Jason Lambert
unread,
Apr 14, 1997, 11:00:00 AM4/14/97
to
Is «got» really a word? If so, what is its meaning in today’s society
(close your dictionaries—I’m speaking of real life)? Let me give you an
example of my day…
I got up this morning.
I got some shampoo from the cupboard.
I got into the shower.
I got wet.
I got clean.
I got out of the shower.
I got dried off.
I got some clothes on.
I got some breakfast.
I got my briefcase.
I got into my car.
I got to work around 9:00.
I got myself some coffee.
I got some work done.
Need I go on?
Gwen Lenker
unread,
Apr 15, 1997, 11:00:00 AM4/15/97
to
Jason Lambert <ja…@nextwork.com> wrote in article
<01bc4904$ee76ef40$310635c6@jason>…
> Is «got» really a word?
Yes.
> If so, what is its meaning in today’s society
> (close your dictionaries—I’m speaking of real life)?
Words don’t mean, people mean. People use words to express their
(people’s) meanings. As your examples show, people today use «got» (and
idioms incorporating the word «got») to express quite a number of different
meanings.
> I got up this morning.
> I got some shampoo from the cupboard.
> I got into the shower.
> I got wet.
> I got clean.
> I got out of the shower.
> I got dried off.
> I got some clothes on.
> I got some breakfast.
> I got my briefcase.
> I got into my car.
> I got to work around 9:00.
> I got myself some coffee.
> I got some work done.
>
>
> Need I go on?
No. Now open your dictionary and go fettle yourself.
Albert Marshall
unread,
Apr 15, 1997, 11:00:00 AM4/15/97
to
In article <01bc4904$ee76ef40$310635c6@jason>, Jason Lambert
<ja…@nextwork.com> writes
>Is «got» really a word? If so, what is its meaning in today’s society
>(close your dictionaries—I’m speaking of real life)? Let me give you an
>example of my day…
>
>
>I got up this morning.
>I got some shampoo from the cupboard.
>I got into the shower.
>I got wet.
>I got clean.
>I got out of the shower.
>I got dried off.
>I got some clothes on.
>I got some breakfast.
>I got my briefcase.
>I got into my car.
>I got to work around 9:00.
>I got myself some coffee.
>I got some work done.
>
>
>Need I go on?
>
I’ve got your drift.
«Get» is possibly the most versatile word in the English language.
On it’s own it usually means «to obtain», «to become», or (by extension of
«to become displaced») «to move». Most of the examples you give above
can be interpreted using one or other of these meanings, although a direct
conversion would sound rather odd in most cases.
By the way, it may also mean (inter alia) «to understand» and «to father».
It’s also a great way to keep EFL teachers in business.
—
Albert Marshall
Executive French
Language Training for Businesses in Kent
01634 400902
Bob Cunningham
unread,
Apr 15, 1997, 11:00:00 AM4/15/97
to
«Gwen Lenker» <gale…@worldnet.att.net> said:
>Jason Lambert <ja…@nextwork.com> wrote in article
><01bc4904$ee76ef40$310635c6@jason>…
>
>> Is «got» really a word?
>
>Yes.
>
>> If so, what is its meaning in today’s society
>> (close your dictionaries—I’m speaking of real life)?
Dictionaries represent real life. Lexicographers are real people and
they report what real people say.
>Words don’t mean, people mean. People use words to express their
>(people’s) meanings. As your examples show, people today use «got» (and
>idioms incorporating the word «got») to express quite a number of different
>meanings.
>> I got up this morning.
>> I got some shampoo from the cupboard.
>> I got into the shower.
>> I got wet.
>> I got clean.
>> I got out of the shower.
>> I got dried off.
>> I got some clothes on.
>> I got some breakfast.
>> I got my briefcase.
>> I got into my car.
>> I got to work around 9:00.
>> I got myself some coffee.
>> I got some work done.
«I got lucky.»
«I got along okay.»
Liza Doolittle got it.
«I got rhythm.»
«I got [something] in green pastures.» (daisies?)
«I got my gal; who could ask for anything more?»
Sally: «What does ‘got’ mean?»
Jane: «Ya got me.»
I’ve got to remember to count my books to see how many I’ve got,
especially since I’ve got a bunch of new ones recently. («I’ve got to»
equals «I must»; «I’ve got» equals «I have»; «I’ve got» equals «I’ve
procured.»)
This brings to mind the underlying fallacy of Basic English. We were
told that by learning one word, «got», one could express a wide variety
of meanings. We were not told that to learn each of those idiomatic
meanings was at least as much trouble as learning the same number of
separate words.
Brent Hetherwick
unread,
Apr 15, 1997, 11:00:00 AM4/15/97
to
Gwen Lenker (gale…@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Words don’t mean, people mean. People use words to express their
: (people’s) meanings.
