Why 'Cool' is still cool

[wodenokoto]

I wonder if the rise of these words that relates to the senses is more due to the proliferation of books, which in turn could give more room to more casual writing.

Unrelated, I have always been fascinated with how fuck has managed to stay both vulgar and popular for 100's of years.

[kevin_thibedeau]

I once got derided by a gen-Y'er for describing something as "neat". Apparently that word isn't groovy anymore to describe something that's swell.

[oska]

I don't think "neat" has ever been "groovy". For me as an Australian it conveys a sense of a particularly American type of "squareness". It's almost never used here, nor in the UK I think. I've noticed that Bill Gates uses it a lot and he is not particularly a model of cool.

BTW, not saying don't use it. If that's who you are and that's how you speak, that's cool :)

[im2w1l]

I associate neat with two expressions: "neat and tidy", and "that's (pretty) neat" (positive exclamation about a way of doing something, or a solution to a problem)

[EC1]

We're reaching a point where all these are coming back, but only ironically for now and in small secluded pockets of the city. Haven't spotted any legit uses in the field as of yet.

[nostromo]

"Neat" is now faint praise.

If your wife asks how she looks, don't say "ok," and if your coworker asks about their presentation, don't say, "it was neat."

[seandoe]

This is pretty neat: https://youtu.be/Hm3JodBR-vs

[swalsh]

Gen-Y'er, I say neat but mostly because I think it's funny to use the word neat.

[kirklove]

I like using "neat" as well. Then again I'm in my forties ;)

I also like using "fantastic" instead of awesome and often get strange looks, but a bonus of being older is I don't give a crap!

[alextgordon]

"Cool" is like "OK", or "nice". They're moderate words with a moderate tone.

Words like "awesome" are somewhat hyperbolic. They have a short existence because they become predictable and passé.

"Cool" never lost its impact because it never had one in the first place. It's just cool.

Compare: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12503686

[coldtea]

Only according to the article's findings (and explanations) that's not the case.

Besides there are lots of counter-examples of similar moderate words that were popular and faded out (swell, neat, jiffy, groovy, hip, dandy, gnarly, hairy, a-ok etc).

[urs2102]

Do you think it's possible that words with similar sentiments are more likely to have a longer existance?

Take the word "dope" right now, which is often used as a synonym for "cool". What's the likelihood of a word like that breaking into the mainstream and lasting?

[TrevorJ]

It seems to have quite a bit of utility as well, it's meaning is widely understood and I can't think of another word that carries quite the same connotation or intent. It actually fills a niche.

[XJOKOLAT]

On the subject of language overuse:

So ... why does everyone start a sentence with "So". Both verbally and in written media. This has bugged me for quite a while.

I've also been indoctrinated into it's use. It definitely assists conversation but ...

"Exactly" is another one (in London anyway). Recently "exactly" has come to mean absolutely anything. E.g. "I don't know what you're talking about but I'll say 'exactly' and nod my head as a lead in to what I want to say' or just to be sounding like I'm still in the conversation"

Weird how words like these become viral.

Mild rant over.

[zazerr]

NPR has a good article about the "So" thing: http://www.npr.org/2015/09/03/432732859/so-whats-the-big-dea...

[OJFord]

I'm not quite sure what you mean be 'exactly'? I thought at first you meant e.g. "I'm not exactly sure what you mean" - but you mention at the start? (Also London, just haven't noticed I suppose).

Regarding the use of 'So..' to lead in a sentence: this is an hideous Americanism that must be stopped from further penetrating our borders at all cost. I exaggerate, of course. But it is an Americanism; I do not like it.

[trynumber9]

I can't stand English language purists. It is akin to xenophobic Americans: comically hypocritical.

If so makes conversation easier, what's the harm? That you and some others think it sounds uneducated?

[pjbrunet]

"So" is quicker than "Therefore" or "In conclusion" or "Because of that" and so on. In conversation, people want you to get to the point quickly. One syllable "so" gets the job done. Yes, it's overused. Grammatically, there's nothing wrong with it.

[coldtea]

>So ... why does everyone start a sentence with "So". Both verbally and in written media. This has bugged me for quite a while.

Verbally, because it signals you're speaking and gives you a little time to think your next words (like "eeer", "mmm", etc we also say).

[Retra]

"So" indicates a change in direction in a conversation. It's mostly used to start a summarization or a change of subject. It prompts the listener to stop thinking about the old subject and pay attention to the new.

[dexterdog]

I get 'so' in conversation, but I despise it in internet posts. On reddit it indicates that there is a 99% likelihood that what you are about to read is a repost.

[Camillo]

The opening "so" is language cancer, that's why it spreads uncontrollably.

