How to Transel a Neologism

Neologisms

by Bob Buddemeier

Everybody has opinions about language.  If the following material does not render you glassy-eyed and drooling, you will have an opportunity tell us yours.

Our Chief Word Nerd ran away to Hawaii this month and may not be back in the harness by deadline time – so it falls to me to provide you with TMNPLI = Too Much Nit-Picking Linguistic Information, this time about Neologisms.  Definition (found by Google):

“A neologism is a newly created word or expression that is not part of our official language system. Neologisms are also existing words or phrases that have gained a new meaning. Some Common Neologisms are App, Webinar, Staycation, Wicked, Sick, Google, Spam, Noob, BFF, Floss, Social Gifting, Chillax and Frinally.”

The examples given are various forms, including abbreviations or acronyms (App, BFF)¹, and redefined real words (wicked, sick, floss).  The invented words can be broken into categories: (a)  Combined words that have a semi-obvious literal meaning – Webinar, Staycation; (b) Words that sound and are spelled like real words – Google (think goo, ogle, giggle, gaggle), Spam (we already have spar, spat, span), maybe Frinally; (c) Pronounceable formulations that resemble nothing much else in English (Noob, Chillax²).

There is another category that deserves our attention – English word stems that have been restructured for convenience or to conform to some (other) grammatical or linguistic model.  These tend to enrage purists and engage utilitarians.

Prime example:  ORIENTATE, which is back-derived from ORIENTATION, which is a legitimate offspring of ORIENT (v.t., align or direct).

What’s wrong with the original more concise verb, “orient”?  The only thing I can think of is that if you capitalize it you get a noun that designates a geographic region, but I doubt that the process of orienting a person would be mistaken for sending Him/Her/Them/It to Asia, or for turning HHTI (another instant neologism) into an Asian.  After all, we don’t invent another word for polish just because there is a country containing Poles.

Words ending in “-ation” seem particularly vulnerable, probably because we have many verbs ending in “-ate,” for which the standard designation of process or product is “-ation” (graduate, hesitate, decapitate).  However, there is a smaller but substantial number of simpler (not ending in “-ate”) verbs in which “-ation” is used as a suffix for the same purposes.  Adding two syllables and then removing one to get to the original meaning complicates and expands the language in the assumed service of consistency.

I propose  a seemingly radical but more efficient way to standardize orthography — the Orient Rule, which forms the verb by removal of “-ation” (and associated conjunctive letters).  This may oblige us to oper on some of the other “-ate,” or even “-tion” words

I specule that if we formuly  constructive neologisms in this fashion, it may necess  adding a terminal “-e” or “-y” as well as   I will design this as a topic to explic in a subsequent column.  To elabor, the Rule will help us avoid complicing the language without violing the natural tendency to fix on standards.

Since English is a complied language, reducing words to their least common denominer will mean that teachers can educe students without debbing about their tendency to be preoccuped with consistency.

A fully coordined adoption of the Rule will inevitably oblige us to elimine a few existing verb forms.  For instance, “r,” “st,” and “equ” are somewhat problematic to apply as English stems for which to crey verbs  Non-native speakers may be confused by some “-ation” words that have no corresponding verb.  Not only is “n” an inappropry verb, but  “nating” would probably be most accurly transeled as “buttocking” (the more colloquial “butting” is something done primarily by ungules).

Despite the fact that some will hesit to adopt the recommend, I strongly advoce it.  To demonster its utility, I want to indice the recent useful derivative of a “-tion” word.  The Russia-Ukraine confront has led to much discussion of “attrition” which slid into English from Latin without a relled verb.  “Attrit” (also “attritt,” but not “attrite”) has been widely adopted, and is a compact verb with an apprily blunt pronuncy.³

If you made it this far your literary juices should be at least up to a simmer, so go to the Reply section and enter your most loved or hated (h’ed?) neologisms (specify which) — either words alone or usage in a sentence.  Or even those that you just don’t understand.  The Editorial Board will award prizes for particularly insightful selections.

Footnotes (how else would you know this is a serious exposition?)

¹Personal opinion:  I think that a neologism should be a pronounceable word, and not just a collection of characters.  What is bff supposed to sound like? (Don’t think too hard about this.)

²Right, there is a Hyrax, but the name comes from ancient Greek, and if you look up Hydrax you find that it is some sort of video villain (suitably alien).  Relax is already a verb.

³Entries linking to attrit

attrition (n.)

early 15c., attricioun, “a breaking;” 1540s, “abrasion, scraping, the rubbing of one thing against another,” from Latin attritionem (nominative attritio), literally “a rubbing against,” noun of action from past-participle stem of atterere “to wear, rub away,” figuratively “to destroy, waste,” from assimilated form of ad “to” (see ad-) + terere “to rub” (from PIE root *tere- (1) “to rub, turn”).

The earliest sense in English is from Scholastic theology (late 14c.): “sorrow for sin merely out of fear of punishment or a sense of shame,” an imperfect condition, less than contrition or repentance. The sense of “wearing down of military strength” is from World War I (1914). Figurative use of that is by 1930.