upworthy

history

Culture

Linguists explain why some slang words come and go quickly while others have staying power

"On fleek" was a flash in the pan, but "cool" has stuck around for nearly a century.

Linguists Nicole Holliday and Ben Zimmer explain the history of slang terms on WIRED.

If you're a parent of a Gen Alpha or Gen Z kid, or spend any significant amount of time with young people, you've likely found yourself befuddled by some of the slang terms coming out of their mouths—skibidi, sigma, 6-7, drip, rizz. And if you aren't around many young people, now is not really an ideal time to try to learn their slang because it changes so quickly.

Why do some slang terms stick around while others don't? Linguists Nicole Holliday and Ben Zimmer shared some of the history of slang with WIRED and explained what gives certain words staying power while others fizzle out quickly. For instance, several years ago, "on fleek" (meaning something attractive or perfectly executed) took off but didn't really stay in the popular vernacular for long. "Cool," on the other hand, has been around so long people don't even think of it as a slang term, even though it is one.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Holiday and Zimmer start off by sharing some delightful insults people used on the streets of London in 1699, which included words like booberkin, clodpate, dulpickle, nigmenog, and jobbernoll. We don't hear any of those words today, but they were listed in one of the first English slang dictionaries published that year, giving us a glimpse of what English rapscallions at the turn of the 18th century were calling one another.

Ironically, though, the publishing of that slang dictionary may very well have been what spelled those words' demise.

"From the earliest recorded slang in English, one thing we see is that these words can have a really short shelf life, just from too many people knowing about it," says Zimmer.

fetch, slang, mean girls, slang words, linguistics, communication Remember when Gretchen Wieners tried to make "fetch" a new slang word? Giphy

That's because slang is usually coined and spreads as an "in-group" signifier. Young people in particular start using a word or phrase that older people don't, and it serves as a way of saying, "We're a new generation of our own, not just a reflection of our parents." But if older people start using those words or phrases, they no longer serve that purpose and lose their appeal. In the age of the Internet, that means slang comes and goes very quickly because we're all privy to it.

"The whole process of slang becoming popular and then immediately passe gets accelerated when you can spread new language around really quickly," Holiday explains. "So if you're on social media, you might see a lot of slangy flashes in the pan."

A good example of this is "YOLO." The term, which stands for You Only Live Once, came from a Drake song and was a huge slang term in 2011-2012. Young people were using it, saying it, hashtagging it, etc., but it didn't last.

yolo, slang, linguistics, language, words YOLO came and went quickly, thanks to older people picking it up. Giphy

"I wrote something about YOLO in the summer of 2012," says Zimmer, and I remember it was already getting played out, and it was just months after the song came out. But then I really knew that it was over for YOLO when I heard that Katie Couric on her new talk show was doing a segment called 'What's your YOLO?' where you were supposed to come on and talk about things you wanna do before you die…That was really the death knell for it."

Other words have quickly gone from cool to cringe in a relatively short period of time as well, such as "cheugy." If you're over a certain age, you may have missed the cheugy train altogether because it really went by that fast. It was a word Gen Zers used to describe Millennials who were "off trend," but as soon as Millennials themselves used it (and had a New York Times piece written about it) "cheugy" itself became cheugy, and the word quickly lost its slang status among the generation that popularized it.

cheugy, slang, communication, language, linguistics, SNL "Cheugy" became cheugy once adults got a hold of it. Giphy

"On fleek" is another flash in the pan slang term that got ruined by overexposure. Coined by a 17-year-old girl from Chicago who described her eyebrows as "on fleek" in a viral Vine video, it was all the rage for hot minute, but when brands started using it—IHOP even posted a tweet saying "Pancakes on fleek"—it got sent to the vault where slang words go to die.