This isn’t exactly a trivial «fact» that you may blandly assert without
dispute. In fact, many with interests in the philosophy of language
would find your assertion trivially «absurd». There are good theories of
«word-meaning» that require the existence of few, if any, mental
entities.
$$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666
heth…@math.wisc.edu
$$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666 $$$ 666
Gwen Lenker
unread,
Apr 16, 1997, 11:00:00 AM4/16/97
to
Brent Hetherwick <heth…@math.wisc.edu> wrote in article
<5j0ep2$o…@news.doit.wisc.edu>…
> Gwen Lenker (gale…@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
> : Words don’t mean, people mean. People use words to express their
> : (people’s) meanings.
>
> This isn’t exactly a trivial «fact» that you may blandly assert without
> dispute. In fact, many with interests in the philosophy of language
> would find your assertion trivially «absurd». There are good theories of
> «word-meaning» that require the existence of few, if any, mental
> entities.
Since this is alt.usage.english, not alt.usage.unknown-tongues, I meant
«words» of the kind people use, not of the kind non-mental entities may use
in an alternate dimension. Philosophy is not my strong suit. I try not to
confuse deontology with ontology, but that’s about as far as I care to
venture into that quagmire.
I am struck, however, by what looks to be an unusual usage here of
«trivial» and «trivially.» I’ve tried substituting «unimportant» and
«unimportantly,» but that doesn’t seem — I don’t know — it just seems
something’s wrong with my interpretation. When I substitute
«unquestionable,» «undoubtable,» «incontrovertible,» or similar words for
«trivial,» though, there doesn’t seem to be any jarring inconsistency.
Is it possible that someone who was born in the ’70s, and thus has heard
the word «trivial» most often followed by the word «pursuit,» may have
inferred that «trivial» means «undeniably true»? Might that be what Brent
means?
Has anyone encountered other indications that a shift in the meaning of
«trivial» might be taking place?
colf…@minn.net
unread,
Apr 16, 1997, 11:00:00 AM4/16/97
to
On 16 Apr 1997 00:47:07 GMT, «Gwen Lenker» <gale…@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
>Brent Hetherwick <heth…@math.wisc.edu> wrote
>> Gwen Lenker (gale…@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
>> : Words don’t mean, people mean. People use words to express their
>> : (people’s) meanings.
>>
>> This isn’t exactly a trivial «fact» that you may blandly assert without
>> dispute. In fact, many with interests in the philosophy of language
>> would find your assertion trivially «absurd».
>
>I am struck, however, by what looks to be an unusual usage here of
>»trivial» and «trivially.» I’ve tried substituting «unimportant» and
>»unimportantly,» but that doesn’t seem — I don’t know — it just seems
>something’s wrong with my interpretation. When I substitute
>»unquestionable,» «undoubtable,» «incontrovertible,» or similar words for
>»trivial,» though, there doesn’t seem to be any jarring inconsistency.
>
>Is it possible that someone who was born in the ’70s, and thus has heard
>the word «trivial» most often followed by the word «pursuit,» may have
>inferred that «trivial» means «undeniably true»? Might that be what Brent
>means?
Are you being disingenuous? It seemed clear to me that Brent was
saying that you tossed off your remark as if it were a trivial little
factoid so obvious that no one would challenge it.
Carol from Mpls.
John M. Lawler
unread,
Apr 16, 1997, 11:00:00 AM4/16/97
to
Gwen Lenker <gale…@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>Brent Hetherwick <heth…@math.wisc.edu> writes:
>>Gwen Lenker wrote:
>> : Words don’t mean, people mean.
This is the biological version of semantics, in which language is a
species trait of H. Sap, and thus has a discernible relationship with its
speakers. Most linguists would agree with this formulation, I think. It
is, indeed, a fact (or, if one prefers, a «fact») that people are involved
in language and meaning and cannot be wished away theoretically without
compromising theory.
>> : People use words to express their (people’s) meanings.
Now, *this* is a little dicier. It certainly reports the common opinion
of humanity that the speaker is in charge of the speech, and that the
speaker’s perceived purpose involves a reference to «meaning(s)», whatever
it(they) is(are). But the unsatisfactory nature of the paraphrase above
indicates that this view is less than perfectly explanatory, and thus that
there’s some theoretical handwaving going on.
The best way out of this one is to stick with your guns, Gwen, exactly as
you pointed them in the first sentence above, and don’t use «meaning» as a
noun at all. Rather, restrict it to use as the past participle of the
active verb «mean», which (in these circumstances) must have a human
volitional agent/experiencer subject. Since this verb «mean» isn’t used
in the progressive very often, you’ll find that «meaning» is pretty rare
in actual usage.
>> This isn’t exactly a trivial «fact» that you may blandly assert without
>> dispute. In fact, many with interests in the philosophy of language
>> would find your assertion trivially «absurd». There are good theories of
>> «word-meaning» that require the existence of few, if any, mental
>> entities.
Less than canonically objective, here. You are correct to identify those
who «have interests in» these subjects as the ones who would object; it’s
always a case of whose ox is being gored, isn’t it? And «absurd» strikes
me as a term more appropriate for a critical stance than an analytic one.
Note that you offer «dispute», rather than «disproof» or «counterexamples»
or «counterargument».
