|
|
Post by pjthefey on Jun 9, 2011 23:06:21 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, what are your feelings about the creation of new words when speaking or writing? I have to admit that I enjoy it, but it seems like my readers and teachers seem to either love them or hate them.
Feel free to share your thoughts, or any neologisms you have heard recently or created.
I'll start by sharing one of my favorites because it has proven so useful. I will preface it by stating that I believe I can say that it falls safely within the realm of informal language as opposed to academic writing.
Kinkjob - n. - A person who is sexually adventurous, and willing to experiment in the creation of new sexual practices, accessories, and/or fetishes.
|
|
|
|
Post by cyanea on Jun 9, 2011 23:21:03 GMT -5
I don't mind them. Language is supposed to be an everchanging, fluid thing. I don't think they have a place in academic settings though.
|
|
|
|
Post by devilishlybookish on Jun 9, 2011 23:27:40 GMT -5
I have no problem with it as long as it's made obvious what the new word means. I think neologisms are a great way to demonstrate your level of knowledge of a particular subject: if you know a certain discourse well enough to create knew terminology in it, chances are you know your stuff.
But you do need to legitimize it as a term in order to convey understanding. Using your example of "kinkjob": I see where you craft the term from, but without the given definition I could also argue using the same term as a colloquialism for someone who was acting crazy.
tl;dr: No problem with it as long as you define.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 9, 2011 23:49:03 GMT -5
Just found this: Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jun 10, 2011 0:09:13 GMT -5
I create new words all the time, so I like them.
Shakespeare did it. Why not?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 10, 2011 0:24:58 GMT -5
Cause we ain't Shakespeare.
But this sounds like fun. I don't think I've ever done it (on purpose), but I think I will now. I'll dedicate some lists in my book to words I create.
|
|
|
|
Post by onlyaworkingtitle on Jun 10, 2011 1:50:05 GMT -5
Neologisms are doubleplus good!
One of my classmates in a poetry class wrote in his own dialect. It was fascinating how a collection of invented words can be deciphered correctly despite our ignorance of intention -- that is to say, our interpretations were closer to truth than one might expect. Plus, the sound of the language was fantastic.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjthefey on Jun 10, 2011 2:03:07 GMT -5
Neologisms are doubleplus good! I have just exalted you for causing outbursts of laughter twice within 6 hours. Neos get a giant snow globe.... Awesome! : D |
|
|
|
Post by onlyaworkingtitle on Jun 10, 2011 2:31:36 GMT -5
Neologisms are doubleplus good! I have just exalted you for causing outbursts of laughter twice within 6 hours. Thanks! I try. |
|
|
|
Post by KatjevanLoon on Jun 10, 2011 3:48:35 GMT -5
Cause we ain't Shakespeare. Shakespeare wasn't a god. He was a dude who most likely had extramarital affairs and wrote plays that the people would watch. IE, bums in seats, bums in seats. Titus Andronicus is the Renaissance England version of a slasher flick -- because violence and sex sell. If he created new words, we definitely can. (Also, I can't tell if you were being sarcastic or not -- if you were I apologize for going all SRS BSNS on you.) |
|
|
|
Post by pjthefey on Jun 10, 2011 4:24:05 GMT -5
Cause we ain't Shakespeare. Shakespeare wasn't a god. He was a dude who most likely had extramarital affairs and wrote plays that the people would watch. I agree with your sentiment here. That said "He was a dude" is even debatable. There are some people who believe Shakespeare was "some dudes" who autonomously composed these plays because their political position might be endangered if it was known that they had done so. Even if he was a god, I don't see anything wrong with trying to emulate and even surpass him. The only way to grow is by testing limits. |
|
|
|
Post by Olive on Jun 10, 2011 8:10:36 GMT -5
Shakespeare wasn't a god. He was a dude who most likely had extramarital affairs and wrote plays that the people would watch. I agree with your sentiment here. That said "He was a dude" is even debatable. There are some people who believe Shakespeare was "some dudes" who autonomously composed these plays because their political position might be endangered if it was known that they had done so. Even if he was a god, I don't see anything wrong with trying to emulate and even surpass him. The only way to grow is by testing limits. I think there's a movie coming out that's the super-Hollywood exploration of the "Shakespeare wasn't a real guy" theories... Anyways, I definitely do it in casual situations... they're usually not that inventive, though, just me smashing two words together for no real reason other than because I can (read: I'm lazy). I'm going to blame that on my love for German, though... "What? It's like a shoe for your hand... it's a handshoe!" instead of "It's like a shoe for your hand... let's call it a glove!" Of course, there's always "Shittastic." I'm fond of that one. |
|
Umbvix
Young Armadillo
SCHLURP :B
Posts: 64
|
Post by Umbvix on Jun 10, 2011 9:29:51 GMT -5
I've made up a couple, one of my favorites being flashkadoodle. Like "I'll be back in a flashkadoodle!" I wish I could remember the others...There was something involving chicken nuggets. Edit: Oh! Fagtastic  For something that's fantastically gay <3 Although I've heard others use this on some websites, which disappoints me. I thought I was original xD |
|
|
|
Post by cyanea on Jun 10, 2011 9:35:46 GMT -5
I've made up a couple, one of my favorites being flashkadoodle. Like "I'll be back in a flashkadoodle!" I wish I could remember the others...There was something involving chicken nuggets. Edit: Oh! Fagtastic For something that's fantastically gay <3 Although I've heard others use this on some websites, which disappoints me. I thought I was original xD I've used fagtacular before. |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 10, 2011 9:41:29 GMT -5
Cause we ain't Shakespeare. Shakespeare wasn't a god. He was a dude who most likely had extramarital affairs and wrote plays that the people would watch. IE, bums in seats, bums in seats. Titus Andronicus is the Renaissance England version of a slasher flick -- because violence and sex sell. If he created new words, we definitely can. (Also, I can't tell if you were being sarcastic or not -- if you were I apologize for going all SRS BSNS on you.) The sentiment was only half serious, but so many writers try to do the things their heroes did and it often comes out terrible. And don't trivialize Shakespeare. Pretty much everything anyone likes about literature can be traced back to him. He's the Beatles of literature. |
|
For something that's fantastically gay <3 Although I've heard others use this on some websites, which disappoints me. I thought I was original xD