http://www.oed.com/public/latest/latest-update/

Brief synopsis of above link: They are adding things like "LOL", "Wags", "Dot-bomb" and "<3" to the OED. Do you think that this is a honest portrayal of the evolution of the language, or is allowing such internet terms into the definitive lexicon of the English language only permitting its degradation? I don't think that many of these terms should be allowed legitimacy that the OED gives them... I mean, would you allow such colloquialisms in an essay for an English class?

Now, this is not to say that I disagree with every change they have made that is listed in that link. I think the addition of cultural food names is good, as is the addition of the Aboriginal name for the didgeridoo. Those things make since... things like BFF and fnarr fnarr do not.

Those words are completely acceptable and have such every-day use they require a nod from the dictionary. They're our language and we (not me personally) universally use them. There isn't a right or wrong word to put in the dictionary but if words are vernacular, add them.

When people started referring to motion pictures, films, and 'pictures' with the slang word "movie," art critics, language professionals, and colleges were in an uproar that such terrible vocabulary could be added to the English language. No one thinks a second thought about seeing a movie.

Give it ten years. LOL will be no big deal. We'll be complaining about something else being added. Our words change, evolve, and grow all the time. English is a vibrant and living thing. You can't stop it; you can only recognize its changes.

Add the words.

But symbols? What next, the smiley face?

Elara : <3 and LOL are not words, they are just internet slang. OED is submitting to the degradation of the English language.

Technically, LOL is an abbreviation. It's commonly used. I don't see why it should not get in. <3 may be pushing it though. I mean, I use it, but idk (laugh out loud).

Why not, you know what I mean? If people who speak English see these terms posted on the internet, and for some reason look it up in a dictionary instead of google or something, they would be able to discover the meaning. I really don't care WHAT they put in the dictionary, it's not like it changes anything in the long-run anyway. Ancient Egyptians used symbols to communicate, how is <3 any different?

Ancient Egyptians used symbols because hieroglyphs were their language. <3 exists because people are too lazy to write the word love. Would you say it is acceptable to have <3 or LOL in an English paper you write for school? That is why it should not be in a dictionary... online reference is fine, the Oxford English is not.

In my mind every language that it's still in use (not ancient-dead ones), are like "alive" things. I mean they grow up and change (in grammar and vocabulary), just like anything that it's alive.

Example- In my language there used to be 2 different versions of the same language, till 1975. On the one side was those who thought that we should keep the "clean" and proper language as the official one (note: nobody was using it in their personal life though), and on the other hand there were people, who believed that both the official language and the speaking one, should be the same. Well, this was a fight for many decades and on 1975, they've decided to use the same version of language for every purpose.

But these "words" (LOL, ZOMG etc) don't belong to "real life", I mean they are more for interent purposes and fun, so maybe they should have thought it twice before they added them.

Generally, I'm in favor of adding new words in languages, but with this issue, I'm a bit cautious.

that is stupid, they arent real words, its fine to use them but thats like me putting a picture of a smiley in and saying it means happy.