Talk:lol

I really don't think this is an English interjection either. --Stranger 04:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I noticed a few edits of mine were reverted. Most of them were, I admit, technicalities, but there was one edit whose reversion I object to:

• Added "Emphasizes lack of thought from whomever it is directed at." to the definition.

Firstly I would love to know if the one who reverted it, EncycloPetey, knows anything about internet slang (no offense!) beyond the extreme basics (basics that everyone "knows" such as lol = laugh out loud, which, in actuality, is no longer really true -- but I'm getting carried away). If it's a "reliable source" you're looking for... well, slang in general, but especially Internet slang (the regular kind can at least be found in pop music and movies), due simply to its young age, is difficult to find in "reliable" sources. Although I know the writer Maddox regularly uses the word "lol" in such a way. Gaiacarra 07:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

You can raise this issue in either the Tea Room, where definitions of words are discussed, or we could take it to RfV, where citations for a particular use are sought. Note that any definition given can be challenged as to whether it meets the Criteria for Inclusion. In this particular case, the added definition (1) did not seem particularly distinct from existing definitions, and (2) had an example sentence that was unlikely to be illuminating to the majority of our readers. We are an international English dictionary, and George Bush jokes that depend on an understanding of the function of the US political system are therefore doubly inappropriate for our content. And yes, the key problem will be finding a reliable source. We do expect citations to support questionable entries, even newly developed ones, as spelled out in the CFI. --EncycloPetey 17:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Where have you heard the "rf" that should mean "lol" in italian? Although I go often in chats and forums, I've never heard it. Instead, the onomatopoeic "asd" is used. Giacomo Volli

=="Lots of love"==

I've seen this "lots of love" expansion on several dubious Web sites that list acronyms, but I have never seen it used. Can anyone find even one good citation of LOL in this way? Equinox 16:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Taken to RFV!Reply

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Yes, good old "LOL". I bet you're all delighted to see this come up. I am questioning the "lots of love" expansion, which I've seen on several dubious Web sites that list acronyms (and probably copy each other, which might even be how we got it), but I have never seen it used. Can anyone find even one good citation of LOL in this way? Equinox 21:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

There's the oft-repeated story (an urban myth?) of how it was mis-used in an e-mail to a widow, but this is an example of mis-use. Dbfirs 19:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you know people from the older generations then you'll see that it used to be used for "lots of love" a little. A couple of years ago, my mum was in her forties and a little technologically challenged; for months she thought that my sister was being very affectionate ending all her text messages with "lots of love." I know personal experience isn't citable but at least I can assure you that it is definitely a legitimate sense of the word. D4g0thur 17:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Striking, seeing as the sense was removed by Equinox on 2009 February 11. —Ruakh_TALK 21:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Looking at this graph shows that usage of the word 'lol' in the late 18th century (in written language) was much, much greater than that of today. What is the archaic meaning of 'lol'? 76.121.211.59 04:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Probably various scannoes such as id, bi, etc. —Stephen ^(Talk) 05:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

And nonsense songs. Fol-de-rol-lol...— lexicógrafa | háblame — 14:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

For a completely different example: Who nows how many hits might be for "L.O.L.", standing for "Loyal Orange Lodge". There are 300 Google News hits pre-1901 for "Loyal Orange Lodge", a rank for members of the Grand Orange Lodge w:Orange Institution, a Protestant fraternal(?) organization. That usage is not even in acronym finder's listings. We are certainly not cloae to complete or even systematic in including abbreviations. DCDuring TALK 18:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

The higher frequency of pre-1800 appearances in that graph almost certainly reflects a higher rate of OCR errors reading 18th century typefaces (s looking like f, more ligatures, etc.). That's a consistent problem with NGRAM before 1800.Jbening 00:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

In Volapuk, lol means rose. Just thought you should know. — This unsigned comment was added by 24.49.35.99 (talk) at 09:34, 31 July 2011.

Not sure what the proper linguistic term for this is, but I just saw this comment where LOL the interjection has become a noun 'to lol' and then replaced 'laugh' in the original phrase:

I filled the painful silence by loling out loud. --Ian Jones in blog comment

--Qef 17:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

You mean the verb to lol and tautology seems to be the right term, but see also pleonasm. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

As for the meaning of the word in Dutch, in Flemish (which is the collection of Dutch dialects spoken in Flanders, the northern part of Belgium, and which roughly relates to The Netherlands' Dutch as UK English relates to US English (very similar but different pronunciation and vocabulary), lol also - and only - means joke

A closing bracket would make this much, much easier to understand. 20:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply on Talk:LOL – Nixinova (talk • edits) 04:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)Reply