|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Serious_Fun
Joined: 28 Jun 2005
Posts: 1171
Location: terra incognita
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:12 pm Post subject: Dynamic English language |
 |
|
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/08/03/chillax/
| Quote: |
Chillax
If it works like a word, just use it.
By Erin McKean
Funner. Impactful. Blowiest. Territorialism. Multifunctionality. Dialoguey. Dancey. Thrifting. Chillaxing. Anonymized. Interestinger. Wackaloon. Updatelette. Noirish. Huger. Domainless. Delegator. Photocentric. Relationshippy. Bestest. Zoomable.
What do all these words have in common? Someone, somewhere, is using them with a disclaimer like "I know it's not a real word..."
There's no good reason for the "not a real word" stigma. They all look like English words: they're written in the roman alphabet, without numbers or funny symbols. They're all easily pronounced -- not a qwrtlg or a gxrch in the group. From a purely functional point of view, they act like words: relationshippy in the sentence "Just come to the conclusion that boys don't like talking about relationshippy things" behaves in exactly the same way that an adjective like girly would. And funner in the sentence "I don't know a better person or a funner person to be around -- I love you, Mom," hinders the understanding of the reader not a jot. We all get that the writer really, really loves her mom, and changing funner to "more fun" wouldn't improve their relationship -- or that heartfelt tribute -- one bit.
But if all these words look wordish, sound wordish, and act wordish, why are they all hedged about with the namby-pamby "I know it's not a real word" disclaimers? (Note: wordish is a perfectly good word.) We all know that there are words that no one can complain about (when was the last time you heard a grammar rant about apple or Tuesday or fair?) and words that almost everyone finds offensive (no need to print them in a newspaper). What we don't have a firm grasp on is the acceptability of a wide range of other words, especially words we've hung affixes on. Redness is OK, but what about grossness? Heroism is fine, but what about thespianism? We have similar problems with words that have undergone a shift in function or part of speech ("shopping at thrift store" becoming thrifting, anonymous becoming verbed as anonymize), nonstandard forms (funner, huger, interestinger), and, of course, any slang words someone hasn't personally heard or used (chillaxing, wackaloon). What does a word have to do to be a "real word"?
Being in a dictionary isn't enough (since territorialism, dancey, noirish, anonymized, bestest, and yes, wordish are all in the Oxford English Dictionary). Does it have to be recognized by your spellchecker? Mine was happy with territorialism, delegator, and, surprisingly, huger. Being frequent isn't enough: funner is slightly more frequent in a two-billion-word corpus of web English than interrobang, and no one says interrobang (a combination of the exclamation point and the question mark) isn't a "real word." Being standard isn't enough: anonymized is a perfectly reasonable way to say "made anonymous," and has been for at least a quarter-century. In a printed book? All of the words in the above list are in printed works. (Some of them are even in the titles of printed works.)
Whenever I see "not a real word" used to stigmatize what is (usually) a perfectly cromulent word, I wonder why the writer felt the need to hang a big sign reading "I am not confident about my writing" on it. What do they imagine the penalty is for using an "unreal" word? A ticket from the Dictionary Police? The revocation (as the joke goes) of your poetic license? A public shaming by William Safire? The irony is that most of these words, without the disclaimer, would pass unnoticed by the majority of readers. (In case you noticed cromulent, that was invented in the 1990s for "The Simpsons.") Writers who hedge their use of unfamiliar, infrequent, or informal words with "I know that's not a real word," hoping to distance themselves from criticism, run the risk of creating doubt where perhaps none would have naturally arisen.
Furthermore, those same writers are giving up one of their inalienable rights as English speakers: the right to create new words as they see fit. Part of the joy and pleasure of English is its boundless creativity: I can describe a new machine as bicyclish, I can say that I'm vitamining myself to stave off a cold, I can complain that someone is the smilingest person I've ever seen, and I can decide, out of the blue, that fetch is now the word I want to use to mean "cool." By the same token, readers and listeners can decide to adopt or ignore any of these uses or forms.
So, please, leave off the "not a real word" apologia. A far better (and dare I say, funner) technique is to jump in with both feet and use whatever word strikes your fancy. Instead of being defensive, demand that any who dare to quibble over your use prove that your word is, in fact, not a word.
In short, if it seems wordish, use it. No apologies necessary.
Erin McKean is a lexicographer (dictionaryevangelist.com) and blogger (dressaday.com). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
johnslat
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 13859
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:18 pm Post subject: To tell you the truthiness |
|
|
Emulate Stephen Colbert:
truthiness
"As expected, there were a few surprises in store for us as we pored through your submissions for our first Word of the Year online survey. Either the vast majority of you out there in the Merriam-Webster online community are big fans of The Colbert Report, or Time Magazine was right on target when it honored the show's host Stephen Colbert earlier this year as one of the most influential people of 2006. By an overwhelming 5 to 1 majority vote, our visitors have awarded top honors to a word Colbert first introduced on "The Word" segment of his debut broadcast on Comedy Central back in October 2005. Soon after, this word was chosen as the 16th annual Word of the Year by the American Dialect Society, and defined by them as "the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true."
Merriam-Webster's #1 Word of the Year for 2006 based on votes from visitors to our Web site:
1. truthiness (noun)
1 : "truth that comes from the gut, not books" (Stephen Colbert, Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report," October 2005)
2 : "the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true" (American Dialect Society, January 2006) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wildchild
Joined: 14 Nov 2005
Posts: 519
Location: Puebla 2009 - 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear OP, thanks for sharing a brilliant article.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zorro (3)
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 202
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| But if all these words look wordish, sound wordish, and act wordish, why are they all hedged about with the namby-pamby "I know it's not a real word" disclaimers? (Note: wordish is a perfectly good word.) |
I like this part the bestest.
The author even feels like he needs to qualify his words!!
Last edited by zorro (3) on Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SueH
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 1022
Location: Northern Italy
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
'and no one says interrobang (a combination of the exclamation point and the question mark) isn't a "real word." '
Well, I won't then, but it's the first time I've come across it! Maybe he's just trying to get it into a corpus somewhere.
Interesting: maybe some of the words seem more acceptable to me because I've come across them:"it was very film-noirish", or "anonymizer" in a computer context. Perhaps acceptability based on some sounding too manufactured or clunkier than others... no opinions on clunkier ventured apart from the fact that _I've_ used it.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Glenski
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Posts: 12844
Location: Hokkaido, JAPAN
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sounds like a smarmy way to justify "Engrish". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
