her informal and candid approach.
“Who thought that “pumpernickel” was a good name for a dark rye bread? Because when you trace the word back to its German origins, you find it means “fart goblin,” and now you cannot help but blench and giggle whenever you see pumpernickel.”
While there's a sprinkling of moments that are slower and dig a smidge deeper than you might have wanted to delve into, overall the book's entertaining moments are frequent, and you’ll be surprised when you reach the end that it came upon you so fast.
Audio Notes: Kory narrates the audiobook herself, and does an outstanding job! Her vibrancy and passion shine through in her narration, and you get a wonderful sense of her appreciation for the funnier side of her job and of all things English language in general.
Trigger alert: there are some swear words written/talked about in the book.. Because of course, those same words are in the dictionary too, right ?! :)
June 28, 2021
3.5
Хоть я и фанат словаря Merriam-Webster, я немного разочарована книгой одной из его редакторок (почему-то уверена, что, говори Стэмпер по-русски, она непременно бы использовала феминитивы). Сразу оговорюсь, почему. Мне показалось, что местами она слишком уж пытается подсюсюкнуть массовому читателю фривольным стилем и матерщиной. Я per se не против, но тут уж выглядит, будто автор оправдывается, что пишет словари, и всячески пытается стать своей в доску для простого фермера, который купит их словарь за 26.99.
Тем не менее, есть много интересного!
Например:
— лексикографом в MW может стать любой человек с высшим образованием и родным английским. В команде — историки, биологи, экономисты, математики, библеисты и вообще кого только нет. Лингвистов, говорят, маловато.
— создание словарей — это, в первую очередь, бизнес. Именно в коммерческих целях компания содержит штат людей, которые, едва выпустив одну редакцию словаря, тут же принимаются за новую.
— лексикографы обязаны отвечать на все имейлы с вопросами и комментариями, которые приходят в редакцию (не пишите им, если очень не пригорело)
— писать новую редакцию начинают от буквы Н и далее по ал��авиту: в начале работы ещё не совсем понятен, каким будет стиль, не сформированы гайдлайны, а все рецензенты начитают читать с начала, так что, пока дело дойдёт до А, у лексикографов уже будет выходить ладно и аккуратно))
— лексикографы читают все надписи везде, где только видят — на упаковке хлопьев, на шампуне, на доске объявлений на остановке — и подбирают мусорные рекламные листовки, если там встретилось неожиданное словоупотребление. Тут им от меня high five!
— англоговорящие люди не любят слово moist (yew, moist!), но самую лютую ненависть у многих вызывает слово irregardless — а у Кори есть аргументы в его защиту.
People who visit find it very weird, 'cause it's a whole bunch of people sitting in cubicles very quiet, not talking to each other. Everyone who works there — and everyone who does lexicography — really does it because it's this beautiful puzzle, and you can't do this work and not love English somehow. Otherwise it would just drive you insane, because it's so tedious and so detail-oriented. But we really all sort of have this strong affection for this language that a lot of people feel is really unlovely and unlovable.
Хоть я и фанат словаря Merriam-Webster, я немного разочарована книгой одной из его редакторок (почему-то уверена, что, говори Стэмпер по-русски, она непременно бы использовала феминитивы). Сразу оговорюсь, почему. Мне показалось, что местами она слишком уж пытается подсюсюкнуть массовому читателю фривольным стилем и матерщиной. Я per se не против, но тут уж выглядит, будто автор оправдывается, что пишет словари, и всячески пытается стать своей в доску для простого фермера, который купит их словарь за 26.99.
Тем не менее, есть много интересного!
Например:
— лексикографом в MW может стать любой человек с высшим образованием и родным английским. В команде — историки, биологи, экономисты, математики, библеисты и вообще кого только нет. Лингвистов, говорят, маловато.
— создание словарей — это, в первую очередь, бизнес. Именно в коммерческих целях компания содержит штат людей, которые, едва выпустив одну редакцию словаря, тут же принимаются за новую.
— лексикографы обязаны отвечать на все имейлы с вопросами и комментариями, которые приходят в редакцию (не пишите им, если очень не пригорело)
— писать новую редакцию начинают от буквы Н и далее по ал��авиту: в начале работы ещё не совсем понятен, каким будет стиль, не сформированы гайдлайны, а все рецензенты начитают читать с начала, так что, пока дело дойдёт до А, у лексикографов уже будет выходить ладно и аккуратно))
— лексикографы читают все надписи везде, где только видят — на упаковке хлопьев, на шампуне, на доске объявлений на остановке — и подбирают мусорные рекламные листовки, если там встретилось неожиданное словоупотребление. Тут им от меня high five!
— англоговорящие люди не любят слово moist (yew, moist!), но самую лютую ненависть у многих вызывает слово irregardless — а у Кори есть аргументы в его защиту.
People who visit find it very weird, 'cause it's a whole bunch of people sitting in cubicles very quiet, not talking to each other. Everyone who works there — and everyone who does lexicography — really does it because it's this beautiful puzzle, and you can't do this work and not love English somehow. Otherwise it would just drive you insane, because it's so tedious and so detail-oriented. But we really all sort of have this strong affection for this language that a lot of people feel is really unlovely and unlovable.
