Is got really a word

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

From Sarah Woodbury’s website: Romance and Fantasy in Medieval Wales

On the use of the word ‘gotten’

Several UK readers have wondered about the use of the word ‘gotten’ in my medieval mysteries. Since the word is not in common usage in England right now, it seems odd to them to read it at all, and a glaring ‘Americanism’ in a book set in the medieval period. At first glance, this might appear to be yet another instance of ‘two countries separated by a common language,’ but as it turns out, the history of the word ‘gotten’ is a lot more interesting than that.

‘Gotten’ is, in fact, an ancient English word that was in use in England at the time America was colonized by the English. Over the centuries, the Americans kept on using it and the English did not.

Origin: 1150-1200(v.) Middle English geten < Old Norse geta to obtain, beget; cognate with Old English –gietan (> Middle English yeten), German-gessen, in vergessen to forget; (noun) Middle English: something gotten, offspring, derivative of the v.

The British author quotes from reference.dot.com, whose the page is now obsolete.

“British English discontinued the use of “have gotten” as a form of the past participle for “get” over 300 years ago. […]. It is now rarely used in the British version of the English language. American English continues to use “have gotten” to emphasis the action performed. In American English language “has got” implies possession. It is assumed that if “has got” is used that it is referencing what the person has in their possession. On the other hand, “has gotten” implies that the person acquired, received or obtained an item.”

In brief, gotten is a perfectly legitimate word with a long and glorious history.

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

Тренировочные тесты WORDFORMATION (form: 8 -9).

Test 1.

1. This is the most . …. . . . . concert I‘ve ever been to. (Expense) 2. Her husband’s not a very……….person. (Patience) 3. Susan is very……….and wants to do well. (Ambition) 4. Show some…….…. Don’t you like the idea? (Enthuse) 5. Her problem is that she has not enough……..…in herself. (Confide) 6. Dan is really very…………, even rude sometimes. (Polite) 7. I haven’t been to the cinema………… . (Recent) 8. Mary………… and they never s aw her again. (Appear)

Test 2.

1.Most people have no real……… in ghosts.(Believe) 2. Mark Twain wrote many……… stories. (Humour) 3. The children’s…..… at the concert was excellent. (Behave) 4. Rita asked for a ……… and cashier gave her one. (Receive) 5. Do you think you have the……… to pass the exam? (Able) 6. You need a lot of ……… to write a good story. (Imagine) 7. I read an interesting …… in the newspaper. (Advertise) 8. Their friendship began in their …….. . (Child)

Test 3.

1. I’m telling you the …..…! I swear! (True) 2. Your composition isn’t good enough. You’ll have to …..… it. (Write) 3. Did you know Ann used to work as a …….. when she was younger? (Wait) 4. They need your …..… before they can do it. (Sign) 5. It all happened quite…..… . I didn’t have time to think. (Sudden) 6. I’m sure his new film is going to be a huge…… .(Succeed) 7. Did Paul give an ……… for his actions? (Explain) 8. The ……… of the village are all very kind. (Inhabit)

Test 4.

1. The leaflet gives a brief……… of each place. (Describe) 2. Can you give us a quick ……… of how it works? (Explain) 3. Olga broke the vase during an ……… with her husband. (Argue) 4. Gold is a very ……… metal. (Value) 5. Peter began to feel depressed and …..… . (Help) 6. His book is the result of years of ……… research. (Care) 7. This snake is not ……… at all. (Danger) 8. The bright flowers make the room look…….. . (Cheer)

Test 5.

1. Teenagers nowadays are more interested in ……… problems. (Globe) 2. Have you seen the new Levi ..…… on TV? (Advertise) 3. I looked everywhere but I couldn’t find him. He’s ……… (Appear) 4. It’s very…..… to drink and drive. (Danger) 5. Can you give me some more …… about this adventure holiday? (Inform) 6. We need to put up some …… for tonight’s party. (Decorate) 7. The weather today will be cold and…….. . (Wind) 8. Margarita was very ……… with the service. (Satisfy)

Test 6.

