I think it's fine as long as it works in context.
If writers didn't invent new words or new word usages, language wouldn't evolve in nearly the same way.
If we can make up names, coin phrases, record language, why CAN'T we make up words?
You, Christine, are old enough to make up your own words. Writer's do it every day.
We could replace it with wellancy or wellivity.
quote:
If only I could unmake a word. I'd start with "wellness".
I'd get rid of allegedly.
I therefore propose that we eliminate the word politician from our vocabulary.
So yeah, make up all the words you want. As long as the context to figure it out is there, it's all good. How is that any different from using an existing word that most people don't know? Readers will figure out what "lackadaisical" means if they look at the sentence, so they'll figure out what your words mean as well.
"When Gabrielle shouted that Marianne did not care about anyone but herself, Marianne could safely brush these things off as teenagisms delivered in the heat of anger."
Gabrielle is a teenager, Marianne is her mother. I know, I know...I could find the words in the existing language to say what I mean here, but I typed in the word and I kind of thought it worked.
Sorry, wetwilly, but funner makes me cringe. I don't know why, it's just one of those things.
--Christine, a closet member of the grammar police
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited July 27, 2004).]
Anyway, if Heinlein can make up words, why can't we? Oh, yeah. He's a REAL writer. Dead.
For those curious, hames are the metal or wooden braces used to attach the tugs (the heavy leather straps that the horse actually uses to pull the wagon) to the pulling collar around his neck.
So, yes. Help the language evolve. Make up all the words you want. English is, I believe, unique among the earth's languages in that it does change and evolve and broaden to a degree other languages find difficult. These days many non-English languages incorporate English words for new concepts instead of making up words of their own, mainly because their languages simply are not flexible enough to allow for it. For instance, in German, instead of simply making up a whole new word, they would be more likely to form a word by stringing together a bunch of words that describe, rather than simply name, a new object or concept. Hubby knows a few of these. These days, however, they're highly likely to adopt the much shorter English alternative.
[This message has been edited by djvdakota (edited July 27, 2004).]
How many of the words we now routinely use in casual conversation would have made our parents cringe?
Taking the "reductio al absurdem" route, does that mean most modern casual conversation and writing is "cringely"?
Ha! That's quite the ironic sentence, Kolona. Way to ironize the discussion.
Finally, mikemunsil, I believe your son's usage of awesome has been around for quite some time, probably longer than your son, so don't blame the teenagists for that. Bootylicious, however, that one is a little newer. For our current youth, rap music is the source of 99% of language evolution, even for the kids who don't like rap music. Hence "bootylicious" and "crunk."
DJV, you're absolutely right about Germans ganking our words. English words are the in thing over there. They love 'em.
While many other countries opt to adopt new English words, the French-- obstiferous, as only the French can be-- insist on striking such perfectly good English words from their language and creating true French words in their place. Thus while many other languages will have more and more foreign words incorporated, the French language will no doubt remain purer for their obstiforousity.
Susan
EDIT: ROFL!!! I make up my own word and STILL cannot spell it consistently!! *blush, grin!!*
[This message has been edited by shadowynd (edited July 28, 2004).]
I was going to make that point about the French too - how they are so careful to protect their culture that they do create their own words for things that start out in English/American, which other countries just take and use.
Their perogative... just as complaining about an American theme park located there was their perogative (even if it is based on European fairy tales!).
"Teenism" - a bit shorter and smoother, and teen/teenager are used for the same thing.
quote:
I therefore propose that we eliminate the word politician from our vocabulary.
*wistfully* Must we stop at only the word?
*irrepressible grin*
Susan
MaryRobinette
And although you're right that some words drop out of usage, a great many simply switch to the 'archaic usage' column. Those that might truly disappear are probably slang expressions with fleeting lives anyway.
I always pity the French (apologies to any Frenchmen who might take offense, seeing how I understand they're inordinately proud of their language) since I read that French is purposely a very static language, with only about 60,000 or 80,000 words (600,000 or 800,000 ?? I can't remember now, but first guesses are usually right and all those zeroes don't look right), while American English has umpteen words and counting. As a writer, I like the greater odds.
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited July 28, 2004).]
I thought I made it fairly clear that 'typewriter' as a common-use word has been replaced by 'computer' or 'word processor' in the context of the object and its purpose. Nobody sits at a computer and calls it a typewriter. And kids these days eye those ancient typewriters sitting dusty on the shelves and wonder if it might make them a mint on Antiques Roadshow where the appraiser will methodically demonstrate, to the fascination of all, exactly how it works.
I pity the French as well (Pity? Maybe not pity). For one of the beauties of the English language, especially here in America, is that it constantly evolves, morphs, flows, yet is fast becoming the most powerful language on earth.