As to «good theories of ‘word-meaning'», for whom are they good? Perhaps
some philosophers. But, leaving aside the irrelevancy of goodness in its
meaning, the concept of «word» itself depends on linguistic facts; and the
origins of the study of «word-meaning» in itself is an artifact of the
Ancients’ parochial lack of knowledge of (or interest in) other language
phenomena. If the Athenians had been diglossic with a polysynthetic
language, we’d have a very different (or perhaps no) concept of
«word-meaning» today.
The great attraction of using «meaning» as a noun is that it’s so protean
that it can always look like it encompasses whatever one might want to
heap on it theoretically; but it pretty clearly doesn’t exist (in the
physical universe, that is, not in the mathematical sense) without some
human being in the circuit, and any theory of meaning that ignores that
fact qualifies as mathematics, not science.
>I am struck, however, by what looks to be an unusual usage here of
>»trivial» and «trivially.» I’ve tried substituting «unimportant» and
>»unimportantly,» but that doesn’t seem — I don’t know — it just seems
>something’s wrong with my interpretation. When I substitute
>»unquestionable,» «undoubtable,» «incontrovertible,» or similar words for
>»trivial,» though, there doesn’t seem to be any jarring inconsistency.
>Is it possible that someone who was born in the ’70s, and thus has heard
>the word «trivial» most often followed by the word «pursuit,» may have
>inferred that «trivial» means «undeniably true»? Might that be what Brent
>means?
>Has anyone encountered other indications that a shift in the meaning of
>»trivial» might be taking place?
No, this is the old use, at least in academic disputation. Pinning it
on a quotation is equivalent to sniffing in disdain. Keeps one from
having to answer it constructively.
It comes from the medieval «Trivium», which was the first curriculum of
the University in the 12th Century ff. There were «three things» (whence
the Tri- in Trivium) one must study first. Only after those were mastered
could one proceed to the higher study of the «four» things (the
«Quadrivium», a word that has not yet been commemorated in a parlor game,
to my knowledge), consisting of the advanced subjects of Arithmetic,
Geometry, Music, and Astronomy.
The imputation of the academic use of «trivial» is that anything «trivial»
is something that all educated people know; «trivially ‘absurd'» would
mean an elementary mistake was made, obvious to those who have progressed
through at least the quadrivium.
Interestingly, and perhaps ironically, and I think not trivially, the
three subjects in the Trivium are three of the four major pillars of
modern linguistics: Grammar, Rhetoric, and Logic. (The fourth would be
Phonetics, but Europeans didn’t discover Indian phonetic science until the
nineteenth century, so it was unavailable for inclusion in the Medieval
curriculum.)
-John Lawler http://www.lsa.umich.edu/ling/jlawler/ U Michigan Linguistics
—————————————————————————
«Language is the most massive and inclusive art we know, a — Edward Sapir
mountainous and anonymous work of unconscious generations.» Language (1921)
Gwen Lenker
unread,
Apr 16, 1997, 11:00:00 AM4/16/97
to
John M. Lawler <jla…@gorf.rs.itd.umich.edu> wrote in article
<5j2lnj$i…@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>…
> Gwen Lenker <gale…@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >Has anyone encountered other indications that a shift in the meaning of
> >»trivial» might be taking place?
>
> No, this is the old use, at least in academic disputation. Pinning it
> on a quotation is equivalent to sniffing in disdain. Keeps one from
> having to answer it constructively.
In my case, it was more like grasping at straws than sniffing in disdain.
My cheap dictionary (Webster’s New Universal Unabridged, 1979) did include
the definition «relating to or of the trivium» and for «trivium» offered
either «in the Middle Ages, the lower division of the seven liberal arts»
or «the three anterior radii of a holothurian or other echinoid considered
collectively.» I didn’t intuitively connect the Middle Ages with a modern
usage of «trivial» to mean «elementary,» though now that it’s been
explained, I see the sense in it.
I ask questions to get answers. The answers I’ve received here have been
quite helpful. Thank you.
Gwen Lenker
unread,
Apr 16, 1997, 11:00:00 AM4/16/97
to
colf…@minn.net wrote in article <3354463c…@news.minn.net>…
>
> Are you being disingenuous? It seemed clear to me that Brent was
> saying that you tossed off your remark as if it were a trivial little
> factoid so obvious that no one would challenge it.
Not disingenuity, it was honest befuddlement, which K. Edgcombe and John M.
Lawler have by now assuaged.
Gwen Lenker
unread,
Apr 16, 1997, 11:00:00 AM4/16/97
to
K. Edgcombe <ke…@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote in article
<5j27mb$4…@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>…
> >
> There is a use of the word common amongst mathematicians which is quite
close,
> I think, to Brent’s use. If I say in mathematics that something is
trivial I
> mean that it requires no proof, being obvious to the meanest
intelligence.
Aha! That explains it to my satisfaction, thank you.