January 19, 2018
I would wager that if you look at a list of the hardest jobs in the world, lexicologist would not be on it….well, it should be. These dedicated people are insane geniuses whose entire lives are made up of words; they wake up in the middle of the night to jot down a thought or dream that they had which might help them in editing the dictionary; they listen to the conversation of others to find clues as to how English is being used; they read about new sciences that may bring a new word to the language. This book, written by one of these geniuses is a must-read for those of us who love words. Dictionaries, whether printed or electronic are constantly being updated and it falls to the lexicographer to be sure that all nuances of language are covered.
Let’s take the word, “word”…..defined as “a speech sound”. OK, that seems alright but wait…..what about “you have my word of honor”, or “the word is on the street” or the exclamation “Oh, my word”? And that is just the beginning of the work that the lexicographer has to do when working on one particular word. It can take weeks to clearly define its use. And what about slang words or profanity? They are a part of the language as are words that aren’t words at all such as “irregardless” and “’aint”. And we are told that the shortest words are the hardest words…..a, an, the, is…….because we just take them for granted and they are seldom referenced in the dictionary but they have to be there if the dictionary is to be complete.
The author takes us through the process of definition and the use of language and does it with humor. I can’t imagine how difficult it must be to be a lexicographer but she seems to have kept her sanity. Be warned that this is a slow read and it helps to know a bit about grammar and how to diagram a sentence. But it is worth it and may cause you to think twice before you use a certain word or phrase.
Let’s take the word, “word”…..defined as “a speech sound”. OK, that seems alright but wait…..what about “you have my word of honor”, or “the word is on the street” or the exclamation “Oh, my word”? And that is just the beginning of the work that the lexicographer has to do when working on one particular word. It can take weeks to clearly define its use. And what about slang words or profanity? They are a part of the language as are words that aren’t words at all such as “irregardless” and “’aint”. And we are told that the shortest words are the hardest words…..a, an, the, is…….because we just take them for granted and they are seldom referenced in the dictionary but they have to be there if the dictionary is to be complete.
The author takes us through the process of definition and the use of language and does it with humor. I can’t imagine how difficult it must be to be a lexicographer but she seems to have kept her sanity. Be warned that this is a slow read and it helps to know a bit about grammar and how to diagram a sentence. But it is worth it and may cause you to think twice before you use a certain word or phrase.
July 10, 2017
This was a fun, fascinating read that gives you some insight into the process of making the Merriam Webster dictionary. Kory Stamper breaks down how decisions are made regarding what goes into the dictionary (it's descriptive, not prescriptive!) as well as how lexicographers write definitions and example phrases--mindful to avoid personal bias. She gets into the differences between lexicographers' and grammarians' views on the English language and examines how words evolve over time and across dialects. She talks about communication they receive, from people asking questions like where to buy something or people who think they invented a word or know best how it should be used.
Though she didn't get into whatever genius runs their goddamn Twitter account, which is what I want to be when I grow up.
Despite the fact it covers some hardcore word nerdery (or perhaps because of that), it's very informal and self-effacing in its tone. It's not stiff at all, as you might expect. Stamper writes in a conversational tone that suggests that her normal kind of conversation is a little quirky and hyper, laughing at her own weird jokes and and a learned ability to shrug off the people who don't find her funny. It's a little disorganized, though, bouncing around between ideas without a clear sense of structure. And I felt that some of the chapters were kind of skimmable--pronunciation isn't that interesting, even if it's important to dictionaries.
There's a lot of little tidbits that I loved from here, including her horror at people who say nonsense like "done work" (I'm looking at you, Philly and South Jersey, and your disdain for prepositions), but my favorite piece of trivia from this book, because I am never going to be mature ever, no matter how old I get: "Who thought that 'pumpernickel' was a good name for dark rye bread? Because when you trace the word back to its German origins, you find it means 'fart goblin.'"
Overall, a fun read for anyone who loves language.
Though she didn't get into whatever genius runs their goddamn Twitter account, which is what I want to be when I grow up.
Despite the fact it covers some hardcore word nerdery (or perhaps because of that), it's very informal and self-effacing in its tone. It's not stiff at all, as you might expect. Stamper writes in a conversational tone that suggests that her normal kind of conversation is a little quirky and hyper, laughing at her own weird jokes and and a learned ability to shrug off the people who don't find her funny. It's a little disorganized, though, bouncing around between ideas without a clear sense of structure. And I felt that some of the chapters were kind of skimmable--pronunciation isn't that interesting, even if it's important to dictionaries.
There's a lot of little tidbits that I loved from here, including her horror at people who say nonsense like "done work" (I'm looking at you, Philly and South Jersey, and your disdain for prepositions), but my favorite piece of trivia from this book, because I am never going to be mature ever, no matter how old I get: "Who thought that 'pumpernickel' was a good name for dark rye bread? Because when you trace the word back to its German origins, you find it means 'fart goblin.'"