But what about the slang that doesn't die? "Booze" is a perfect example, as it's been used since the early 16th century as a slang word for alcohol and is still going strong. So is "cool." Starting around 1930, the word became a slang term for anything good, and with the exception of a dip in popularity during the 1960s (when good became "groovy" for a bit there), it has managed to maintain its status as slang that crosses generations. Linguist Donna Jo Napoli believes cool has held on due to its "underspecified" nature, meaning it can be adapted to lots of different contexts.

cool, slang, language, linguistics, communication "Cool" has had staying power through multiple generations. Giphy

But really, what makes a slang word stick and when it's socially acceptable for different people to use it depends on a lot of different social factors, says Zimmer. It may be impossible to predict which slang words will stick, which will fly by quickly, which will eventually make a comeback, and which will die a permanent death, but I think there's one thing we can all agree on: "Booberkin" most definitely deserves a revival.

Would you eat "baby food for adults?"

Brands are constantly adapting to our ever-changing world in an effort to stay relevant and viable and, ultimately, make their bottom line. However, sometimes these attempts at gettin’ with the times are so out of touch they miss the mark completely. We call these instances marketing fails.

One such marketing fail happened in 1974, when Gerber—the brand synonymous with baby food—tried, and failed, to rebrand itself as a food for college kids.

As explained by Max Miller of Tasting History, in a short but sweet video (though maybe not as sweet as Gerber’s puréed mango-apple-banana flavor), the ‘70s saw a dramatic decline in marriages and births following the Baby Boom between 1946 and 1964. Less babies, of course, meant less need for baby food, and Gerber was looking for ways to combat a slump in its sales.

Their solution? Rebrand their product as something for college kids.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Using the logic of “We were good for you then. We’re good for you now,” Gerber rolled out full meals like "Beef Burgundy," "Mediterranean Vegetables," "Ham Casserole," "Creamed Beef," and even "Sweet and Sour Pork” placed in the exact same jars used to contain infant food.

Though the idea itself might have been sound—convenient, all-in-one meals? What busy single person doesn't want that?— the biggest flaw was in the execution. Depressing, or condescending taglines like "Something to eat when you're alone" and "Look at you! All grown up!" didn’t exactly endear young folks to drown out their loneliness with a savory, lukewarm meat mush.

gerber baby food, baby food, marketing fail, commercial, vintage commercials, tasting history, max miller Who doesn't wanna eat beef burgundy right out of the can?Wikimedia

All in all, the failed product went off the shelves within only a few months of its launch. As many viewers pointed out, this very well could have been an idea too ahead of its time, because in today’s fitness-centric world, it could have been a hot ticket item.

“There's a market for meal replacements, both for people with finite time and health buffs,” one person noted.

Another echoed, “Honestly, just put it in a squeeze pack and market it for fitness and those sales will soar.”

Others brought up the fact that the elderly, sick, or, as one person put it it, “the Soylent crowd who hate how the subsistence of their physical body interferes with the grindset,” could have easily bought into the product. But cool college kids? Not so much.

Still, this probably doesn’t go down in history as the most out of touch market schemes. Certainly not in comparison to the infamous Kendall Jenner Pepsi Ad from 2017.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Or the short-lived Dove Facebook Ad, also from 2017, where a Black woman takes off her shirt to reveal a white woman standing in her place. The idea was to imply that the product was for all women. The interpretation was that it promotes white ideals of beauty. Whoops.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Or when the American Dairy Association made a translation blunder with their “Got Milk?” campaign, when it wrote “Tienes leche?” for its Spanish-speaking audience. This literally translates to “Are you lactating?”

You could also put the recent Sydney Sweeny American Eagle blue jeans ad in this category. The highly controversial commercial might have boosted web site traffic, but sales? Not so much, according to sites like Adweek and Retail Brew.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Bottom line: brands ultimately aim to serve themselves, and they do so by trying to tap into the potential emotional triggers of their customer base. We know this, but, let’s face it, even the most scrutinous among us might be swayed by the clever or heartfelt story told in an ad. When they majorly faceplant, however, it’s a lot easier to see their true intentions and a good reminder to take it all with a grain of salt.