[jonathankoren]

I've got a theory that "suck" is going to have staying power. It wasn't that long ago (say 30 years) that it was considered vulgar, while now it's quite tame. The advantage of suck is that it fills the niche of succinctly being the opposite of cool.

[DarkTree]

I'm curious if anyone knows in what direction a language evolves over time. Does it grow randomly with the addition of words/phrases, or is their a system of 'natural selection'? The American English language is certainly growing as new words become commonplace, but will other words die out completely? The reason for this question is because I wonder if languages become more efficient over time. For instance, what will the American English language be like in 100 years? Will it just be larger, or will it be more precise? It would be interesting if we create more and more precise words over time so that we actually stop using less precise words, making the language ultimately as efficient as possible. I guess it depends on so many things, like dialect/region/age/etc.

[kmicklas]

There are a lot of competing factors that drive language change. Probably the largest force is sound efficiency - speakers merge, elide, and otherwise mess with sounds in order to make speaking take less energy, or make it possible to talk faster (think runnin' instead of running). This increases efficiency for a while, until homonyms take over and meanings become too frequently ambiguous. (Think of the cot/caught merger, although that one probably confuses no one.) Then, speakers start to use lots of periphrasis and such, and eventually big compound descriptions get lexicalized as new words and grammatical structures. This makes the language more complex as it originally was. Thus language evolution often happens in cycles like this on the order of centuries.

The major factor that influences the equilibrium of this cycle is number of speakers and number of adult learners. Languages with lots of speakers change more slowly, and tend to be getting simpler especially if they are assimilating new speakers (think English as it is becoming the global lingua franca.) Small insular languages with few second language learners tend to get more complex and idiosyncratic.

Source: studied linguistics for a few years.

[cokernel]

Linguistic evolution is much like biological evolution in that there is no a priori direction for it to go. There is a sort of natural selection in that words that don't get used don't generally get passed on to the next generation. Text and other media allow some of these words to be recovered in later generations.

If history is any indication, in 100 years American English will have some precise ways of expressing things, some loose ways of expressing things, and various groups of people will be unreasonably upset with one situation or the other.

If you're interested in the mechanisms of language change, I found the (2000) 3rd edition of Jean Aitchison's _Language Change: Progress or Decay?_ both readable and worth reading. There is a 4th edition, published in 2013:

http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/languages-ling...

[striking]

Languages grow simpler over time, in my view. I'm not an etymologist, but in my experience, long phrases that are used often are replaced with simpler ones. This isn't just in English, it's the same in Polish.

And if you don't trust my anecdata, look up the German and Japanese language reform. I don't speak much of those, but they have stronger ruling bodies over their language, making it easier to track change in language. It appears the reforms slowly make the language simpler, based on feedback from the populace.

[dustincoates]

You'd like The Story of Human Language (http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/story-of-human-langua...). John McWhorter is engaging and the subject matter is interesting.

One thing he mentions in the series is that languages tend to become more simple over time as they come into contact with others. This makes sense--if you're bringing people into a community who don't know the language then they're going to simplify it and that will spread. The languages that are the most complex are the ones that are most isolated. Here's a blog post about it: http://lingblog.com/2013/12/23/can-the-structure-of-society-...

[keeperofdakeys]

American English was basically invented by Webster, yet there are many words from his reinvention that didn't catch on. You can also find many modern words in the Oxford dictionary, like "lol". So it seems that both deliberate, and accidental expansions/contractions of the language are possible.

[milkey_mouse]

Side note: as a teenager, I'm pretty sure this "on fleek" phrase everyone's touting as "the new cool phrase all the kids are saying" is a red herring to spot when people are trying too hard to be cool or something. I've never heard anyone say that in real life.

[inanutshellus]

Initially I thought "cool" might have its staying power because it's the baseline... the first word to really encapsulate a concept (perhaps defined as "innovatively unique")... and the others are just knock-offs trying to redefine the standard.

but I'm pretty sure "hep" would be considered a synonym of cool that predates it.

So why didn't "hep" become the everlasting "cool" word?

[zem]

because, as per the article's theory, "hep" is not a sensory metaphor

[rgbrgb_]

Interesting. Just the other day I read this article (http://www.itsnicethat.com/articles/cool-stunts-creativity-1...) that bemoaned the overuse of the word.

[shurcooL]

I guess I could've come up with a worse nickname when I was 12.

[dmd]

That's heavy, man.

[dmd]

edit-reply: Kinda wondering if anyone replying is actually understanding what I meant, or if you're just markov-chaining BTTF.

[martiuk]

Is there a problem with the Earth's gravitational pull in the future?

[mccracken]

Doc

[mjkunc]

In other words, the Times is yelling at clouds.