Chris Perrott
unread,
Apr 16, 1997, 11:00:00 AM4/16/97
to
Albert Marshall wrote:
>
> In article <01bc4904$ee76ef40$310635c6@jason>, Jason Lambert
> <ja…@nextwork.com> writes
> >Is «got» really a word? If so, what is its meaning in today’s society
> >(close your dictionaries—I’m speaking of real life)? Let me give you an
> >example of my day…
> >
> >
> >I got up this morning.
> >I got some shampoo from the cupboard.
> >I got into the shower.
> >I got wet.
> >I got clean.
> >I got out of the shower.
> >I got dried off.
> >I got some clothes on.
> >I got some breakfast.
> >I got my briefcase.
> >I got into my car.
> >I got to work around 9:00.
> >I got myself some coffee.
> >I got some work done.
> >
> >
> >Need I go on?
> >
> I’ve got your drift.
>
> «Get» is possibly the most versatile word in the English language.
>
> On it’s own it usually means «to obtain», «to become», or (by extension of
> «to become displaced») «to move».
You’ve got to tell them it means «must».
—
Chris Perrott
K. Edgcombe
unread,
Apr 16, 1997, 11:00:00 AM4/16/97
to
In article <01bc49ff$ae03bd20$LocalHost@default>,
Gwen Lenker <gale…@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Brent Hetherwick <heth…@math.wisc.edu> wrote in article
>>
>> This isn’t exactly a trivial «fact» that you may blandly assert without
>> dispute. In fact, many with interests in the philosophy of language
<snip>
>
>I am struck, however, by what looks to be an unusual usage here of
>»trivial» and «trivially.» I’ve tried substituting «unimportant» and
>»unimportantly,» but that doesn’t seem — I don’t know — it just seems
>something’s wrong with my interpretation. When I substitute
>»unquestionable,» «undoubtable,» «incontrovertible,» or similar words for
>»trivial,» though, there doesn’t seem to be any jarring inconsistency.
>
>Is it possible that someone who was born in the ’70s, and thus has heard
>the word «trivial» most often followed by the word «pursuit,» may have
>inferred that «trivial» means «undeniably true»? Might that be what Brent
>means?
>
>Has anyone encountered other indications that a shift in the meaning of
>»trivial» might be taking place?
>
>
There is a use of the word common amongst mathematicians which is quite close,
I think, to Brent’s use. If I say in mathematics that something is trivial I
mean that it requires no proof, being obvious to the meanest intelligence. I
think that originally the adjective was applied to the proof — which is not too
far from the «insignificant» meaning, but it then got attached to the statement
being proved.
Of course, this, like the useful word «clearly», can be and is used to
intimidate those less confident in the subject, or to to cover up the fact that
one has actually no idea to prove it but it looks as though it ought to be
true.
I don’t know how far back this usage goes but I think it was around in the
sixties. The use in «Trivial Pursuit» is quite distinct from this, I think,
and relates to the description of the items in the game as «trivia».
Katy
Steve Lewin
unread,
Apr 17, 1997, 11:00:00 AM4/17/97
to
In message <01bc4904$ee76ef40$310635c6@jason>
«Jason Lambert» <ja…@nextwork.com> writes:
> Is «got» really a word? If so, what is its meaning in today’s society
> (close your dictionaries—I’m speaking of real life)? Let me give you an
> example of my day…
< snip a lotta gots >
> Need I go on?
You do, don’t you ? But got is still the past tense and past
participle of the verb to get. It can often be replaced by some other
construction but so what ?
Got it ?
Steve
(BTW my dictionary has 22 meanings for *get* so your list is barely
scratching the surface)
bruce bowser
unread,
Jul 17, 2021, 8:51:37 PM7/17/21
to
On Monday, April 14, 1997 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Jason Lambert wrote:
> Is «got» really a word? If so, what is its meaning in today’s society
> (close your dictionaries—I’m speaking of real life)? Let me give you an
> example of my day…
>
> I got up this morning.
> I got some shampoo from the cupboard.
> I got into the shower.
> I got wet.
> I got clean.
> I got out of the shower.
> I got dried off.
> I got some clothes on.
> I got some breakfast.
> I got my briefcase.
> I got into my car.
> I got to work around 9:00.
> I got myself some coffee.
> I got some work done.
>
> Need I go on?
In the American south, i’ve heard people say «i’ve got to get it» — meaning «i’m leaving, now».
Tony Cooper
unread,
Jul 17, 2021, 9:07:10 PM7/17/21
to
I doubt it. What you might hear is «I’ve got to get to it», meaning
«I need to go do (something)».
—
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Lewis
unread,
Jul 18, 2021, 12:51:14 AM7/18/21
to
Are you sure? I’ve heard «I’ve got to git» to mean «I need to leave» but
never «I’ve got to get it».
«I’s godda git» is pretty common too.
—
THEY ARE LAUGHING AT ME, NOT WITH ME Bart chalkboard Ep. 7G12
На основании Вашего запроса эти примеры могут содержать грубую лексику.
На основании Вашего запроса эти примеры могут содержать разговорную лексику.
At least «toad» is a real word.
It’s hard to measure a variable like «historicity» when it comes to games-and yes, that is a real word.