Photo credit: Canva (left), Vintage Japan-esque/Flickr (right)

What makes people look so classy in photos from the past?

Do you ever see photos of people from the past and feel a tinge of regret that we've let clothing styles become so sloppy? Don't get me wrong, I'm an avid fan of my sweatpants and lounge sets, but there was something classy about the way people dressed in the first half of the 20th century, even when they were just hanging around casually. Why was that?

Derek Guy, who has made a name for himself as @dieworkwear, a guru of menswear on social media, has an explanation. While expectations of dress were certainly different in the past, there are other reasons why the way-back-when generation looked so good in their clothing. And it wasn't because people were thinner, Guy says. It actually boiled down to three things: "shape and drape" styles, specialized materials, and a greater tolerance for discomfort.

"Shape and drape" styles provided more structure

"The first point — 'shape and drape' — can be seen everywhere around us, not just in clothing," Guy writes. "Even in architecture, interior design, and furniture, things look more pleasing when they have distinctive and interesting shapes. Even without the presence of a tailored jacket, many outfits in the past looked great because they conferred distinctive shapes — a boxier shirt, fuller pants, short shorts, etc. Certain techniques, such as pleats, gave volume."

"Over the years, men have slowly molted their layers — first by shedding the tailored jacket, then the necktie, and in some cases, even the collared shirt. They have long ditched hats, which conferred another type of shape to an outfit," he writes.

"The rise of slim fit, low rise pants and technical polos that cling to the body means you end up getting an outfit that's barely even there. There's very little texture, detailing, or even a distinctive silhouette. May as well be wearing two smooth pieces of Saran Wrap."

Guy also explained how proportions come into play with how clothing looks. A t-shirt that's too long or pants that are too low distort the way an outfit looks to us.

"The ratio between the upper and lower halves of an outfit will depend on the intended aesthetic (and there are many aesthetics), but the "rule of thirds" is a good starting point," he shares.

Specialized fabrics allowed for better looks with more breathability

The materials our clothing is made from has changed a lot over the past century. The rise of polyesters, acrylics, and other fabrics have altered the fashion landscape more than we might realize.

"When you look at photos of well-dressed men in the past or even today, their trousers often drape well because they are cut from heavier wool fabrics," Guy writes. "Some can still be comfy bc of the open weave."

Natural fabrics like wool tend to drape better, and the nature of wool is such that it can be warming or cooling, depending on how it's woven. We might think a wool suit would be overly hot, but when created in a lighter weight with an open weave, it wouldn't be. As a result, people could layer clothing more readily, which gives outfits more distinctive shapes and textures.

People tolerated not being 100% comfortable 100% of the time

Let's face it. We've all gotten a little soft when it comes to clothing and comfort. Why wear a button-up shirt and pants when you can wear loose yoga pants and a buttery soft t-shirt? Why wear dress shoes when it's become perfectly acceptable to don sneakers with almost any outfit?

We've sacrificed style for comfort, and maybe there's nothing wrong with that. Regardless, "discomfort tolerance" is a legitimate answer to the question of why people dressed better back in the day—they were just accustomed to being a little uncomfortable. Their "loungewear" consisted of leather loafers instead of tennis shoes and wool slacks instead of fleece sweatpants. Now that we're addicted to comfy, it's hard to go back.

Of course, some people still dress a little nicer than the rest of us, and others simply don't care. But if you do want to look a little more put together, these three style principles might just help you get there faster.

You can follow Derek Guy on X and check out his website here for more like this.


Photo credit: Public domain

Maria Von Trapp was not in love with Georg when they got married, but that changed.

The Sound of Music has been beloved for generations, partially for the music (and Julie Andrews' angelic voice), partially for the historical storyline, and partially for the love story between Maria and Georg Von Trapp. The idea of a nun-in-training softening the heart of a curmudgeonly widower, falling in love with him, and ultimately becoming a big, happy family is just an irresistible love story.

