On Nov 29, 2004, at 6:52 AM, Andre Engels wrote:
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 21:40:39 -0500, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Disclaimer: I'm a moderate descriptivist, whereas it seems you might be at least a moderate prescriptivist (see [[en:prescription and description]]).
His arguments are very descriptivist in nature. The question is about what to describe.
I think we ought to document neologisms if they have been used by any high-profile source (any major author, for example), or if they are used by any verifiable subculture.
I disagree with the first at least. Some authors create neologisms almost as a hobby. A few of their words will catch on and get wider usage, most will not be used a second time even by themselves. We want the first group, not the second.
As someone who has coined a few words here and there, I have to say I agree that "second use" is a good guideline, when someone else starts citing a coinage, it is a sign that it has passed into circulation.
Basically, a reference work is needed for any word that would not be defined in context - and authors are under the burden of defining coinages or making it clear from context. The entry only needs to exist once others start using, or questioning the use of, the word. In counting citations, one of the best rules is the "hostile citation". As soon as someone who does not agree with a concept uses a word, it is a fairly good indication that the word has spread to the point where it has been heard in use, if only so that someone is willing to attack that use.