Такую переменную, как «историчность», очень сложно оценивать в играх — и да, это реальное слово.
We know this from experiments that use a technique called semantic priming, in which participants are asked to identify whether a target word is a real word in the context of other words.
Мы знаем об этом благодаря экспериментам, которые используют технику под названием «семантическая подготовка»: участников просят определить, является ли предложенное им звукосочетание реальным словом в контексте других слов.
Sam and Cat make a bet with the annoying older brother of a babysitting client that «lumpatious» is a real word.
Сэм и Кэт заключают пари с занудным старшим братом мальчика, которого они нянчат, что слово «сельпошный» существует.
Результатов: 89521. Точных совпадений: 7. Затраченное время: 487 мс
Documents
Корпоративные решения
Спряжение
Синонимы
Корректор
Справка и о нас
Индекс слова: 1-300, 301-600, 601-900
Индекс выражения: 1-400, 401-800, 801-1200
Индекс фразы: 1-400, 401-800, 801-1200
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
Want this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Study guides
Add your answer:
Earn +
20
pts
Q: Is gotten known as a real word?
Write your answer…
Submit
Still have questions?
Related questions
People also asked
What makes one word more “real” than another? Are there degrees of “realness” for words?
Totally “real”
“Real” words can be defined in a few different ways. The most obvious and restrictive definition is a word accepted as being “standard,” which means it appears in the dictionary and is recognized as valid by prescriptive grammarians—grammarians who prefer that the written word follow the rules of formal Standard English, the term used to describe the type of English that’s considered to be the norm for educated speakers. (For a good look at prescriptive vs. descriptive grammar, see this excellent entry by 
mendax.) This is the definition that most of us think of when we label a word as being “real.”
Sort of “real”
A second definition, more forgiving than the first, describes words that are recognized by the dictionary but considered nonstandard—words which are accepted through common, frequent usage, especially in dialects, other casual speech, and the less formal types of writing, but which aren’t considered grammatical or proper by a wider audience. Words in this category include irregardless, which is likely a combination of “irrespective” and “regardless”; ain’t; and alright, which is the nonstandard spelling of “all right.” In many cases, the nonstandard word is a portmanteau—a word created by blending the sounds and meanings of two other words. Over time, words like these might become standard by virtue of having been used so often and for so long that they’re accepted by even the most prescriptive of grammarians. Motel (motor + hotel), chortle (chuckle + snort), and smog (smoke + fog) are all portmanteaus that were once considered informal or nonstandard, but which are now accepted as standard. Similarly, trademarks and jargon from certain professions or interests can become mainstream—think jazzercise (jazz + exercise), palimony (pal + alimony), and breathalyzer (breath + analyzer).
Other words considered sort of “real” are contracted versions of longer words, like “mobile” for mobile phone or “cell” for cellular phone. These contractions can also become standard over time, as has happened with “flu” for influenza, “phone” for telephone, and even “TV” for television.
But until words in this category lose their “nonstandard” label in the dictionary, like the examples above, most grammarians would encourage you not to use them except in more casual writing and speech.
Not “real”
A third definition includes slang and words that are just being coined and used by various groups. Most people, grammarians or otherwise, would consider these words to be a level or two below nonstandard and therefore definitely not “real.” However, these words have a certain currency, thanks to their ability to proliferate rapidly via the internet and casual conversation as they’re picked up and used by more and more people. Phat, ginormous, and conversate are just a few examples of words we could consider to be “real” in the sense that they’re understood by those who use them, but they’re not “real” in the sense that they’re neither recognized by a wider audience, nor are they recognized as belonging to Standard English. It wouldn’t be appropriate to use them in an essay for school, in a resume, in an email to a work colleague, or in most other types of written communication, but you might use them in things like emails among friends or very casual blog posts.
Most slang terms and similar words enjoy a brief popularity, falling in and out of fashion very quickly (almost nobody uses “groovy” seriously anymore), so it’s probably a good idea to use them sparingly. Not only might several groups of people not understand what they mean, but they also tend to date the works they’re in. Likewise, you’ll want to avoid modern slang in fandoms set in the past—Sherlock Holmes wouldn’t take a “phat case,” and nobody in Arthur Conan Doyle’s works would describe the Hound of the Baskervilles as “ginormous.” You could always do some research and use some slang from the appropriate period to help your fics feel authentic, but be careful not to go overboard since that could backfire by confusing or annoying your readers.
Even though slang isn’t considered “real” or even “sort of real,” some of it might eventually become mainstream. Many slang terms have made the transition to “real” words over time—jazz is one that immediately comes to mind.
Really not “real”
And then there are words that are really not “real,” like the fantastic nonsense words in Lewis Carroll’s poem “Jabberwocky.” Nearly all of them are portmanteaus. In fact, Carroll’s the one who first began using the word portmanteau in the way it’s being used in this feature—the word originally meant a sort of a large suitcase, but he appropriated it to describe the words he created: slithy is a combination of “slimy” and “lithe,” mimsy comes from “miserable” and “flimsy,” and so on.
