Comments on: Only You Can Save a Word From Certain Annihilation… But Only By Acting Right Now!

By: Word Porn » Word Porn Saves the World (Or, Um, Some Words)

Word Porn » Word Porn Saves the World (Or, Um, Some Words) — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:08:52 +0000

[...] This month, Word Porn will highlight these archaic, obsolete, but downright delectable words. By reintroducing them to the world, and to you, my Word Porn acolytes, we can bring EXUVIATE back to life! We can make FUDSY happen! [...]

By: Tom Chandler

Tom Chandler — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:47:25 +0000

Jamie: You’re doing god’s work.

Susan: This is most certainly not intense. I was shooting for humorous.

By: Susan

Susan — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 01:32:04 +0000

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.

By: Jamie Simmerman

Jamie Simmerman — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 05:18:44 +0000

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. ;)

By: Do You Contribute to the Caducity of Words? : Blue Duck Copy

Do You Contribute to the Caducity of Words? : Blue Duck Copy — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 19:21:25 +0000

[...] morning, I happened upon a blog post over at CopyWriterUnderground.com that tells a woeful tale of words in danger of deletion from the dictionary. It seems that once a [...]

By: Graham Strong

Graham Strong — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:04:12 +0000

@Tom – “heated literary moments” – Ah, how I miss university!

~Graham

By: Jamie Simmerman

Jamie Simmerman — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:21:09 +0000

I so love this idea! Thanks for sharing. I think I like “Embrangle” for this week’s post.

By: Tom Chandler

Tom Chandler — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:19:06 +0000

I have to admit a developing fondness for compossible and embrangle, though Recrement cries out for use in a heated (yet literary) moment.

By: Graham Strong

Graham Strong — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:45:13 +0000

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:

I see shadows of “1984″ everywhere, and this is another double-plus good example.

Why not rely on the OED? Sure, it’s hard to fit in your pocket, but at least you know the word will be there when you look it up.

Isn’t this why the Internet was invented? So that senior editors didn’t have to decide which antiquated words to pitch overboard? There’s room for everybody in cyberspace!

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