Overall, a fun read for anyone who loves language.
March 10, 2017
When I was in about 6th grade, when my class went to the library, I would take the 6" (or so) thick dictionary off its podium and sit with it, looking for words I didn't know. So, when I saw the advance copy of this book, I HAD to read it. It's just lovely. Written by a lexicographer at Miriam-Webster, it's an ode to words, definitions, and pronunciations. I love the acknowledgements, written as definitions.
September 29, 2017
Kory Stamper takes you inside Merriam Webster to show you how their dictionary is made. You can see how the lexicographers and the company they work for are dedicated to their product.
Dictionary users are usually not aware of all that goes into creating these reference works. Many believe that dictionaries are a source for “regulating” language and would be surprised to know that their role is to describe how language is used. Most surely will not know how a publisher decides when a new word is worthy of inclusion or that one lexicographer only produces 250 entries a year.
Each part of writing an entry is tedious. Stamper shows how once you decide a word is a noun, verb and adjective uses come to your attention. Examples of a word’s use must be short and boring. A pronunciation expert listens to speeches, movies, YouTube and co-workers who read from flash cards to write the sounds using proprietary markings.
Throughout, Stamper shows the problem of writing a definition. You can’t use the word to define the word, but in the case of compound words, like surfboard, you can as long as the word part you use is in the dictionary. Modernizing definitions for words like “marriage” can rile the right wing media making life miserable and frightening for a lexicographer. Phrasal verbs derived from generic words like “take” can “take weeks”. Defining words seeps into the lives of lexicographers who surreptitiously snap photos of advertising.
I was surprised that M-W maintains policies long ago discarded elsewhere in downsizing and budget cutting. Every letter M-W receives is personally answered, not by a PR department, but by actual lexicographers. M-W has what appears to be a lengthy training period and its training manuals are very detailed. Neither has it skimped on its research process and maintains extensive paper files from the past.
If you are interested in words, you will enjoy this book.
Dictionary users are usually not aware of all that goes into creating these reference works. Many believe that dictionaries are a source for “regulating” language and would be surprised to know that their role is to describe how language is used. Most surely will not know how a publisher decides when a new word is worthy of inclusion or that one lexicographer only produces 250 entries a year.
Each part of writing an entry is tedious. Stamper shows how once you decide a word is a noun, verb and adjective uses come to your attention. Examples of a word’s use must be short and boring. A pronunciation expert listens to speeches, movies, YouTube and co-workers who read from flash cards to write the sounds using proprietary markings.
Throughout, Stamper shows the problem of writing a definition. You can’t use the word to define the word, but in the case of compound words, like surfboard, you can as long as the word part you use is in the dictionary. Modernizing definitions for words like “marriage” can rile the right wing media making life miserable and frightening for a lexicographer. Phrasal verbs derived from generic words like “take” can “take weeks”. Defining words seeps into the lives of lexicographers who surreptitiously snap photos of advertising.
I was surprised that M-W maintains policies long ago discarded elsewhere in downsizing and budget cutting. Every letter M-W receives is personally answered, not by a PR department, but by actual lexicographers. M-W has what appears to be a lengthy training period and its training manuals are very detailed. Neither has it skimped on its research process and maintains extensive paper files from the past.
If you are interested in words, you will enjoy this book.
June 15, 2018
“Language moves much faster than lexicography. There are not enough of us around to even see every word in the language, let alone define every word in the language.”
I could play it cool and say that Word by Word… is a truly insightful exploration of the neverending work of a lexicographer, delving into deeper issues of the English language, such as its history, politics, and essential slipperiness. Hell, I could go on and add how much I appreciated the author’s dry, pithy humour, her charming style, and pop-cultural references. But in all fairness, I loved it as much as I love reading dictionary entries, which is a lot.
No sarcasm, just pure word nerd bliss!
“People do not come to the dictionary for excitement and romance; that’s what encyclopedias are for.”
It took me a while to finish it because I went through the notes and references, reread some of the chapters (particularly the ones on grammar, etymology, and pronunciation), then smiled when finally I got to the Acknowledgements part, which was written as alphabetized dictionary entries. Speaking of capital-n Nerd!
I could play it cool and say that Word by Word… is a truly insightful exploration of the neverending work of a lexicographer, delving into deeper issues of the English language, such as its history, politics, and essential slipperiness. Hell, I could go on and add how much I appreciated the author’s dry, pithy humour, her charming style, and pop-cultural references. But in all fairness, I loved it as much as I love reading dictionary entries, which is a lot.
No sarcasm, just pure word nerd bliss!
“People do not come to the dictionary for excitement and romance; that’s what encyclopedias are for.”
It took me a while to finish it because I went through the notes and references, reread some of the chapters (particularly the ones on grammar, etymology, and pronunciation), then smiled when finally I got to the Acknowledgements part, which was written as alphabetized dictionary entries. Speaking of capital-n Nerd!
