Open Letter to Dictionary.com and Word of the Year, 67

The alphabet would like to have a word

To the Editorial Board:

As stewards of semiotics and custodians of the English language, we must convey our consternation regarding your decision to anoint “67” as Word of the Year.

A coronation conferred without condition. A verdict that confuses the orthographic North Star for a ring light. A process that, we can only assume, consisted of throwing darts at a keyboard.

In layman’s terms: WTF?

As the world’s foremost phonologists, we cannot overstate our disappointment (see also: discontent, disillusion, dismay). Thus, it is with due respect — and drawn-out sighs better expressed via the International Phonetic Alphabet — that the undersigned linguists hereby register our formal complaints. Notarized, neatly organized, and peer-reviewed.

Our objections are plentiful. Our prosecution, by the numbers. Outlined not numerically, but alphabetically, out of protest.

So if the crime against nomenclature remains unclear, let us spell it out for you.

A. Wordhood: The Discernment of Words and Not-Words

Dissecting this adjudication, let us first explore 67’s “wordliness” (a term invented 5 minutes ago, and still a stronger contender for Word of the Year).

What’s in a word? Ideally, letters.

67 is a numeral. At best, it’s a grapheme cluster denoting quantity. At worst, it’s sociolinguistic rabies. Viral. Unhinged. And like so many other numbers, irrational.

Words may be composed of alphabetic units (cat), hybrid combinations with integers (6-pack), or converted across categories (“My tabby cat with 6-pack abs is out to 86 a bitch”). In stark, sacrilegious contrast, 67 isn’t read so much as caught in the act — often pursued by a snort, finger-point, and the comment, “nice.”

The resulting effect is a conversational cold spot. A semantic dead-end. An evanescent void.

Nice.

B. Gibberish Taxonomy: The Meaning of Nonsense

By definition, to reside within a dictionary is to be defined. Yet 67, by its quantum morphemic nature, is purely impalpable. Its purposeless origin and nonsensical syntax, too slippery and stupid to grasp, buck all comprehension.

Is 67 a noun, adjective, verb? A basketball score? An arrival time? A sub-par sleep schedule? The school grade in which attention span atrophies; when appreciation for liberal arts and syntactic excellence dies a dramatic death?

As dubiously paired integers, 67 haunts classrooms, sidelines, school buses, dinner tables — and as of last weekend, even the interdepartmental group chat has been infected by this statement of societal regression. At least “69” embodies a clear intent, conjuring an express purpose and corresponding visual.

If 67 dared disrupt my class, I would send it back to Remedial English — where it belongs.

C. Precedent Vs. Antecedent: Gateway Slang & Numeric Inception

We, the community of grammarians, etymologists, and high-school English teachers constantly eyeing early retirement, submit that digit favoritism is unbecoming of a dictionary.

What’s to stop other word-curious numerals from following in 67’s serifs, gleefully exploiting this path to citizenship? Will we stay silent as 123 overtakes ABC? Will we value what we’ve lost when nil, null, zed — the zest of zero — is subsumed by an abyssal 0?

It is a slippery slope — slicked in butter, grease, and regret. If we honor this unholy numeric union, what symbols will next claim the symbolic top spot? Will the triptych file an amicus brief? Who’s to say “≠” won’t get ideas? Emojis and emoticons? If 67 is eligible, prepare for the reigns of “TBD,” “@,” and “the blinking cursor.” Where does it end?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

D. Inclusivity Among Integers: A Statement from Our Co-Signers

We are joined in this censure by numerals 5 and 8, logograms who keenly feel the sting of exclusion.

5: “Sure, I’m odd, but I’ve had to watch 6 endure countless defamatory rumors. Threats like the calumny that 7 ‘ate’ 9. Barbaric! But now, to force 6 into a performative adjacency with 7 — its would-be devourer? Unconscionable.”

8: “I embody balance and closure. I understand the call for unity. I am literally two circles holding hands. But this… this is an ellipsis with an infinite inferiority complex.”

E. Closing Thoughts on Thoughtlessness

Praised as the epitome of brainrot — an inversion of subversion — 67 accurately embodies the society responsible for its creation and perpetuation. But saturation ≠ salience ≠ significance.

We will not succumb to such semantic nihilism! We remain devoted to the joyful seriousness of words, the serious joy of lexical exactitude, and the commonwealth’s blasé disinterest in both.

And so, we humbly submit a revised Word of the Year:

Cringe.

With encyclopedias cracked, eyebrows raised, and red pens at the ready —

The Coalition of Concerned Linguists, co-signed by 5 and 8

Originally published at Jane Austen’s Wastebasket.

---