Who Knew...

Pages: 12
While studying for my English final, I came across a term that is rather interesting and applicable to this site.

Spoonerism: The mixing up of initial sounds of spoken words.
E.g: I hissed my mistory lesson.

I just found it funny seeing as we have a member called spoonlicker.
Academia: There's, literally, a word for everything...
@IWishIKnew
That's a dangerous mode of thinking because if you truly believe that the only expressible concepts are those that there is already a word for, then the powers that be can restrict the concepts that you can express by simply removing the definition of the word. So, a hypothetical malevolent government could remove the definition of the word "rebellion" from all dictionaries, and then slowly the concept of "rebellion" would disappear. At least, that's one of the things that Orwell warned against in 1984.

There is a word for almost everything, but if you can't find a word, you should make one up. Try to stick to the conventions of your chosen language if you can, e.g. if you were trying to come up with a word for someone who is afraid of goats, in English it could be capraphobe, using Latin "caprus" (goat) and ancient Greek "phobos" (fear) because it's conventional to use Greek and Latin words to make new English words (at least, in the sciences it is). It's also fine to make entirely new words instead of combining existing ones, but your word is less likely to be accepted or understood if you do. Someone could understand "capraphobe" just by knowing that "phobia" usually ends a word about fear and that the Zodiac sign of Capricorn is a goat, without necessarily knowing the Greek and Latin words "phobos" and "caprus". If you chose "adfkhndfh" instead, there would be no way for a person to understand or remember what you meant.

Anyway, on the topic of interesting words, my current favourite is "pluviophile", which means someone who loves the rain.
@chrisname

I didn;t mean it that way, but I do agree with you.
Last edited on
Nah, that's nonsense derailment about government.

The idea that some malevolent government could simply change words and control the people is fiction.

What Orwell was warning against is complicity with societal dysfunction stemming from corrupt government.

That is, when we change the meaning of words to countermand their correct and/or mislead, then we're in trouble.


No, there isn't a word for everything -- but there are idioms (which may be a single word and not necessarily a group of words [a phrase]) which we can use.

And there need not be a word for everything. We get along just fine without one. Making up words doesn't tend to help either. Why make up a word (like capraphobe), which would serve mainly to confuse people (because they would have to stop and try to figure out what you are saying) instead of just saying "fear of goats". Same number of syllables, same meaning, less confusing.

You would think, given sites like these: http://www.goat-trauma.org/ that there would be a useful made-up word. Somehow, it escapes them to have one. Why? Because it doesn't matter enough to make up a new word for it.

Clarity of expression is more important than having a new word for it.


A spoonerism is so called because it is named after a well-known university man who did it all the time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Archibald_Spooner

The way new words come about is by resonance with some subcultural cohort -- it is instantly understood, makes sense, has the right feeling, twist, or humor, etc.

Or if you are someone like Noah Webster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster
Two and two? Would that B-4?
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/B-4
try #2:
Why is Lumpkin reported?
Duoas wrote:
What Orwell was warning against is complicity with societal dysfunction stemming from corrupt government.

That is, when we change the meaning of words to countermand their correct and/or mislead, then we're in trouble.

I was referring to Newspeak. In 1984, the Party deliberately modifies or even removes words in order to restrict its subjects' thoughts because they reason that people can only think about what they can express with words, and if there are no words for a concept, then people can't think about it.
Wikipedia wrote:
'For example, the word "free" still existed in Newspeak but could only be used in terms of something not being possessed as in, "the dog is free from lice" or, "this field is free from weeds." It could not be used in terms of being able to do as one pleases, as in "free choice" or" free will" since these concepts no longer existed.'

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak#Basic_principles
This is what I was getting at.

Duoas wrote:
And there need not be a word for everything. We get along just fine without one. Making up words doesn't tend to help either. Why make up a word (like capraphobe), which would serve mainly to confuse people (because they would have to stop and try to figure out what you are saying) instead of just saying "fear of goats". Same number of syllables, same meaning, less confusing.

That was just an example. Sometimes it's useful to make up new words, sometimes not. That example was a case where it's probably not useful, although maybe it would be if you were a psychologist naming a specific anxiety disorder. But sometimes making up words is useful in poetry when you need to express an idea using a limited number of syllables or if you want to express an idea in a single word where a word doesn't exist. And sometimes it's just for fun. It doesn't have to be culturally accepted.

Clarity of expression is more important than having a new word for it.

The way new words come about is by resonance with some subcultural cohort -- it is instantly understood, makes sense, has the right feeling, twist, or humor, etc.

I agree with this, but there's nothing wrong with making new words. It's easy to say they're unnecessary now, but people probably said the same thing around Shakespeare's time, yet you can trace over 1,700 contemporary English words back to him, many of which are frequently used in many contexts and may not have been immediately obvious at first (especially ones he invented from scratch). Here's a list of a few of them: http://www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/wordsinvented.html
Last edited on
I don't know who reported me, and I don't really care for the reason why anymore.
closed account (Dy7SLyTq)
The idea that some malevolent government could simply change words and control the people is fiction.

i would like to disagree with the second part of that. it is perfectly plausible and has happened where the government has controlled everyone. its happened a lot in the history of buisness too.
Academia: There's, literally, a word for everything...


Just got it :)
There IS a word for everything:
everything
Last edited on
I'm tired of playing with little boys who think they know everything. Sorry for helping derail your thread, Script Coder.
It seems rather immature to start an argument and then decide to leave it while belittling the other party when they don't agree with you. I can understand not wanting to get dragged into a debate every single time you reply to a post, but that doesn't excuse the insulting tone.
IWishIKnew wrote:
Academia: There's, literally, a word for everything...

That means that there can be a word for a word for a word for a word ... for the phrase "The feeling when you write your first successful program.". This means that there is an infinite loop of words, because each word can have a word defining itself, meaning that the defining word has a word defining that word, and so on, so forth, stack overflow... And then eventually, it would be so hard to find a word that's less than 1000000 characters long. (OEM Extended ASCII characters might have to be used for words (EX: nullnull0xdfdfjdfnull\s\s\s means "The feeling you get when you write a program that is more than 10000 lines long and gives you 10000+ errors.".))

Although, this could be false since there are so many variations of things so that when a word that is defining something, it cannot be defined again because that one variation will be already defined, meaning you have to find a new variation of that thing.

#define
Last edited on
That means that there can be a word for a word for a word for a word ...

I think you've missed the point. The word for everything is literally everything.
cire wrote:
I think you've missed the point. The word for everything is literally everything.

Yeah, I missed the point. Thanks for bringing me back to Earth... :)
Last edited on
> they reason that people can only think about what they can express with words,
> and if there are no words for a concept, then people can't think about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_determinism


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamihlapinatapai
a look shared by two people, each wishing that the other will offer something that they both desire but are unwilling to suggest or offer themselves
Wow, roughly 3 posts before derailment! You guys are getting good at this.
Duoas wrote:
Sorry for helping derail your thread, Script Coder.

It is okay, it wasn't really a thread with much direction in the first place. Although I swear you guys could go from anything to philosophy faster than wikipedia.

For those of you who don't know if you continuously click the fist link (not in a box or in italics, as in in the actual information) you will in something like 75% of their articles get to philosophy. I have yet to find one that doesn't.

EDIT: spelling
Last edited on
> I don't know who reported me, and I don't really care for the reason why anymore.
the system works
ne555 wrote:
the system works

http://xkcd.com/810/
Pages: 12