Have you heard the term YUPSTER? = yuppie + hipster

But pity the poor dictionary-maker, in the throes of overchoice

24,300 hits would seem to indicate this one is catching on. But as a word-enthusiast, suppose you were compiling a dictionary of early 21st-century slang. Soon you discover that there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of late blend, portmanteau, infixes, and sniglets

..such as ABSOLUDICROUS, BABELICIOUS, FISHABILITY, WUNCH OF BANKERS, DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION ETC ETC...

The meaning of which is pretty obvious and the longevity of which is questionable, no matter how many hits it may evoke (the last gets 273,000). Including them all would require a tome the size of Random Unabridged

So I need your opinion--take YUPSTER for instance--would you include this one, and on what basis would you decide

This message has been edited. Last edited by: wordcrafter,

I am no authority, that's for sure, but I'd include them. I put "absoludicrous" into Onelook; if cited there, it is an allowed word in OEDILF. Wow...they are going to have a lot more words on their hands, too.

But whoever heard of the Langmaker dictionary

Yet absoludicrous gets nearly 14,000 hits. I'm entertaining a criterion that a term can't be considered widely current in less than 20,000 hits

It seems that a term popularised by a well known figure - whether it be a genuine neologism, a humourous misuse, an advertising slogan or a simple slip of the tongue gains a specious currency on the internet by being oft quoted on blogs and such.
Absoludicrous seems to have been invented my Mr T. If you strip out sites with variants of "Mr T", strip out sites with the word "blog" or "ubb" and strip out sites with "video" (There is a video with this title) the ghits drop to 922 most of which still seem to be personal blogs.

President Bush's famous slip "misunderestimate" has 95,000+ Ghits. Doesn't make it a word though.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

quote:

Originally posted by dalehileman:


But pity the poor dictionary-maker, in the throes of overchoice......early 21st-century slang.......such as ABSOLUDICROUS, BABELICIOUS, FISHABILITY, WUNCH OF BANKERS, DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION ETC ETC...

Does deinstitutionalization really belong on this list? It's in my 1998 edition of Canadian Oxford, and my wife, a nurse, recognizes it as a commonly used expression that describes the process that took place when psychiatric hospitals were downsized with the advent of psychopharmacology. In Canada, some years ago, deinstitutionalization of mentally delayed and physically disabled children became public policy. Around here, d. even has a synonym...community living.

Bob: 43's malaprop, however, gets three hits on OneLook. Besides Langmaker it's in Wikipedia and Wiktionary; and considering the source, I think it's likely to gain longevity, whether you call it a word or not

Also it gets three hits in the UrbanDictionary, and thus I tentatively nominate it for inclusion

However, I'm still open to further criteria

Duncan: Thank you for that. Your criterion is one of many that one should consider when compiling a dictionary

As the criteria multiply, however, one can only synpathize more acutely with the wretched dictionary-maker

But whoever heard of the Langmaker dictionary

I have. What's wrong with Langmaker's? But then Jeffrey Henning, its creator, was one of the first persons I ever met online, and I've been a member of the conlang (constructed Language) online community since the early '90s or so.

What's wrong with yupster as a word? It's being used online and off. Most lexicographers are rather conservative in how rapidly a word gets into their dictionary.

zm: Thank you for that, and yes they are. Stll one wonders with the proliferation of neologisms, what criteria must they use

PS: I didn't say there was anything wrong with "yupster"

I didn't say there was anything wrong with "yupster"

Yes, Dale, and neither did I.

I've heard some pretty absurd ones lately. I'm sure most of you know of "ginormous", giant(gigantic?) + enormous. Urban dictionary lists both giant and gigantic as possible, although I'm inclined to believe it was both. I've heard a variation of this, "gihugic", gigantic with huge in the middle. Ginormous enjoys 780,000 ghits, while gihugic is a measly 3,730.

I'll use ginormous on occasion, and whenever I use gihugic, mostly since it just slips out, people always find it a humorous expression.

Sean: Thank you for that

In spite of three-quarters of a million hits, I'm not sure I would include "ginormous", partly because its meaning is pretty obvious and partly because if I did use all the blends of that sort, my dictionary would be far too large to be affordable

Hey, Sean, we haven't seen you in awhile. Nice to see you back!

Absoludicrous: quite a new word,
But it's certainly never preferred.
It means something's bad --
Beyond ludicrous...sad!
I consider it really absurd!

I just had to write a limerick on one of these.

Sure, the meaning of ginormous is obvious now, but in 50 years when it has supplanted enormous and gigantic, people will look back and wonder why you left it out. : )

Sean: Herewith placing a bet with you, any agree-upon sum not exceeding 25 cents--that in 50 years the word will have fallen into disuse

Also, this will give me incentive living to 125