Other words that fall into this category are malapropisms, or words used incorrectly, usually in a comical way:
“Shh! Hakkai said we had to aggravate our voices in the library,” said Goku.
“That’s moderate, you stupid monkey,” Gojyo said, rolling his eyes.
The term malapropism comes from the play The Rivals by Richard Brinsley Sheridan, whose character Mrs. Malaprop loves using big words—even though she uses them incorrectly all the time (such as when she substitutes “allegory” for “alligator” in the famous line, “she’s as headstrong as an allegory on the banks of Nile”). While the words in malapropisms themselves aren’t wrong, the meanings being attributed to them are, so in a sense malapropisms can count as being really not “real.”
General nonsense words or made-up terms would also fall under this definition. Phasers in Star Trek, the vorpal blade in “Jabberwocky,” and naquadah reactors from Stargate: SG1 are just a few examples of clearly made-up words. Words like these would be obviously wrong if used in contexts other than the fandoms to which they belong.
Because they’re really not “real,” nonsense words and malapropisms should be used as features of either a narrative or character voice only.
So is this a “real” word or not?
If you’re not sure, the best way to decide if you’re using a “real” word or not is to look it up in either a dictionary or a usage guide—Dictionary.com is useful because they compile definitions from multiple sources, and they’ll often tell you if a word is used or spelled differently in American versus British English. They also label particular words or definitions as nonstandard or slang where appropriate, so you won’t have to guess. As for usage guides, any decent writing handbook should have a section on the more commonly used idioms, colloquialisms, and nonstandard words and phrases to help you decide whether you’re using a “real” word or not. (For a short list of usage guides and writing handbooks that have been reviewed by members of this community, you can go here.)
Practical application
As always, it’s up to you to decide what tone and flavor you want to give your writing. Nonstandard words are most likely to occur (and more likely to be accepted by readers) in the dialog, which is meant to reflect natural speech patterns, while the narrative portion of many stories is written paying more attention to the rules of Standard English than not—particularly if it’s a neutral third-person narration. A third-person narration that focuses on one particular character’s point of view will probably use at least some of that character’s nonstandard vocabulary. A first-person narration, though, draws entirely from the speech patterns of the character doing the narrating.
For instance, Sha Gojyo of Saiyuki, a gambler with little formal education, would be more likely to use slang and loose, informal grammar in both his speech and thoughts, while Cho Hakkai, a former schoolteacher, would stick to more proper grammar in both his dialog and narrative written from his point of view. So while Gojyo might say,
“Yeah, sorry. It was kind of a spur-of-the moment thing, leaving like that.” Gojyo shrugged, casual-like, to show he wasn’t worried about what Sanzo might say.
Hakkai’s point of view for the same incident would probably be something more like,
“My apologies, but the decision to leave had to be made quickly.” Hakkai raised his shoulder in a casual shrug, showing he wasn’t concerned about what Sanzo might say.
If you’re focusing on what sounds most authentic for your characters and your story, that particular consideration easily trumps any concern over whether you should be using “real” words or not.
Sources:
Dictionary.com
Fowler’s Modern English Usage by R. W. Burchfield
Garner’s Modern American Usage by Bryan A. Garner
“Jabberwocky” on Wikipedia
Rules for Writers, 6th ed. by Diana Hacker
Twentyfive questions appear in the list of questions already asked on this forum that are similar to this question. Of those, 8 titles do not mention the «real word» phrase. The other 17 ask about a specific word, typically using a standard form: «Is X a real word«. Additionally, I’m sure, many questions asked on this forum omit real and simply ask something to the effect of «Is X a word».
How can a question ask if a word is real without using the word as a word?
Detailed answers will be entertained. Explanations and examples of consensual approaches to designating some words as real, and others not, are of most value to me. How and when do, for example, scientific terms, become real terms? Nextmost in value are scales or systems of realness. For example, where do nonsense words, nonce-words, spurious words and neologisms fall on a scale of realness? within some system of realness? The central idea of both values (consensual approaches, and scales or systems) is to take the question beyond the realm of personal opinion as much as possible.
Any answers will be greatly appreciated.
Edit: It has been suggested that this question duplicates a question asking when a word becomes a word. This question differs markedly:
- Temporal considerations («when») are secondary, if relevant at all.
- This question does not use a self-referential definition of ‘word’, unlike the suggested duplicate, which verges on incoherence by asking when a word becomes a word. But we all know what that question is meant to ask…or do we?
- While I’m sincere in saying any answers to my question are appreciated, certainly no answer solely or primarily referencing appearance in a dictionary will be accepted (in the constrained sense of ‘accepted’ used on this forum). No self-respecting dictionary will define ‘word’ in a primary sense as dependent on dictionary inclusion. For example, the primary definition of ‘word, n.’ in the OED is «I. Speech, utterance, verbal expression.» This definition has no direct connection to appearance in one or more dictionaries.
Those specific considerations (and others along the same lines) aside, serious answers to my question would account for my mention of nonsense and nonce-words, et al. For example, the list of spurious words in the OED (compact edition): does the OED define ‘spurious words’ as ‘unreal words’?
