Tweet: (n.) a chirping note

Every year, the good people at Merriam-Webster take a look at all of the words in our lexicon. They erase oft not used words from the books and replace them with younger, hipper words. Every 10-12 years, they “completely re-edited and revise” their dictionary. (Though, the difference between an “update” and complete revision and re-edit is not specified.)

According to m-w.com, “During the past 150 years, Merriam-Webster has developed and refined an editorial process that relies on objective evidence about language use...”
After 150 years, I should hope the process is developed and surely, with a name like Webster, it must be refined. But beyond this, I couldn’t find much more clarification (in my 5 minute search). I’m sure the process involves some sort of strict protocol, as opposed to the wordsmiths just arbitrarily adding and deleting as they please – “Newspapers? Hmm, they’ll be gone within the year, delete. Frappaccino? Everyone knows what that is. Add.”

I feel like there is usually a bit of a buzz when new words are added, though I cannot prove this. But I’m sure it’s one of those stories they highlight on Yahoo! news or AOL. Recent additions include: crunk, ginormous and DVR.

I have no issues with editing the dictionary. Clearly, I find it rather interesting. But I am going to swear off the English language if the definition of “Tweet” is edited.

I have admitted I have mixed feelings about social networking sites. I am a self-confessed Facebook creeper. I creep around looking at what other people post but rarely post myself. I understand there is a narcissistic aura to the whole thing. Who wouldn’t want to know what I’m thinking, doing, did last weekend? But I do think, for some, there is an earnest desire to reconnect with people and genuinely try to keep in touch. (And then there are the noisy creepers but they are harmless.)

Of course, before Facebook, there was MySpace and there is still LinkedIn – but who’s on that? It’s not like some teeny bopper, look-at-me-and-my-drunk-friends, gabfest. It’s “for professionals.” Snooze.

And then there’s Twitter. Hailed as the “SMS of the internet” (that’s Short Message Service, Dad), it is also considered a social networking site. Users get 140 characters to say whatever is on their minds. You can then sign up to “follow” your friends (or strangers?) to “keep in touch.” That’s it. You write: Busy blogging. Betcha can’t wait to read what I have to say. Then your best friend’s brother’s cousin can read and respond, “that’s great, Jane. Can’t wait to read your first novel!” All the Senator’s are doing it. Jon Stewart is talking about it.
And in this over-stressed society where people would likely have infinitely more time and less stress if they stopped talking about how stressed they are and how much time they don’t have, Twitter might have the 140 character answer.

The tweet: Your abbreviated shout out to your peeps. As you twitter about your day like a chicken with it’s head cut off you can tweet, tweet ,tweet to your hearts content. You can get the latest news from your Uncle Fred who is following Senator Dodd and read that he was going to a meeting with Finance Committee. Or, “did you hear there was an earthquake in California today? I did. My friend Jeb twittered about it.” No ROFL in So Cal today.

The thing is, it’s not the concept that I find so offensive. It’s the language. Twittering tweets? It just sounds so silly and useless…not at all like blogging.

(For the record, newspapers is still in the dictionary, frappaccino is not.)