[This message has been edited by djvdakota (edited July 28, 2004).]
quote:
'typewriter' as a common-use word has been replaced by 'computer' or 'word processor' in the context of the object and its purpose. Nobody sits at a computer and calls it a typewriter.
It's been replaced in the context of the object and its purpose, but not in the word itself. 'Typewriter' as a word hasn't been replaced, common-use or otherwise. 'Typewriter' as an object has been replaced. I completely agree with that second part: I don't think anyone sat down at even the first word processors or computers and said they were sitting at a typewriter. But it wasn't the word in question, it was the object.
Now, where some silliness is happening even as I type at my computer, is with shoulder wraps for women. Same object, different word now. Used to be 'shawls' now they're 'capelets.' I guess 'shawls' is too old-fashioned. Of course now, isn't 'old-fashioned' now 'retro?' 
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited July 28, 2004).]
As I understand it, djvdakota's original point was that the number of words being commonly used tends to remain fairly constant, even as the total number of words increases. It's not that the word "typewriter" on longer exists or has been replaced by a new word for the same thing, it's that society has changed in such a way that, because typewriters themselves have become rather uncommon, the word is no longer used much. However, because computers and word processors have taken over the function formerly performed by typewriters, the words "computer" and "word processor" are much more commonly used now. In a sense, they have replaced "typewriter" as part of the common-usage vocabulary.
But, hey, who am I to quibble?
quote:
Cars have replaced carriages as objects, but both are still words. 'Cars' has pretty much replaced 'automobiles' as a word in common usage, though they both mean the same thing.
That's right, Mary. I'd forgotten. Yikes. Now we won't know if someone means a short shoulder cape (I'm picturing the flap on Sherlock Holmes' coat, actually) or a modern shawl. WILL IT NEVER END????
But we will lose 'typewriter' from common usage the way we've lost 'stagecoach.' Nobody is claiming that typewriters or stagecoaches no longer exist as objects, just that as the objects fall from common use and are replaced by other things, the words used to label them fall from common use and are replaced by other words that label different things. This tends to keep the set of common-usage words about the same size as time goes on.
Mike - I asked some of my english-is-their-second-language friends and they said they were confused with the same thing when they first came to an english speaking country.
I would say that automobile is still alive and well in the english language. It doesn't mean "car" because it means simply "anything with 4 wheels and a motor" (maybe it was used as "car" back when all they made were "cars"?). Thus, the automotive industry makes and sells cars, trucks, vans, whatever. And they don't advertize that they sell "automobiles" because that is vague and unclear. But, you can still find the word in dealer brochures.
But, I'm wondering if what you were taught was British English (or Standard English) and not American English. Maybe it's different in Britain?
IF THIS THING BLOWS UP INTO ANOTHER ARGUMENT THAT GETS SOMEONE SO UPSET THEY QUIT THIS GROUP I'M GOING TO BE VERY PISSED OFF!!! SO GET OFF IT!!!
PHEW!!
Thanks for defending me, Eric. Thanks for your insightful explanations Kalona. This sounds very much like arguing with my sisters--everyone, essentially, arguing on the same side but so enchanted by the emotions of the argument they think otherwise. Kalona has some good points. Eric has some good points. But it's not worth making so much fuss over. Nor is it so darned important that anyone has to spend one more second proving beyond doubt that they are right and the other is wrong.
I love semantics 
How about sith, porpentine and apricock. While common in usage 400 years ago, today we've replaced them with since, porcupine and apricot.
But back on topic for a minute. Check out this site for some of the words introduced into the english language by Shakespeare.
http://shakespeare.about.com/library/weekly/aa042400a.htm
You're right about 'automobiles,' Robyn_Hood, but as I wrote with that example, it probably wasn't the best.
quote:
just that as the objects fall from common use and are replaced by other things, the words used to label them fall from common use and are replaced by other words that label different things.
Exactly, Eric. But some things simply change names while the objects have not fallen from common use. It is in this respect that we more truly 'lose' a word, although that loss usually means 'file under archaic.'
Lorien, I agree. Language is wonderful.
Spelling, however, isn't. Where did 'Kalona' come from? Ah well. <musical notes> tomato, tomahtoh, Kolona, Kalona, let's call the whole thing off <end musical notes>
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited July 29, 2004).]
Yes. Nobody is arguing that with you. I think everyone here agrees.
> It is in this respect that we more
> truly 'lose' a word, although that loss
> usually means 'file under archaic.'
Fine. The point I've been trying to make, though, is that we also lose words from common usage just because the objects the words describe are no longer commonly used. I'm not saying it's the only way we lose words, or that it is the most true way in which words are lost, just that it happens.