It seems to me that on a forum such as this, a working definition of «real word» would be sine qua non, and that self-defeating definitions such as reference to appearance in dictionaries which themselves define ‘word’ as something quite other than ‘an entry in a dictionary or lexicon’ would be rejected outright. Threshold elements in the working definition, on the other hand, might well be unavoidable: for example, «one or more occurrences of an utterance embued with communicative power» or some such gibberish might be construed as constituting part of a desirable answer to the question of what the phrase «real word» means.
Similarly, the assertion that what constitutes a «real word» is arbitrary is a non-answer. We all understand something when we encounter the phrase, and there is more commonality than not in our somewhat various understandings.
asked Aug 23, 2015 at 7:06
JELJEL
32.3k4 gold badges64 silver badges106 bronze badges
12
A word can be considered a real word even if it’s not in an established dictionary. Many words that have yet to appear in dictionaries are widely understood, and could be added over time — if their usage continues. Others fall away over time, but during their peak, they would have been just as real as standard dictionary words.
Merriam-Webster’s Help Section has a question on this: If a word is not in the dictionary, does that mean it isn’t a real word? which indicates
One of the most prolific areas of change and variation in English is vocabulary; new words are constantly being coined to name or describe new inventions or innovations, or to better identify aspects of our rapidly changing world. Constraints of time, money, and staff would make it impossible for any dictionary, no matter how large, to capture a fully comprehensive account of all the words in the language. And even if such a leviathan reference was somehow fashioned, the dictionary would be obsolete the instant it was published as speakers and writers continued generating new terms to meet their constantly changing needs.
…
Most general English dictionaries are designed to include only those words that meet certain criteria of usage across wide areas and over extended periods of time. As a result, they may omit words that are still in the process of becoming established, those that are too highly specialized, or those that are so informal that they are rarely documented in professionally edited writing. The words left out are as real as those that gain entry; the former simply haven’t met the criteria for dictionary entry – at least not yet (newer ones may ultimately gain admission to the dictionary’s pages if they gain sufficient use).
answered Sep 4, 2015 at 8:31
RonanRonan
7,2527 gold badges37 silver badges61 bronze badges
5
If it shows up in a dictionary you respect, it’s a real word. Dictionaries add words based on real-world usage. So if enough people use it in print, in multiple placed (e.g. books as well as internet) for a long enough time, it will show up in a dictionary. Of course, each dictionary decides how much «enough» is. For Urban Dictionary, which is crowdsourced, one posting makes it «real». For the official Oxford English Dictionary, which takes years to update, it requires a lot more instances of a new word before it is included. Other dictionaries, including Oxford Dictionaries Online, steer a course somewhere those extremes, adding words fairly quickly. some additions from last year:
http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2014/08/oxford-dictionaries-update-august-2014/
But the «real» answer is that for English, there is no central authority that decides whether a word is «real»—a word is real if, when you use it, people (or at least your peeps) grok it.
Edit: I changed the first word of above answer from «When» to «If».
answered Aug 23, 2015 at 9:01
Brian HitchcockBrian Hitchcock
13.5k1 gold badge21 silver badges38 bronze badges
0
What is a word? There can’t be a definite answer, unless one person uses it and another person understands it.
For most of us words are in the dictionary. But in scientific fields there are a lot of words that are in no standard dictionary and every day new scientific terms are invented.
My grandmother used words only she used. I have a lot of individual words or terms I use for language and grammar only for myself because a lot of grammar terms are vague, clumsy, unpractical or lacking. For me those terms are words as house or mouse.
Young children have words only the mother understands. So what is a word?
answered Sep 6, 2015 at 14:33
rogermuerogermue
13.7k6 gold badges22 silver badges56 bronze badges
To answer your question:
How can a question ask if a word is real without using the word as a word?
I’d ask: Is X expression a real word? Let me explain. My apologies for such a long answer, but I think your question deserves it.
WORDS
An explanation following widely accepted principles
Definitions
- Humans can only describe what comes to be known to them through their senses.
- The data we collect from the real world through experience is stored in our consciousness in
ideas. - To transmit the data stored in an idea we use expressions.
- When the transmission of an idea, i.e. an expression, becomes meaningful to other party different than ourselves, thus allowing them to store a mirrored version of one of our experiences; we call that communication.
- Expressions are susceptible to having more than one interpretation.
- Ideas can always be expressed in more than one way.
Proposition 1
An expression to become a word must describe an item that belongs to the real world. This is evident by definition 1.
Proposition 2
An expression can also become a word if it describes an item not belonging to the real world. By definition 3 we have that an expression is the transmission of an idea. However an idea is not limited to what exists in reality. An idea can be the result of the operation of ideas, which are beyond the scope of this treatise, when at least one operand came from the real world. An example: Minotaurus = Human + Bull.
Proposition 3
The quality of our communication with others is never perfect. This is evident by definition five. The quality of the communication is greater when the amount of incongruencies between the original idea and the mirrored version tends to zero.
