The achy spammy products are plenty on Wordnik and there are many who think achy spammers resemble colon cleansers, but they deserve much worse than that. These kinds of achy spam products will make the site's members irritated.
The acai berry products are plenty in the market and there are many who think that acai berry products are merely colon cleansers, but they are much more than that. These kinds of Acai cleanse products will make the method simpler. www.goarticles.com
This reminds me of arguments about what is a species. No definition of "species" works in all situations, and the same is true of "word". OED2 says about species, "The exact definition of a species, and the criteria by which species are to be distinguished (esp. in relation to genera or varieties), have been the subject of much discussion."
Some of the hallmarks of words are that they are pronounceable, used for open communication, have inferable meanings, and are related to other words (have derivations).
I don't think every combination of letters can be considered a word. "Madeupical" meets all four of the criteria above; "dhn" mets none of them. The meaning of madeupical, might be inferred by a native speaker of English even without a context, even though it is not a standard formation. The meaning of dhn cannot be determined without a context. It might be an acronym, or it might be an arbitrary string of characters that conveys meaning only as a code.
I wonder if that's too narrow still. What about words like runcible that are pure nonsense and can't be strictly understood? I'd say they're still words. And I'd like to think that I am free to make up words, and they are indeed words (in the barest sense), even if the rest of the population never happens to adopt or understand them. They may not be very good words, but what else would they be?(Maybe in that case, the communicator and communicatee are one and the same?)
Then books written in a language I don’t understand wouldn’t contain any words when I “read” them. Or would I then just not qualify as communicatee? In that case, if a sentence in such a language were embedded in an English text, for example to show all the pretty characters, I would cease to be communicatee for a second while I read that sentence? That strikes me as rather unintuitive . . . I’d rather say that a word becomes a word for someone when (s)he either associates some concept with its form or comes to believe that someone else might do so. “Madeupical” then could just mean that someone wants to point out that the originator of the word is a specific person and moreover a person that is felt to be close to some degree, be it temporally, socially or in some other way.
A while ago I saw a video on the internet of Erin McKean talking about lexicography. It pissed me off for some reason I can't remember, and now all I do remember is that she said that loving a word makes it real, which I whole-heartedly agree with, with the caveat that love should not be applied mindlessly, but only to such words as are inherently lovable. (Shoot me, I'm a Platonist in a post-modern world...)
Exactly my point. Somewhere along the line, someone has to make up the word. (Please don't confuse a word with a random bunch of letters that sound nice together stuck onto a meaning. I can't accept that, and I think I'm justified. Correct me if I'm wrong.)
Wait a moment, John... why doesn't this comment appear on Wordie as well? And where are Wordie comments? This could be a mess, if we use both websites for a while and comments are mixed when the merging is complete...
There's a list I found once which offered to help make up words for concepts that we don't know or have the name of. I can't find it now. Can anyone help? Or I could just describe my problem here, I guess...
The role of madeupical words in the quality of fiction writing was recently the subject of an xkcd comic panel (be sure not to miss the mouse rollover text). This panel was discussed today on the linguistics blog Language Log.
The other night I dreamt I was reading an obscure novel from nineteen-o-something. In a footnote of this novel, or it might have been non-fiction a la William James, I saw the word "madeupickal", and thought "a-ha! This will be a killer citation!" Then I woke up.
I think sniglets were "invented" (maybe not) by Rich Hall, a 1980s-era comedian who used to be on Saturday Night Live. He put out a bunch of books of sniglets and stuff. Some of my favorites (that I still remember) were: motspur--the one wheel on a shopping cart that won't go the right way essoasso--a person who avoids a red light by cutting through a corner gas station blurfle--to be speaking loudly over music, as at a dance club, only to have the music stop suddenly just as you're saying something like "... testicles laminated!"