The following is my response to a question raised in the Beer Parlour of the en:wiktionary about how far we go in accepting protologisms or newly coined words. I have copied it here because it involves issues that can be of concern to the broader community.
Wiktionary is frequently Googled, and because of its FDL availability it is frequently copied into other websites. The result is that allowing some protologism here has a multiplier effect. By allowing a protologism we become advocates for it; we are no longer neutral, but begin to collectively push a POV.
Wikipedia has a "no original research" policy. We need some parallel to that. The support for a word is far more accessible that the details of some complicated new theory in physics. With a physics theory the average reader is soon lost in opaque details, and can quickly give up in confusion. A word is different in that it's often easy to devise a coherent definition. The average reader can understand it, and begin to apply it in his own life. We are in a better position to get away with a lot of public bullshit.
Strangely enough, I believe that Wiktionary has a far greater potential than Wikipedia to being influential in the general public. I say this notwithstanding the fact that it is much smaller, and receives far less critical scrutiny than Wikipedia. A person who has found "prydxl" in Wiktionary or any of its copycats could very well begin to use it despite its bogus origins.
Protologisms are only part of the problem. The debate about "leet" words come into it; so does the verifiability of any entry. Mix these with an increasing level of influence, and we have a major ethical dilemma relating to the function and purpose of any dictionary.
A dictionary chronicles the language in both its past and its present. Its past needs to be subject to calls for evidence; if a word is challenged the burden of proof for verifying its legitimacy needs to fall upon the contributor. Otherwise, the rest of us are left with the futile task of proving a negative. Evidence for new words is even more important. It is not enough to say that the word was used in some unspecified episode of a TV series. What amuses the members of today's peanut gallery may be completely forgotten by this time next year when the forces of marketing will have diverted our attention to some new ephemeral fantasy. Web evidence does no better. It is not good to accept any word as valid irregardless (sic!) of where you found it.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
A dictionary chronicles the language in both its past and its present. Its past needs to be subject to calls for evidence; if a word is challenged the burden of proof for verifying its legitimacy needs to fall upon the contributor. Otherwise, the rest of us are left with the futile task of proving a negative. Evidence for new words is even more important. It is not enough to say that the word was used in some unspecified episode of a TV series. What amuses the members of today's peanut gallery may be completely forgotten by this time next year when the forces of marketing will have diverted our attention to some new ephemeral fantasy. Web evidence does no better. It is not good to accept any word as valid irregardless (sic!) of where you found it.
Disclaimer: I'm a moderate descriptivist, whereas it seems you might be at least a moderate prescriptivist (see [[en:prescription and description]]).
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 do agree that if I coin a word and my friends use it, that doesn't count, so there has to be a judgment call somewhere. A widespread neologism with specific connotations, like the phrase "teh sukc", ought to be documented, though. Wikipedia's always has as one of its strengths that it gets articles on new concepts before almost anyone else, so it'd be a shame if Wiktionary didn't have similar advantages.
They can of course be discussed neutrally--mention if they're in other major dictionaries or not, who uses them and to what extent, etc. But we're not the language police...
-Mark
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.
I do agree that if I coin a word and my friends use it, that doesn't count, so there has to be a judgment call somewhere. A widespread neologism with specific connotations, like the phrase "teh sukc", ought to be documented, though. Wikipedia's always has as one of its strengths that it gets articles on new concepts before almost anyone else, so it'd be a shame if Wiktionary didn't have similar advantages.
I don't think there's any disagreement about that. The disagreement comes on the question on what is and what is not "widespread", on what base this is decided and how the burden of proof is set.
They can of course be discussed neutrally--mention if they're in other major dictionaries or not, who uses them and to what extent, etc. But we're not the language police...
What makes you think we're pretending to be? I can easily put forward that same argument from the other side: Deciding whether words exist should be done by the users of the language, not by us. We should include words because they are in widespread use, not because our contributors like them.
Andre Engels
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.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org