1. They put a lot of ..…… on him to agree to their demands. (Press) 2. I’ve had three…… nights and l feel exhausted. (Sleep) 3. If you have problems with your ………, see a doctor. (Circulate) 4. I’m feeling very …… today. I think I’ll go for a run. (Energy) 5. Remember that ..…… are also human. (Examine) 6. His nose was quite …… for days after he’d it pierced. ( Pain) 7. There are a lot of …… restaurants in this area. (Fashion) 8. Although she isn’t beautiful, most men find her quite……… (Attract).

Test 7.

1.The food was completely …… ; he was a useless cook .(Taste) 2. There were over 500 ……to the temple every day .(Visit ) 3. You can’t hope to win the race without any …….… .(Train) 4. In spite of her …….…,Jane continued her journey .(Hungry ) 5.Hard as he tried , he was unable to find …… .(Solve ) 6.I ..…… speaking , I don’t think Latin is a useful subject .(Person) 7.You need to organize your time more …….… (Efficient )

Test 8.

1. Stories are more ………. than lists of words .(Memory ) 2. His exam results were very …… . (Please ) 3. Passing exams will help you to get a ……job .(Good ) 4. You should revise on a regular ……… (Base ) 5. There are books that are specially …..….for foreign learners.(Simple ) 6. A degree is a very useful……….to have .(Qualify )7. I hope you will take into ……… what I have just said to you .(Consider ) 8. This new book had many beautiful …..…in it .(illustrate )

Test 9.

1.My aunt became …..….when she went to America. (Fame) 2.Paul sings …….; I’m surprised he isn’t a professional singer. (Beauty) 3.I was …….to see all my old friends again. (Delight ) 4.They bought some …… for their new house. (Furnish ) 5. She lives in a really ……mansion in the suburbs. (Luxury ) 6. Are you sitting ……. in that chair ? (Comfort ) 7.Everyone was nervous about the ……’s visit. (Inspector) 8.Our teacher has a really strong ……. . (Person) 9.His father has the best …… of ancient coins. (Collect)

Test 10.

1.The teacher wanted to know what my greatest …….(Ambitious) 2.I..……ever go to the theatre. I don’t like it .(Hard ) 3.Marina has a very …… manner , which I appreciate .(Relax) 4.Her son took part in the world ………last year .(Champion) 5.I was ……….when victor said I was beautiful.(Flatter) 6. Julia got a ………for best leading actress .(Nominate ) 7.She’s a very ………thinker .(Origin) 8.Her friend is very ……….! You can trust him .(Rely)

Ответы к тренировочным тестам. Test 1. 1. Expensive 2. Patient 3.Ambitious 4.Enthusiasm 5. Confidence 6.Impolite 7.Recently 8.Disappeared Test 2. 1. Belief 2. Humorous 3. Behaviour 4. Receipt 5. Ability 6. Success7. Advertisement 8. Childhood Test 3. 1. Truth 2. Rewrite 3. Waitress 4. Signature 5. Suddenly 6. Success 7.Explanation 8. Inhabitants Test 4. 1. Description 2. Explanation 3. Argument 4. Valuable 5. Helpless 6. Careful 7. Dangerous 8. Cheerful Test 5. 1. Global 2. Advertisement 3. Disappeared 4. Dangerous 5. Information 6. Decorations 7. Windy 8. Satisfied Test 6. 1. Pressure 2. Sleepless 3. Circulation 4. Energetic 5. Examiners 6.Painful Test 7. 1.Tasteless 2. Visitors 3.Training 4 . Hunger 5. Solution 6. Personally7. Efficiently Test 8. 1. Memorable 2. Pleasant 3. Better 4. Basis 5. Simplified 6. Qualification 7. Consideration 8. ILLustrations Test 9. 1. Famous 2. Beautifully 3. Delighted 4. Furniture 5. Luxurious 6. Comfortably 7. Inspector 8. Personality 9. Collection 10. Test 10. 1. Ambition 2. Hardly 3. Relaxed 4. Championship 5. Flattered 6. Nomination 7. Original 8. Reliable

Предложите, как улучшить StudyLib

(Для жалоб на нарушения авторских прав, используйте

другую форму
)

Ваш е-мэйл

Заполните, если хотите получить ответ

Оцените наш проект

1

2

3

4

5

Понравилась статья? Поделить с друзьями:
  • Is hung a correct word
  • Is got a word in the dictionary
  • Is give a stem word
  • Is have a connective word
  • Is human being one word