I don't think I said there was only one way to lose words; in fact, just the opposite, and I felt the typewriter example was more useful from that angle. But it doesn't matter. I can't imagine anyone quitting the board over common usage typewriters or cars, but lest we tempt fate...I will rest my apparently weak case. 
quote:
This sounds very much like discussions with my sisters--everyone, essentially, discussing on the same side but so enchanted by the emotions of the discussion they think otherwise.
So what we end up with is something like this:
Point A made.
Point A refuted.
Point A defended by someone else.
Point A re-explained, because obviously no one understood what was being said in the first place.
Point A refuted in pretty much the same way by imposing point B.
Point B refuted.
Point B defended by someone else.
Point B re-explained, because obviously no one understood what was being said in the first place.
Point B refuted in pretty much the same way by imposing point C or RE-imposing point A...
Yadda, yadda, yadda. On and on and on until we have a full blown argument going, everyone hates each other, and an otherwise fun family party turns into a brawl of words.
Now what I've done is thrown gasoline on a match and caused a grass fire. Forgiveness sought on all sides. 
But I still think "Nor is it so darned important that anyone has to spend one more second proving beyond doubt that they are right and the other is wrong," is appropriate to the bent of this discussion.
Don't be mad wiff me Kolona. PWEASE!!
(Must be PMS. 
)
[This message has been edited by djvdakota (edited July 29, 2004).]
I learned English from my mother while we lived in the mining camps of northern Chile, some French from my grandmother, Mapuche from my wet nurse, and some really stinging gaelic curses from my grandfather. My mother in turn learned her English from her father, who taught her Scottish English from treatises on navigation, which were all he would read, and as there were no schools at that time in the Altiplano, her education was somewhat iconoclastic, although she was rather good at navigating.
I went to college and learned more English in Panama, but with a heavy Spanish accent, then moved to Arkansas and Oklahoma, where I learned some regionalisms and rapidy lost every trace of my former Scotch-Chilean accent, simply as a survival strategy.
So, my English, such as it is, is somewhat arbitrary, and I know that comes out in some of the awkward sentence constructions that I use, but shee'it! it ain't no wunder I'm confused! No?
[This message has been edited by mikemunsil (edited July 29, 2004).]
quote:
I've even come to blows with a co-author of mine about what I meant by a simple sentence like "the door opened."
Gah! I'm not surprised. Do you mean to imply that it opened itself (whether that be magically or technologically achieved), or that some unknown agent opened it without being observed?
"Bandersnatch" is one of my favorites from a famous poem.
So yes, you have the right to use words that have never been used before. That's probably something you ought to do to stretch the imagination! I use it as an exercise for my friends, combining words to make new ones for example.
I can give you the French perspective on that issue. I lived there for the first 20 years of my life, and in the US for 10.
I write in English. I don't write in French.
However, I can tell you that, yes, us French peopl are quite chauvinistic and alwasy ready to fly to the defense of our culture, especially against American culture. It may be a historical thing. The English and French were the two conflicting super-powers in Europe for nearly two millenia (making the US/USSR cold war a joke), and including such wars as the Hundred Year War. I think that to a lot of people, speaking english would be to admit having finally been beaten.
On the other hand, most of the laws (yes, there ar LAWS) as to the use of non-french names are mostly due to old white men (yes, you can add stupid) I used english words everyday talking to my buddies. And some english-sounding names that had no relationship at all to the english word. a "smoking" for exemple is a tuxedo. Don't ask.
I would also point out the introduction of many french words in the english language. And german, spanish etc... one of the major reasons the english language is so rich is that it has been a multinational one from the begining, mixing germanic and romanesque tongues from the get-go. Bascially, the english language is so rich because it steals from many sources. Another richness is the ability to combine words into a new one, ie: xenocide, and still make perfect sense.
That was my rant.
Heh, laws against using terms like "E-mail" and "cheese" are just funny. But then, we passed laws against "sauerkraut" and "hamburger" (and more recently, the Senate cafeteria stopped serving "French" toast and fries by resolution).
Now, my 2 cents: I don't mind if anyone makes up a word (I like teenagism. It makes perfect sense, without needing an explanation. Teenism also works), as long as they don't do it simply by adding "ness" at the end. I remember one such word (but not the word itself; sorry) in a church hymn, and was so irritated by it I couldn't bring myself to keep singing. I was completely pulled out of the whole groove of the moment.
Just my 2,
CVG
I didn't mean that sentence exactally, I forgot the real sentence for my sainity. I just tried to write the simplest sentance I could find, I failed. But I suppose that it was technology.
Thanks Kolona