Only You Can Save a Word From Certain Annihilation… But Only By Acting Right Now!
By Tom Chandler on Sep 22, 2008 in Underground Entertainment
What happens to words that aren’t used any more?
Sadly, these brave soldiers disappear from the dictionary, dropped from the lexicon by heartless editors who frankly seem like the kind of people who would seat elderly folks on ice floes and push them out to sea.
The good news? You, dear reader, have the power to save an archaic or obsolete word from certain oblivion.
“What can I possibly do?” you say. Simple.
The Times Online is running a list of words that are in danger of being dropped from the dictionary (Collins). To save them, all you need do is use them in your copywriting work.
…but Collins has given warning that it is not enough for the words to be used by their champions alone. Endangered words must appear at least six times in Collins’s corpus, a database that records word usage in printed, broadcast and online media.Compilers will discount any references to words if they appear in articles about the campaign to save them.
Surely, my verbose friends, you can find a place in that landing page for “Apodeictic” - which means “unquestionably true by virtue of demonstration.”
No room for that? Then how about spicing up that corporate Web copy with “nitid” - which means “bright or glistening.” (That’ll drive conversions.)
Embrangle? Compossible? Fubsy?
Stick ‘em in a direct response email - or use them in that epic tweet you haven’t quite gotten right.
Only by acting today can we - as copywriters - turn back this threat to our language.
So look deep into your heart, and see if you have it in you to save some poor word from oblivion today. (If not, then perhaps you too are the kind of person who would shove elderly laden ice floes out to sea.)
How you can help to save some cherished words from oblivion - Times Online
Abstergent: Cleansing or scouringAgrestic: Rural; rustic; unpolished; uncouth
Apodeictic: Unquestionably true by virtue of demonstration
Caducity: Perishableness; senility
Caliginosity: Dimness; darkness
Compossible: Possible in coexistence with something else
Embrangle: To confuse or entangle
Exuviate: To shed (a skin or similar outer covering)
Fatidical: Prophetic
Fubsy: Short and stout; squat
Griseous: Streaked or mixed with grey; somewhat grey
Malison: A curse
Mansuetude: Gentleness or mildness
Muliebrity: The condition of being a woman
Niddering: Cowardly
Nitid: Bright; glistening
Olid: Foul-smelling
Oppugnant: Combative, antagonistic or contrary
Periapt: A charm or amulet
Recrement: Waste matter; refuse; dross
Roborant: Tending to fortify or increase strength
Skirr: A whirring or grating sound, as of the wings of birds in flight
Vaticinate: To foretell; prophesy
Vilipend: To treat or regard with contempt
Keep writing, Tom Chandler.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Hey Tom,
This strikes me with both hilarity and rage. Yes, I do believe that certain words will go to extinction naturally. But isn’t it the job of a dictionary to at least keep a record of these words?
Some random thoughts on the matter:
Anyway, rather than stick my head in the sand, I’ll try to champion a word too, which I actually got from the Times Online comment section: spatchcocked. No, it’s not as painful as it sounds. It means (among other things) an awkward segue way or unsuitable insertion of words or ideas. Name dropping would be a good example, or forever turning the conversation back to you and/or your own activities.
Which is funny, actually, because I’m developing a post right now where I talk about the fact that you shouldn’t reference your own blogging activities in the comment section of someone else’s blog, except in unusual circumstances. This would be another example of spatchcocking. I think everyone should check it out when it’s done — it’ll be a masterpiece! (I’m glad I found the opportunity to mention it.)
Loquaciously yours,
~Graham
Graham Strong | Sep 23, 2008 | Reply
I have to admit a developing fondness for compossible and embrangle, though Recrement cries out for use in a heated (yet literary) moment.
Tom Chandler | Sep 23, 2008 | Reply
I so love this idea! Thanks for sharing. I think I like “Embrangle” for this week’s post.
Jamie Simmerman | Sep 23, 2008 | Reply
@Tom - “heated literary moments” - Ah, how I miss university!
~Graham
Graham Strong | Sep 23, 2008 | Reply
Graham has a particular fondness for spatchcocked, and wants to save it from editorial euthanasia.
I am having a difficult time working that one into my writing, however. Now embrangle on the other hand, ah, that one’s easy to work in.
I think I’ll tackle Vilipend tomorrow. ;)
Jamie Simmerman | Sep 24, 2008 | Reply
Wow. That’s intense. I’m not sure if I think it’s amusing or tragic. Perhaps a little of both.
I heard an interview on NPR with someone who spent a year reading volumes of dictionaries. I think he would be enraged by this.
Susan | Oct 1, 2008 | Reply
Jamie: You’re doing god’s work.
Susan: This is most certainly not intense. I was shooting for humorous.
Tom Chandler | Oct 3, 2008 | Reply