Should some slang words be added to the Dictionary?

@akd i heard somewhere as u is used instead of you in US standard of english
up to my knowledge there are two types of languages in english
1.british english
2.amarican english
so i think "u" also legal and i heard many differences in those two languages
hope i am correct if not correct me

@NM: I am afraid, I haven't heard of any such case.
They use "you" in both, British as well as American English.

If we want to make them 'legal' then I guess some standard or rules have to be established for the slang words as we have for our regular english. But then they will be the alternatives (or we can term them as synonyms) not the slang words.

@akd:i am not sure about it just i had heard it from my friends thats happened

AbraKaDabra;@NM: I am afraid, I haven't heard of any such case.
They use "you" in both, British as well as American English.

Yes, there is a difference in both the standards but 'u' is not accepted in both of them. 'U' just evolved as a shortform because of messaging.

Slang or colloquial language is accepted are absorbed into the official vernacular all the time, this is how language grows.

Year after year,words and expressions creep into the English language in the form of slang.If this slang word finds its own way to express something easily, then there is nothing to include them to the English Dictionary😀

Just 3 months after we started this debate, I have had a revealation today!

The words that are mostly used in slang like: OMG and LOL, FYI are now added to the Oxford English Dictionary!

For the March 2011 release of OED Online, we have selected for publication a number of noteworthy initialisms—abbreviations consisting of the initial letters of a name or expression. Some of these—such as <a href="https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/293068" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">OMG, int. (and n.) and adj. : Oxford English Dictionary</a> [OMG int. (and n.) and adj.]: ‘Oh my God’ (or sometimes ‘gosh’, ‘goodness’, etc.) and <a href="https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/291168" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">LOL, int. and n.2 : Oxford English Dictionary</a> [LOL int. and n./2]: ‘laughing out loud’—are strongly associated with the language of electronic communications (email, texting, social networks, blogs, and so on). They join other entries of this sort: IMHO (‘in my humble opinion’) [IMHO at I n./1], TMI (‘too much information’) [TMI at T n.], and BFF (‘best friends forever’) [BFF at B n.], among others.
Of course in such a context initialisms are quicker to type than the full forms, and (in the case of text messages, or Twitter, for example) they help to say more in media where there is a limit to a number of characters one may use in a single message. OMG and LOL are found outside of electronic contexts, however; in print, and even in spoken use (see, for example, the 2003 quotation for LOL int.), where there often seems to be a bit more than simple abbreviation going on. The intention is usually to signal an informal, gossipy mode of expression, and perhaps parody the level of unreflective enthusiasm or overstatement that can sometimes appear in online discourse, while at the same time marking oneself as an ‘insider’ au fait with the forms of expression associated with the latest technology.
As such usage indicates, many people would consider these recent coinages, from the last 10 or 20 years, and associate them with a younger generation conversant with all forms of digital communications. As is often the case, OED’s research has revealed some unexpected historical perspectives: our first quotation for OMG is from a personal letter from 1917; the letters LOL had a previous life, starting in 1960, denoting an elderly woman (or ‘little old lady’; see LOL n./1); and the entry for #-Link-Snipped-# [FYI phr., adj., and n.], for example, shows it originated in the language of memoranda in 1941.

From their official website: #-Link-Snipped-#

What do you have to say now?

Great finding AKD.👍 Great list found there. 😁
Finally these abrevations have got there place in the Oxford Dictionary. But there are many more abrevations that are very common and are frequently used. Are they also going to be added in days to come.?

English is a language that doesn't have a proper grammar. It keeps on changing with time. No wonder we will see all these words in the dictionary very soon.

they should not be added to english (US) or English (british)
but one other language should be set for that type of words English(short or something)

if its added to main english then original language will get screwed new generation will learn that language only and there will be lot of confusion.. such launguage must not be used in official use or education... so better to keep it away from Main language.

Adding "lol" omg is good coz u never(mostly) going to use it in office or education or any other perpose where language used should be clean and understandable by all.

but 'you' must not be replaced by 'u', 'because' not to 'coz', 'the' to 'd' and 'and' not to 'nd'

i am sorry to confess that i do not know the meaning of LOL and OMG.

AbraKaDabraLike it or not, everyone is using slang.

Iam oldfashioned (what else can I be?) and prefer to be conventional. However, as engineers we do use a lot of jargon.
I greatly regard Edward DeBono.
These two books of his address this issue:
#-Link-Snipped-#
#-Link-Snipped-#
Bioramani

For people who dont know the meaning of LOL .OMG/LMAO or whatever, i think inclusion in dictionary is Ok, dictionary is menat for such usage right? to know the meaning. the other day I read the news about these inclusions in Oxford and there was a mention that LOL isnot new, its infact a 18 century slang. Many different countries have their local slang and words which comes into usage more than others like- guru, karma etc ( from INDIAN base) do at some point of time get included.