March 26, 2017
If you love dictionaries, you'll love this book. Written by a confirmed Descriptivist who cannot always control a bit of the Prescriptivist still lurking within. Here's a great paragraph from Stamper's book - If you like the paragraph, I'm betting you will like the book:
We think of English as a fortress to be defended, but a better analogy is to think of English as a child. We love and nurture it into being, and once it gains gross motor skills, it starts going exactly where we don’t want it to go; it heads right for the goddamned electrical sockets. We dress it in fancy clothes and tell it to behave, and it comes home with its underwear on its head and wearing someone else’s socks. As English grows, it lives its own life, and this is right and healthy. Sometimes English does exactly what we think it should; sometimes it goes places we don’t like and thrives there in spite of all our worrying. We can tell it to clean itself up and act more like Latin; we can throw tantrums and start learning French instead. But we will never really be the boss of it. And that’s why it flourishes.
We think of English as a fortress to be defended, but a better analogy is to think of English as a child. We love and nurture it into being, and once it gains gross motor skills, it starts going exactly where we don’t want it to go; it heads right for the goddamned electrical sockets. We dress it in fancy clothes and tell it to behave, and it comes home with its underwear on its head and wearing someone else’s socks. As English grows, it lives its own life, and this is right and healthy. Sometimes English does exactly what we think it should; sometimes it goes places we don’t like and thrives there in spite of all our worrying. We can tell it to clean itself up and act more like Latin; we can throw tantrums and start learning French instead. But we will never really be the boss of it. And that’s why it flourishes.
April 17, 2020
4/16/2020: Update for word lovers! Kory Stamper is quoted in this L.A. Times article (4/15/2020) about newly coined pandemic words and existing medical terms that have become part of our everyday vocabulary:
http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinit...
Have a "quarantini" on me!
By turns funny, profane, geeky and enlightening, Kory Stamper, an editor at Merriam-Webster gives us an inside look at the travails of lexicographers in editing and putting together dictionaries such as the Eleventh edition of the 220,000 word MW Collegiate Dictionary in eighteen months. A self-professed lover of words who started reading road signs and words on salad-dressing bottles at age three, Kory Stamper landed her dream job as an editorial assistant at Merriam-Webster after ending her job interview as follows:
"'I just,' I began, fanning my hands in front of me as if to waft intelligence my way. But it didn't come: all I had was the naked, heartfelt truth. 'I just love English,' I burst. 'I love it. I really, really love it.'" She started work at Merriam-Webster three weeks later.
Stamper's experiences at MW are detailed in such chapters as "IRREGARDLESS: On Wrong Words," and "NUCLEAR: On Pronunciation." She covers everything from the history of dictionaries to the intricate and often tedious process of defining a single word (which might take nine months). Stamper reveals that the Eleventh edition of the MW Collegiate had only twenty editors reviewing 220,000 existing definitions, writing 10,000 new definitions, making 100,000 editorial changes with each change being reviewed a dozen times by ten editors. All this in eighteen months; mind-boggling!
This book is meant to be read slowly, to be savored. It is not a quick read and when you are done, you might be tempted to start over so that you can absorb more of the fascinating and abundant details of Kory Stamper's world of words.
http://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinit...
Have a "quarantini" on me!
By turns funny, profane, geeky and enlightening, Kory Stamper, an editor at Merriam-Webster gives us an inside look at the travails of lexicographers in editing and putting together dictionaries such as the Eleventh edition of the 220,000 word MW Collegiate Dictionary in eighteen months. A self-professed lover of words who started reading road signs and words on salad-dressing bottles at age three, Kory Stamper landed her dream job as an editorial assistant at Merriam-Webster after ending her job interview as follows:
"'I just,' I began, fanning my hands in front of me as if to waft intelligence my way. But it didn't come: all I had was the naked, heartfelt truth. 'I just love English,' I burst. 'I love it. I really, really love it.'" She started work at Merriam-Webster three weeks later.
Stamper's experiences at MW are detailed in such chapters as "IRREGARDLESS: On Wrong Words," and "NUCLEAR: On Pronunciation." She covers everything from the history of dictionaries to the intricate and often tedious process of defining a single word (which might take nine months). Stamper reveals that the Eleventh edition of the MW Collegiate had only twenty editors reviewing 220,000 existing definitions, writing 10,000 new definitions, making 100,000 editorial changes with each change being reviewed a dozen times by ten editors. All this in eighteen months; mind-boggling!
This book is meant to be read slowly, to be savored. It is not a quick read and when you are done, you might be tempted to start over so that you can absorb more of the fascinating and abundant details of Kory Stamper's world of words.
March 31, 2023
In the world of language nerds (also known as lexicographers) the rules of social interaction differ a lot from the world at large. It is the world for the quite. No loud conversations, no office chitchat or any other unnecessary interactions, only focus on the only thing that matters - finding the most perfect way to define words.
Kory Stamper makes such a charming fun of herself and her colleges, silently toiling in their cubicles, exchanging color notes instead of spoken words to avoid any risk of breaking someone’s concentration, or digging through the archives, obviously also in silence, in search for a prof of what their Sprachgefühl has already told them might be the case.
