Anyone else still baffled by “w00t”?

Earlier this month, visitors to M-W.com voted “w00t” the 2007 Word of the Year. I’ve been waiting to post this because I have been hoping that if I let enough time pass, this will sink in.

 Would w00t–which means, as the dictionary succinctly put it, “yay”–not be better served as the word of five years ago? Or more? A far better choice would have been the second word on this list, “facebook” (the verb). I have to wonder about who voted w00t into its place of honor–perhaps people who thought that w00t deserved recognition, even too late? Or people who didn’t realize that the word is no longer new or exciting?

Heck, even my blogging about the obsolescence of “w00t” is obsolete; almost a month after the fact is just late, late, late.

  1. Vox says:

    It’s like my friend says about the Oscars, that they give people awards for movies they made years ago (i.e., Russell Crowe won for “Gladiator” but really for “The Insider,” because Kevin Spacey won the year before, but really for some film he made ages ago, etc.).

  2. Vox says:

    I’m really not sure that made sense.

  3. Rachel says:

    No, I get it. W00t and Russell Crowe were skipped over the first time around because they just happened to have been up against heavy competition, so the awardgivers are just looking for an excuse to rectify the situation.
    (As Gene Weingarten says, “rectify” is a funny word.)

  4. […] Lucas on Can the San Jose Mercury News …Rachel on Can the San Jose Mercury News …Rachel on Anyone else still baffled by &…Vox on Anyone else still baffled by […]

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *