On Nov 29, 2004, at 6:52 AM, Andre Engels wrote:
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 21:40:39 -0500, Delirium
<delirium(a)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.