Proposition 4
If we take Proposition 3 and definition 6 as truthful, the next is also true. The relationship between idea transmitted and idea received is many to many, thus a new entity needs to be created: meaning.
Proposition 5
The level of an expression depends on the amount of human beings that have access to the reference of the meaning of an expression. If it’s two people, it remains as an expression. If more than two people have access, we might call it a term. If a large amount of people, e.g. a community, have access to it, we call it a word.
answered Sep 9, 2015 at 8:22
2
There are many times words «appear» in language yet is not (yet?) supported by the typical «it appears in a dictionary» defense. I believe the question can only truly be answered in a modern world when coupled with it’s CONTEXT. In addition, when coupled with an agreed upon usage of a given word, a brand new bouncing baby «Boyiee»!!! is born.
Ok, I amuse no one but myself with that but the concept is true if not in any way quantifiable. In this day and age of social media, it is significantly more argument provoking to suggest that any one person can become the one that tips the proverbial scale from «non-word» to officially a «word». 10 years ago that may have been a worthwhile discussion potentially dabbling into what might have been an interesting brain-tickle for the OP but today’s proliferation of communicative method and media surely makes the issue moot. For this post’s sake let’s say that if anyone is heard saying it on Youtube, Reddit or Snapchat it may be credited as a «word.»
In the OP’s own quote: For example, the primary definition of ‘word, n.’ in the OED is «I. Speech, utterance, verbal expression.» opens the door to a vast array of interpretations. Take what was previously little more than a noise meaning «I guess it’s «OK»…would probably fall under the «Utterance» category and has now been reborn as «meh» in written form. Now who is to say that this is not a ‘real word»? It not only conveys meaning but is understood by a number of people to mean a particular thing.
Combine CONTEXT with this idea of COMMON USAGE
So now, I think the OP will be satisfied with what discourse they originally intended to provoke with the «philosophy of language» question. Once context is added to «meh» like a toddler seated alone at a table staring blankly into a plate of tepid broccoli, it is simple minded to argue the validity of the ‘realness’ of the word. Truly, the idea has been communicated and understood on both the sending and receiving side in the context of «picky-eater» and there is little point in further arguing the matter in hopes that Webster will one day catch up.
And that’s all I got to say about that…
answered Aug 23, 2015 at 21:26
8
«A real word», as in the question ‘is X a real word?’, or more simply ‘is X a word’ asks for answers expressing support from a triumvirate of authoritatively determinable conditions:
-
X must be communicative, which is to say that it must be both expressive and susceptible to interpretation. Usage (for a simple example, as evidenced by material showing usage beneath a dictionary or lexicon headword, but extending to other instances in written material, or instances attested by personal, verbal experience) is considered proof of this. ‘Usage’ is here intended in a diachronic sense; that is, if usage at any time, past or present can be evidenced, that is also evidence the word is communicative.
-
X must be conventional, in the sense that it conforms to the linguistic conventions of the language at issue (here English). The proof of this is less satisfying and complete, but generally (for English) the edge cases are clear: a word written in Arabic or Greek characters, for example, or merely transliterated from those languages, is not considered an English word until and unless it has been ‘assimilated’.
-
X must be acceptable, in that it is not deliberately or through ignorance misrepresented as a word. ‘Acceptable’ is here intended in a synchronic sense; that is, X must be currently acceptable to meet the contraints of this test. Acceptability changes over the course of time, and what one day may be considered acceptable as a word, the next day may not, or vice versa. Thus, if a word is no longer acceptable but was once, or the other way around, pointing that change and its engendering circumstances out is highly relevant when answering the question ‘is X a word’. Proof of acceptability is, as with conventionality, more difficult to come by, but can be achieved by citing expert sources that support or deny acceptability and showing how any expert sources that oppose the former must be mistaken.
The 3 conditions are interdependent. Proof of usage is not valid proof that something proposed as a word is a word unless proof of acceptability and conventionality can also be offered (whether such proof is explicit or not).
This answer does not, of course, completely answer the question, and it fails to spell out the relationships of 1-3 and scientific, jargon, cant, slang, nonsense, nonce, spurious, neologistic, et al. terms. Those relationships are, however, inferable. This answer does suggest a legitimate path forward when an answer to a question of the general form ‘is X a word’ is sought.
The point here is that, when somebody asks a question on this Q&A site that takes the form of ‘is X a word’, they are asking for an authoritative answer. Answers that account, whether implicitly or explicitly, for the 3 conditions proposed, will be considered authoritative, and can be supported with reference to external authority.
answered Sep 9, 2015 at 20:15
JELJEL
32.3k4 gold badges64 silver badges106 bronze badges
0
A dictionary word
As opposed to «a made-up word,» or «non-dictionary word,» the phrase «a real word,» means little existentially beyond literally: «a dictionary word,» i.e. a word published alphabetically in a dictionary along with its definition(s).
e.g.
Though it may be perfectly cromulent, the word «cromulent» is not a real word.
answered Sep 6, 2015 at 10:46
chillinchillin
7473 silver badges7 bronze badges
1