Are old English words worth fighting for?

In 2007, the editors of the Oxford Junior English Dictionary banished a bevy of terms describing the natural world.

John Nordell/The Christian Science Monitor

In 2007, the editors of the Oxford Junior English Dictionary, convinced that their reference work “needed to reflect the consensus experience of modern-day childhood,” banished a bevy of terms describing the natural world. In their place they inserted newer and supposedly more useful words describing the tamer digital realms that young people inhabit today.

Thus goodbye “acorn,” hello “attachment.” Out with “beech” and “bluebell,” in with “blog” and “broadband.” And farewell “catkin,” “cowslip,” and “cygnet,” because here come “celebrity,” “chat room,” and “cut-and-paste.” 

It’s possible, of course, that those Oxford editors had a sound rationale for their lexical cleansing. Perhaps they had read the Cambridge University study revealing that most young children can identify Pokémon species such as Spearow and Sandshrew far more readily than they can name real-life sparrows and shrews. 

But is this simply another skirmish in the language wars, an ongoing battle between prescriptivists and descriptivists? Whereas the “pre-” camp argues that a dictionary should model how language works best, the “de-” camp insists that it capture how language works now. 

In Britain, citizens of all stripes felt justified in fighting back against the decision of the Oxford editors. A petition protesting the thinning of the word herd almost immediately attracted more than 200,000 signatures.

Another retro refusenik is Susie Dent, author of “Modern Tribes: The Secret Languages of Britain.” She’s doing everything in her power to guarantee that “the old markers of time” do not go the way of the pocket watch. Among her cherished favorites are the payday-friendly “fortnight” (fourteen nights, or two weeks) and the lovely-though-lapsed “sennight” (seven nights, or one week). 

Meanwhile, the curators of a website called are doing their bit with “20 Awesome Historical Words We Need to Bring Back.” Thanks to them, I can now strut my knowledge that a “snollygoster” is “a shrewd, unprincipled person, especially a politician,” while its close cousin “grumbletonians” refers to “people who are angry or unhappy with their government.” 

Given the noble cause at issue here – saving perfectly serviceable English words from extinction through disuse – I’m even willing to be branded an “ultracrepdarian.” That’s “somebody who gives opinions on subjects they know nothing about.”

Allan Fallow, the curator of #TodaysNeologism on Twitter, is filling in for Melissa Mohr, who is away on vacation until Oct. 17. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Are old English words worth fighting for?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today