It might be true that you have to be somewhat antisocial to be well suited for sitting as lexicographers do, in near silence for eight hours a day, but if the author can serve as an example, you can be all that but you certainly don’t have to be boring. Her acute observation skills and the plentiful sense of humor - probably of necessity well contained during the workdays - comes out in outgoing and entertaining bursts through the pages of this book.
For those that are interested there is a lot to learn from this book. About etymology and grammar, about the apparently common confusion surrounding the function of dictionaries as guardians or observers of the language, about how dictionaries are constructed and constantly revised, and how the editors engage with the general public regarding what should and should not be there and how the words and their meanings should be described.
It is a love declaration for the language and the disappearing art and skill of lexicography and for me a very interesting and entertaining peak into a profession that I didn’t know much about.
Kory Stamper makes such a charming fun of herself and her colleges, silently toiling in their cubicles, exchanging color notes instead of spoken words to avoid any risk of breaking someone’s concentration, or digging through the archives, obviously also in silence, in search for a prof of what their Sprachgefühl has already told them might be the case.
It might be true that you have to be somewhat antisocial to be well suited for sitting as lexicographers do, in near silence for eight hours a day, but if the author can serve as an example, you can be all that but you certainly don’t have to be boring. Her acute observation skills and the plentiful sense of humor - probably of necessity well contained during the workdays - comes out in outgoing and entertaining bursts through the pages of this book.
For those that are interested there is a lot to learn from this book. About etymology and grammar, about the apparently common confusion surrounding the function of dictionaries as guardians or observers of the language, about how dictionaries are constructed and constantly revised, and how the editors engage with the general public regarding what should and should not be there and how the words and their meanings should be described.
It is a love declaration for the language and the disappearing art and skill of lexicography and for me a very interesting and entertaining peak into a profession that I didn’t know much about.
January 11, 2021
Update: Kory Stamper is currently appearing on a new Netflex series about, ready: curse words, (the history of); hosted by Nicholas Cage (he's pretty good at this.), and various comedians. AND, a woman who has a Ph.D. in this very subject (or something close.) Check it out word lovers.
I adore this book; more specifically, the audiobook. If Kory Stamper ever needs a side job, she definitely can become a narrator for audio books. I never realized the toil that goes into creating and maintaining a dictionary, whether in print or online. Excellent work lexicographers from Merriam Webster.
I adore this book; more specifically, the audiobook. If Kory Stamper ever needs a side job, she definitely can become a narrator for audio books. I never realized the toil that goes into creating and maintaining a dictionary, whether in print or online. Excellent work lexicographers from Merriam Webster.
May 7, 2017
fascinating
adjective | fas·ci·nat·ing | \ˈfas-ˌnā-tiŋ, ˈfa-sə-ˌnā-\
Definition of fascinating
: extremely interesting or charming : captivating a fascinating documentary gave a fascinating account of the expedition
That just about sums the whole book up. Interesting and very charming.
adjective | fas·ci·nat·ing | \ˈfas-ˌnā-tiŋ, ˈfa-sə-ˌnā-\
Definition of fascinating
: extremely interesting or charming : captivating a fascinating documentary gave a fascinating account of the expedition
That just about sums the whole book up. Interesting and very charming.
April 30, 2017
I love reading about languages, their development, etymology etc. (I speak and read freely five languages, and understand more or less a few others). But this book is too wordy and rather boring. I gave up after the first 100 pages. Also, she uses too many rare or regional words I've never encountered before, while they contribute nothing to clarity or style, just showing up
April 6, 2017
What a treat
The opening is hysterical. There are some slow early chapters but once you get into the book a bit it reads like a love letter to language, culture, hard work, and creativity. I thoroughly enjoyed Word by Word.
The opening is hysterical. There are some slow early chapters but once you get into the book a bit it reads like a love letter to language, culture, hard work, and creativity. I thoroughly enjoyed Word by Word.
November 13, 2018
I loved this book in a way that makes me totally unqualified to recommend it to anyone.
I can’t remember the last time I read a book and realized it was written by someone who thinks like me, someone who understands the English language almost the same way I do. In the middle of this book, my wife and I had this conversation:
Me: She [Stamper] keeps saying things like “most people don’t think about grammar this way,” but I do!
Her: You’re an academic editor. You basically have the same job she does.
Me: No, it’s very different! She — hmm. I mean, it’s mostly different. Fairly different, anyway.
Her: *snort*
But I really did adore this. I loved her description of the process of learning what English grammar really is: a collapse of the wall built out of tiny blocks of rules that you’ve erected between you and incorrect usage. (Note: I sometimes think it would be more accurate to say “what English grammars really are,” because anyone whose job involves, in part, altering journal articles so they sound like they were written by a native speaker of Standard American English, even though no native speakers of that language exist or have ever existed, is very aware that there is not one single English grammar. It’s more like a collection of grammars sitting on each other’s shoulders and wearing one very large trenchcoat.)
I also loved the behind-the-scenes look at the life of a lexicographer. Stamper talks about some of the more interesting definitions she’s dealt with in her career and the process of creating definitions and of creating a dictionary. She talks about the controversial words (“bitch,” in a chapter I found sad, “nude,” in a chapter that proves that BuzzFeed really is changing the language, and “marriage,” in a chapter that made me cringe in sympathy with her), and controversy in the dictionary world, and why dictionaries all use different systems to transcribe pronunciation. She also has some fascinating stories about the worst best idea in the world: that you can write in to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and an actual lexicographer will read and answer your letters.
The book is fascinating and funny. And, as I said, I loved it, but I probably shouldn’t recommend it. But I will. If you love language, if you use dictionaries, if you write things, this book is worth your time.
I can’t remember the last time I read a book and realized it was written by someone who thinks like me, someone who understands the English language almost the same way I do. In the middle of this book, my wife and I had this conversation:
Me: She [Stamper] keeps saying things like “most people don’t think about grammar this way,” but I do!
Her: You’re an academic editor. You basically have the same job she does.
Me: No, it’s very different! She — hmm. I mean, it’s mostly different. Fairly different, anyway.
Her: *snort*
But I really did adore this. I loved her description of the process of learning what English grammar really is: a collapse of the wall built out of tiny blocks of rules that you’ve erected between you and incorrect usage. (Note: I sometimes think it would be more accurate to say “what English grammars really are,” because anyone whose job involves, in part, altering journal articles so they sound like they were written by a native speaker of Standard American English, even though no native speakers of that language exist or have ever existed, is very aware that there is not one single English grammar. It’s more like a collection of grammars sitting on each other’s shoulders and wearing one very large trenchcoat.)
I also loved the behind-the-scenes look at the life of a lexicographer. Stamper talks about some of the more interesting definitions she’s dealt with in her career and the process of creating definitions and of creating a dictionary. She talks about the controversial words (“bitch,” in a chapter I found sad, “nude,” in a chapter that proves that BuzzFeed really is changing the language, and “marriage,” in a chapter that made me cringe in sympathy with her), and controversy in the dictionary world, and why dictionaries all use different systems to transcribe pronunciation. She also has some fascinating stories about the worst best idea in the world: that you can write in to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and an actual lexicographer will read and answer your letters.
The book is fascinating and funny. And, as I said, I loved it, but I probably shouldn’t recommend it. But I will. If you love language, if you use dictionaries, if you write things, this book is worth your time.
July 19, 2017
This book is probably not a book for everybody. If you are the type of person who goes for action movies, for example, or loves to watch a good, hard game of football, well, you might just pass this book up.
But if you have always secretly thought that it was be a fine, fine job to carefully investigate and define words, to search out just the right way to explain wards, to figure out how to pronounce words...if you are a person who loves to think about all the nuances associated with words...if you like to explore where words came from....yep, this just might be a book you'd enjoy.
That's what Kory does for a living. She writes the dictionary. And in this book, she shares her work with us readers. No, it's not an action movie, and, no, it's not a game of football, but somehow Kory makes me know that her job is...well, fun.
But if you have always secretly thought that it was be a fine, fine job to carefully investigate and define words, to search out just the right way to explain wards, to figure out how to pronounce words...if you are a person who loves to think about all the nuances associated with words...if you like to explore where words came from....yep, this just might be a book you'd enjoy.
That's what Kory does for a living. She writes the dictionary. And in this book, she shares her work with us readers. No, it's not an action movie, and, no, it's not a game of football, but somehow Kory makes me know that her job is...well, fun.
November 12, 2025
I once joined the Book of the Month club just to get a copy of the two volume OED, the one that comes with its own magnifying glass to read the microscopic print. On my web browser I have www.etymonline.com/ bookmarked so that when I need to look up a word I can also find its history. For all that, I could never be an lexicographer; it sounds too much like Accounting without the excitement. I recognize that lexicographers play an important role in documenting the state of the language, but while Kory Stamper may find it engrossing to spend days searching for the precise mot juste definition of a word, to me it sounds like a sentence in purgatory.
It is no surprise that many people are passionate about language and write to dictionary publishers in high dudgeon when they discover deviations from their own understanding of what a word means, and it is nice to read that the editors at Miriam-Webster try to personally answer all correspondence. It is also no surprise that some people can be manipulated into a frenzy regarding minor skirmishes in the cultural wars, as when the dictionary altered the definition of marriage to include gays and was inundated with abusive and even threatening e-mails.
One of the most interesting stories in the book recounts the hostile reception given to the new edition of Webster’s dictionary published in 1961 (officially: Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language). To better reflect the way people spoke, it defined words by how they were used, as opposed to previous practice, which was to describe how they should be used. This is the debate between prescriptivism and descriptivism, and the response the new dictionary got well merits the phrase “dictionary wars.” It was angrily denounced in editorials and speeches, which saw it as debasing the language. It included a definition for – oh horrors – “a’int,” and I can just imagine Southern Belles clutching their pearls and swooning in shock. The reaction was so strong that eight years later, in 1969, the American Heritage Dictionary was published specifically in response to Webster’s Third, and it was prescriptivist to its core. It even added a one hundred person panel of language mavens to decide which words should be included in future editions, decided by their Olympian judgments on proper usage.