But it turns out the real love story behind their union is even more fascinating.

maria von trapp, georg von trapp, the sound of music, love story, history Maria Von Trapp (left) was played by Julie Andrews and her husband Georg was played by Christopher Plummer in "The Sound of Music."Photo credit: Public domain

The National Archives has collected information about what's fact and what's fiction in The Sound of Music, which is based on a real family in Austria named Von Trapp. The film was generally based on the first section of Maria Von Trapp's 1949 autobiography, The Story of the Trapp Family Singers, with some of the details being true and others fictionalized for a movie audience.

For instance, Maria was actually hired on as a tutor for just one of Georg's children, not as a governess for all of them. The children, whose names, ages and sexes were changed, were already musically inclined before Maria arrived. Georg was not the cold, grumpy dad he was portrayed as in the beginning of the film, but rather a warm and involved parent who enjoyed making music with his kids. Maria and Georg were married 11 years before leaving Austria, not right before the Nazi takeover. The Von Trapps left by train, not in a secret excursion over the mountains.

But perhaps the most intriguing detail? Maria was not in love with Georg at all when they got married.

gif, the sound of music, von trapp family, movie, true events Sound Of Music Flag GIF by The Rodgers & Hammerstein Organization Giphy

It doesn't initially make for a great Hollywood romance, but the Von Trapp love story began with marriage for other reasons and evolved into a genuine love story. Maria wrote that she fell in love with Georg's children at first sight, but she wasn't sure about leaving her religious calling when Georg asked her to marry him. The nuns urged her to do God's will and marry him, but for Maria it was all about the children, not him. When Georg proposed, he asked her to stay with him and become a second mother to his children. "God must have made him word it that way," Maria wrote, "because if he had only asked me to marry him I might not have said yes."

"I really and truly was not in love," she wrote. "I liked him but didn't love him. However, I loved the children, so in a way I really married the children."

However, she shared that her feelings for Georg changed over time. "…[B]y and by I learned to love him more than I have ever loved before or after."

- YouTube www.youtube.com

The idea of marrying someone you don't love is antithetical to every romantic notion our society celebrates, yet the evolution of Maria's love for Georg has been a common occurrence across many cultures throughout history. Romantic love was not always the primary impetus for marriage. It was more often an economic proposition and communal arrangement that united families and peoples, formed the basis of alliances, and enabled individuals to rise through social ranks. Some cultures still practice arranged marriage, which limited research has found has outcomes identical to love-first marriage in reports of passionate love, companionate love, satisfaction, and commitment. The idea of marrying someone you don't already love is anathema to modern Western sensibilities, but the reality is that people have married over the centuries for many reasons, only one of which is falling in love.

Maria's marriage to Georg actually was about falling in love, but not with him. She loved his children and wanted to be with them. It definitely helped that she liked the guy, but she wasn't swept off her feet by him, there were no moonlit confessions of love a la "Something Good," and their happily ever after love story didn't come until much later.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Ultimately, Maria and Georg's love story was one for the ages, just not one that fits the Hollywood film trope. And it's a compelling reminder that our unwritten rules and social norms determining what love and marriage should look like aren't set in stone. Do marriages for reasons other than love always evolve into genuine love? No. Do marriages based on falling in love first always last? Also no. Should a marriage that starts with "like" and develops into to a genuine, deep love over years be considered "true love" in the way we usually think of it? Who can say? Lots to ponder over in this love story.

But Maria's description of learning "to love him more than I have ever loved before or after" is a pretty high bar, so clearly it worked for them. The Von Trapps were married for 20 years and had three more children together before Georg died of lung cancer in 1947. Maria would live another four decades and never remarried. She died in 1987 at age 82 and is buried next to Georg on the family's property in Vermont.

This article originally appeared in June.