Duh and Duh-er
Whaddaya stupid? The DUH zeitgeist is upon us
By MARY ELIZABETH WILLIAMS
It's already the ne plus ultra of pithy expressions of exasperation at intellectual ineptitude, but now at last the word duh is getting something it never had -- a little respect. It's about to enter the lexicon.The versatile, can-do declaration, preferred by post-boomers everywhere, has for years languished in the "pending" file at various dictionary publishers, waiting for enough cultural citations to justify its inclusion in that hallowed place between "dugout" and "duiker." When new editions started hitting the stands recently, it seemed that "duh" was once again going to be the Susan Lucci of slang, perpetually shut out and unhonored. But the people have spoken, and they have said "duh."
So in the "Random House Webster's College Dictionary's" next edition, "duh" will join the ranks of "ow," "ahem," and other verbal ejaculations which have moved beyond the ranks of mere guttural noises and into the distinguished realm of sanctioned, look-upable words.
The "duh" apotheosis, its transference from the playground to the upper echelons of wordage, has already begun. No less an eminence than that kingpin of linguistic punditry, William Safire, turned his attention to the much-maligned little word in a recent column. Searching for all the subtle nuances of "duh," Safire mused on its various uses: as a "response cry" (like "huh"), as a self-mocking interjection, as a "tag form" used at the end of a sentence during a conversation.
Jim Lowe, who rejoices in the title of senior editor in charge of new words at Merriam Webster, also treats "duh" with the kind of respect not normally afforded a word so intimately associated with Butt-head. "Originally people used 'duh' as a sign of ignorance, but since then it's taken on so many other meanings," he notes with knitted brow. "It's becoming more complex. It's very effective -- it's going to be around while."
Actually, it already has been around a while. Though "duh" may seem like this month's "23 skidoo," it has in fact been with us for generations, with documented examples of its use since the Kennedy administration. So why "duh," why now? "It's been strengthened by 'doh,' in the Homer Simpson sense," suggests Jesse Sheidlower, an editor in the reference department of Random House. But surely there's more to it than that.
It is true that Myrna Loy never lobbed a "duh" back at William Powell in any of the "Thin Man" movies. It will probably never replace "I do" in the wedding vows. And when Henry Higgins exclaims, "By George, I think she's got it!" in "My Fair Lady," Pickering does not reply, "No 'duh,' Higgins." Still, for everyday purposes, it is a handy item, as easy as a shrug. Besides, it feels good to say. "It's the most neutral vowel there is," explains Sheidlower. "It's all schwa, like uh or uh-huh."
Fond as I and many of my circle are of the way "duh" sounds and all it means, frankly, I am aggrieved that my other favorite phrases -- "big whoop" and "yo' mama" prominent among them -- still have not made the dictionarial cut. I smell politics. What does a word have to do to get into the dictionary anyway? Get itself splashed all over the tabloids? Appear in a tear-jerker Tom Hanks movie? Be observed hanging around on the lips of the cognoscenti?
"For any word to enter the dictionary it has to come into great prominence in the recent past," says Sheidlower. "It can be a new word or quite an old one that develops a new meaning. In general we look at the evidence we have for it, if it's only in one place or if it's widespread. It's impossible to quantify it -- it depends on to what extent people would want to look it up."
Keeping in mind those standards of pervasiveness and durability, the editors of Random House and Merriam Webster did manage to add several words to their canon of the English language this year. Random House prides itself as being the most liberal of the dictionaries, and adds between 50 to a hundred new words and new meanings for existing words each updated edition. The more conservative Merriam Webster only adds about a dozen. Random House's list includes "autoerotic asphyxia," "big hair," "bottom feeder," "chump change," "dental dam," "digerati," "drive-by," "spokesmodel," and "strip mall," while Merriam Webster's features "blow off," "channel surfing," "ebola virus," "edutainment," "ethnic cleansing," "secondhand smoke," "talk radio," "telephone tag," "victimology," and "zone out."
Reading over these less than dignified, not to say cheesy, newcomers is like looking up to find a rabble of stoned surfers, smirking Melrose Place pretty boys and shaven-headed cyberpunks in VR headgear standing onstage at the Nobel Prize ceremony. Is the addition of such words to the dictionary, along with the amount of money Jim Carrey gets paid per movie and the Big Arch Deluxe, a sign of the apocalypse?
Sheidlower says no.
"I have a responsibility to the language," he says. "There's nothing that makes 'ain't' any less legitimate than 'couch.' If a word is used by youth or by a particular group it doesn't indicate anything about its status."
So in the egalitarian pages of today's dictionary the concept of the highfalutin, 50-cent word no longer cuts it. Which means that "duh," to coin a phrase, ain't no chump change.