The author notes that to a surgeon a body is just a body, and after a while they are no longer young or old, attractive or not, they are just something that needs to be worked on. Lexicographers too lose any emotional attachments they might have to words. It could be for this reason that she includes casual vulgarities in the book when describing people and events around her, but sometimes it seemed that she was trying too hard to show that dictionary writers can be cool, and can toss off casual profanity as easily as your average fourteen year old. Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Lexicographers will never be cool.
The future of dictionaries and their keepers seems cloudy in the digital age. The language continues to change and there will always be a need for gatekeepers to explain what words mean, but will users be willing to pay for that service? How do you support a company when people assume that the product you provide will always be free? The current Merriam-Webster website seems to be set up to monetize itself by selling ads, not dictionaries. As for me, although I occasionally pull out my OED just to browse the marvelous history of words, only once in the past five years have I used it to look up a specific word. That was when I read that one of the words that J.R.R. Tolkien provided the definition for was “walrus.” It is a lovely definition: clear, precise, well supported with historical citations, and thoroughly descriptivist in nature.
It is no surprise that many people are passionate about language and write to dictionary publishers in high dudgeon when they discover deviations from their own understanding of what a word means, and it is nice to read that the editors at Miriam-Webster try to personally answer all correspondence. It is also no surprise that some people can be manipulated into a frenzy regarding minor skirmishes in the cultural wars, as when the dictionary altered the definition of marriage to include gays and was inundated with abusive and even threatening e-mails.
One of the most interesting stories in the book recounts the hostile reception given to the new edition of Webster’s dictionary published in 1961 (officially: Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language). To better reflect the way people spoke, it defined words by how they were used, as opposed to previous practice, which was to describe how they should be used. This is the debate between prescriptivism and descriptivism, and the response the new dictionary got well merits the phrase “dictionary wars.” It was angrily denounced in editorials and speeches, which saw it as debasing the language. It included a definition for – oh horrors – “a’int,” and I can just imagine Southern Belles clutching their pearls and swooning in shock. The reaction was so strong that eight years later, in 1969, the American Heritage Dictionary was published specifically in response to Webster’s Third, and it was prescriptivist to its core. It even added a one hundred person panel of language mavens to decide which words should be included in future editions, decided by their Olympian judgments on proper usage.
The author notes that to a surgeon a body is just a body, and after a while they are no longer young or old, attractive or not, they are just something that needs to be worked on. Lexicographers too lose any emotional attachments they might have to words. It could be for this reason that she includes casual vulgarities in the book when describing people and events around her, but sometimes it seemed that she was trying too hard to show that dictionary writers can be cool, and can toss off casual profanity as easily as your average fourteen year old. Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Lexicographers will never be cool.
The future of dictionaries and their keepers seems cloudy in the digital age. The language continues to change and there will always be a need for gatekeepers to explain what words mean, but will users be willing to pay for that service? How do you support a company when people assume that the product you provide will always be free? The current Merriam-Webster website seems to be set up to monetize itself by selling ads, not dictionaries. As for me, although I occasionally pull out my OED just to browse the marvelous history of words, only once in the past five years have I used it to look up a specific word. That was when I read that one of the words that J.R.R. Tolkien provided the definition for was “walrus.” It is a lovely definition: clear, precise, well supported with historical citations, and thoroughly descriptivist in nature.
June 17, 2017
An incredibly thorough and fascinating look at the process of writing a dictionary, and a defense of the dictionary's job as a recorder of usage instead of a prescriber. I gave it five stars in appreciation for the intensive research that went into creating this, but four stars in terms of my actual interest in reading paragraphs full of citations or pronunciations. I enjoyed the parts that felt most like a memoir-- Stamper explaining how she got her job and Merriam-Webster or telling anecdotes of her definition-writing training classes or the hate mail she's received based on the definition of "marriage"-- however, the parts where Stamper goes deep into one word and traces its own defining history grow quickly tedious. I assume this is because the audiobook includes all the footnotes, and as a reader I would have had the option of skipping. Most enjoyable, though was Stamper's obvious love and knowledge of words (sprachgefühl must have appeared in every chapter) and her introverted-self-deprecating humor (she takes every opportunity possible to remind readers that lexicographers like thinking about words, but not necessarily saying them out loud). Probably the nerdiest book I will ever read, and I'm quite pleased I did.
March 13, 2018
Kory Stamper's book, Word by Word: The Secret Life of Dictionaries, lets me in on all the dirty little secrets of dictionary-making (a lot like making sausages, it turns out). Stamper reminds me of just how much fun people have with language, and how deeply we as readers are delighted when we are surprised by writers/speakers who are having linguistic fun. As Stamper says, we grew up with the idea that English is "a fortress to be defended," when a better analogy would be to think of it as a growing child, willful and impulsive. "We dress it in fancy clothes and tell it to behave, and it comes home with its underwear on its head and wearing someone else's socks. . . We will never really be the boss of it. And that's why it flourishes."
I love this book. If you’re a word-nerd, you will love it, too. Guaranteed.
I love this book. If you’re a word-nerd, you will love it, too. Guaranteed.
May 20, 2017
Who reads books about how dictionaries are made? Nerds. Nerds like me. Being a nerd, I found this book to be very interesting and informative. It had a good mix of information about the dictionary business, language usage, word origin, and the history of language and dictionaries. Unfortunately I also found this book very hard to read. Overall I was quite disappointed with the quality of the writing. I felt like the book was very poorly organized, repetitive, and wordy. I also didn't care for the light-hearted tone and the author's attempts to make this into a memoir. There is good stuff to be found in this book, but reading it was such a slog that I'm not really sure it's worth it, even for nerds like me.
September 1, 2017
Provavelmente o livro mais nerd que já li na vida. Fiquei fascinada pelos conflitos em definir palavras, como funciona a produção e atualização de verbetes em dicionários.
Muito divertido pra quem realmente curte inglês, palavras e lexicografia. Pra qualquer outra pessoa vai parecer a coisa mais estranha da Terra.
Muito divertido pra quem realmente curte inglês, palavras e lexicografia. Pra qualquer outra pessoa vai parecer a coisa mais estranha da Terra.
August 2, 2017
Surprisingly moving, both for its unabashed love of words and language and for its description about how fraught words can be - politically, sexually, racially, socially.
This book about how dictionaries are made, made me have the feels.
This book about how dictionaries are made, made me have the feels.
December 9, 2016
Two typos and three "snuck"s; otherwise a perfect book for us word nerds.
October 24, 2017
A fun, informative, surprisingly unpretentious book. The author is very likeable and the material is nerdy as hell- but let’s face it, if you’re an active Goodreader, it’s a given you’re a nerd.
From interesting borrowed words (“sprachgefuhl”) to seeing familiar words in totally new ways (I will never look at “the” the same way again), this book covers it all while managing to stay down-to-earth.
For instance: joke is on grammar snobs, because “it’s” was the original proper possessive form of it (rather than “its tail,” back in the day it was “it’s tail)-- and in fact, this makes sense, when you think about the fact that nearly every other word becomes possessive by adding an apostrophe + s (“Tony’s dog” “the dog’s toy”).
Ending a sentence with a preposition (in this case, called “the terminal preposition”) was perfectly acceptable until a particularly pedantic pedant named Dryden came along and decided he wanted to banish the practice, since Latin doesn’t do that- but of course, English and Latin are fundamentally different languages.
I am with the author’s original feelings on this one, though: as much as she respected her role as dictionarierre, which is a descriptivist (English is used X way) rather than prescriptivist (English should be used Y way) job, she still refuseed to accept “irregardless” (ir- means “not” so irregardless should mean not regardless, which is a double negative, which makes no sense) for a long time. Girl, same. (See also: “inflammable” and “unthaw”).
The coolest fun fact: in 2014, teenager Peaches Monroee posted a 6-second video describing her eyebrows as “on fleek” (first usage of the phrase). 5 months later, 10% of all Google searches worldwide were for “on fleek.”
Let that sink in. Out of the billions of possible search terms, “on fleek” constituted TEN PERCENT.
Definitely made me examine the words I use, and how I use them, and when I’m being an asshole and correct people, in a different, fresh way.
From interesting borrowed words (“sprachgefuhl”) to seeing familiar words in totally new ways (I will never look at “the” the same way again), this book covers it all while managing to stay down-to-earth.
For instance: joke is on grammar snobs, because “it’s” was the original proper possessive form of it (rather than “its tail,” back in the day it was “it’s tail)-- and in fact, this makes sense, when you think about the fact that nearly every other word becomes possessive by adding an apostrophe + s (“Tony’s dog” “the dog’s toy”).
Ending a sentence with a preposition (in this case, called “the terminal preposition”) was perfectly acceptable until a particularly pedantic pedant named Dryden came along and decided he wanted to banish the practice, since Latin doesn’t do that- but of course, English and Latin are fundamentally different languages.
I am with the author’s original feelings on this one, though: as much as she respected her role as dictionarierre, which is a descriptivist (English is used X way) rather than prescriptivist (English should be used Y way) job, she still refuseed to accept “irregardless” (ir- means “not” so irregardless should mean not regardless, which is a double negative, which makes no sense) for a long time. Girl, same. (See also: “inflammable” and “unthaw”).
The coolest fun fact: in 2014, teenager Peaches Monroee posted a 6-second video describing her eyebrows as “on fleek” (first usage of the phrase). 5 months later, 10% of all Google searches worldwide were for “on fleek.”
Let that sink in. Out of the billions of possible search terms, “on fleek” constituted TEN PERCENT.
Definitely made me examine the words I use, and how I use them, and when I’m being an asshole and correct people, in a different, fresh way.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,758 reviews