Periapt no longer a word

[jellyfish]

Next they will take away jewel encrusted scarabs and phylacteries.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1847042,00.html

[Marged]

Oh man, PLEASE let us bring these back! These are FABULOUS words! I love them!

[Balasarius]

But does it have a slight dweomer?

[playingwithknives]

There was an article on this on the BBC, I thought it only related to the concise version?

Amongst the comments were numerous D&D/MMOG players who use the word Periapt regulary.

[extarbags]

Pretty sure the only word on that list I've used is exuviate, but I rather like a few of the other ones: skirr, oppugnant, fubsy, malison, niddering, and recrement are words that I would maybe make an effort to internalize. This is pretty lame, though... who cares if words are seldom used? They're still part of our language.

Though I might feel better about this if the "new entries" that they want to make room for weren't undoubtedly going to be things like "podcast," "blog," "lol," and other horse shit internet jargon.

Edit: man, reading that again, I just love fubsy and recrement. Fubsy is a perfect audiovisual metaphor, and recrement just brings a spiteful feel that "refuse" lacks. Two great examples of how elegant our language can be when we put a little effort into it.

[Griddle]

Is there a list of the words they want to add? I'd be curious to see what abominations they intend on adding, what with all the internet-speak these days.

[Marged]

This is pretty lame, though... who cares if words are seldom used? They're still part of our language.

We've had this argument 10,000 times but no, they're not part of our language as it stands right now. You couldn't use those words in conversation with another English speaker and expect to be understood. However, we can totally bring them back. We have the power!

[Harkonis]

I've heard the word agrestic many times. Not sure why that would be on the list to be removed.

[extarbags]

We've had this argument 10,000 times but no, they're not part of our language as it stands right now. You couldn't use those words in conversation with another English speaker and expect to be understood. However, we can totally bring them back. We have the power!

They're still English-language words, though, and they could be used in writing if not necessarily in casual speech. Also, several of them are used commonly among certain communities, as the article points out.

Edit: and anyway, the larger point is that as finer-pointed words fall into disuse, they should be encouraged rather than deprecated. I don't really see any good coming out of saying, "well, nobody is really using these tricky words any more, let's just take them out of the dictionary so people can't look them up or anything.... better to keep language as blunt and bland as possible."

Words falling out of common usage in day-to-day speech is part of the evolution of language, for better or worse, but removing them from dictionaries is deliberate sabotage.

[Marged]

I've heard the word agrestic many times. Not sure why that would be on the list to be removed.

Isn't it the name of the subdivision in Weeds?

[Nengjanggo]

That list reminds me of Jack Vance.

Two of the first six are words I've heard used within the last week; "apodeictic" and "compossible" (especially "compossible") are relatively well-used philosophical terms. Although maybe that's enough of a reason to get rid of them.

[Marged]

They're still English-language words, though, and they could be used in writing if not necessarily in casual speech. Also, several of them are used commonly among certain communities, as the article points out.

They wouldn't be used in good writing that prioritizes communication and clarity. If they're being used by communities or as technical jargon, well that's one thing. For instance, I used to find gamers almost completely incomprehensible, although we're both speaking English. But I don't think those words would be considered part of Standard American English, any more than we consider somdeel, peraventure or balke SAE words.

[John E. Motion]

I don't understand the first word in the title. Is it English?

[extarbags]

They wouldn't be used in good writing that prioritizes communication and clarity.

That's a narrow definition of good writing (unless you're referring to just one kind of good writing, in which case: true). Some of the best writing in all of the English language has neither of those priorities. Evocativeness, symbolism, and intellectual stimulation are equally valid goals.

[Marged]

That's a narrow definition of good writing (unless you're referring to just one kind of good writing, in which case: true). Some of the best writing in all of the English language has neither of those priorities. Evocativeness, symbolism, and intellectual stimulation are equally valid goals.

You don't think that modern English speakers have an immense word-hoard from which they can create evocativeness, symbolism and intellectual stimulation?

Believe me, I am 100% in favor of resuscitating words that have fallen out of use. Hell, why stop with this dictionary purge? I wish we still spoke about the oceans as swan roads like in Beowulf. And as speakers of English, we have the ability to introduce and coin words. These words have no DNR order.

But that doesn't change the fact that if the word is not currently used, it's not part of the current language.

[Slainte Mhath]

The mere thought that we would wish to exuviate these words from our vocabulary is just another example of the caliginosity that permeates our modern society. Call me oppugnant if you will, but I vilipend those niddering so called intellectuals who refuse to allow the compossibility of these revered words in conjunction with more modern vocabulary. The mansuetude of words like these invoke a bygone era of elegance which stands in stark contrast to the olid recrement of the internet bred jargon in popular use today.

[Supertanker]

Isn't it the name of the subdivision in Weeds?

Yes. I live in the area they used for Agrestic, so you hear it all the time around here now. I doubt most people know the actual meaning, it sounds too much like one of the made-up subdivision names. I do hear a lot of comments about the "rural" atmosphere though, which seems odd to me with 250,000 other people nearby.

Count me in with the RPG users of Periapt. They'll never dig that out now.

[extarbags]

You don't think that modern English speakers have an immense word-hoard from which they can create evocativeness, symbolism and intellectual stimulation?

Sure they do, but there's no reason to make it less immense. If a word is used in print and the reader doesn't know it, but they can look it up, it's still part of the language, and these words are exactly the kind that would show up in really good fiction writing, and would send the reader running for a dictionary.

[Miramon]

Who really cares what the Collins dictionary does? I've never even heard of it before.

[stusser]

Removing data from a reference volume for space reasons is an archaic notion. Who actually uses a physical dictionary? It's a non issue. Look it up online.

[Marged]

Alright, I'm not sure we disagree that much. If a writer's artistic judgment leads her to use an obsolete word, that writer is reintroducing it to the modern language. She would have to count on her readers having access to a comprehensive, descriptive dictionary like the OED to understand her and acknowledge that she was taking the risk that they would just gloss over it and not understand what she was saying. But sometimes things do catch on and if the word survived and became part of common usage again, then it wouldn't be any different from a neologism that spawned online and was incorporated into the English language.

[Jojo]

How do you even pronounce "muliebrity"?

[Marged]

It's from mulier, the latin for woman, which is like "moo-lee-ehr." Moo-lee-eh-brity.

[extarbags]

Removing data from a reference volume for space reasons is an archaic notion. Who actually uses a physical dictionary? It's a non issue. Look it up online.

Well yeah, and besides that, twenty-four words in a dictionary is what, a third of a page?

Alright, I'm not sure we disagree that much. If a writer's artistic judgment leads her to use an obsolete word, that writer is reintroducing it to the modern language. She would have to count on her readers having access to a comprehensive, descriptive dictionary like the OED to understand her and acknowledge that she was taking the risk that they would just gloss over it and not understand what she was saying. But sometimes things do catch on and if the word survived and became part of common usage again, then it wouldn't be any different from a neologism that spawned online and was incorporated into the English language.

I don't see why it should have to catch on as a result of a writer's use of it for that usage to be retroactively considered correct. I'm totally cool with not considering words like these part of modern spoken English, but you know, they're in dictionaries, they're English words, they're available to everyone... including them in a written work isn't creating a neologism just because readers might not all be immediately familiar with them.

And yes, a writer using such words would be taking a risk that the reader would gloss over them without knowing what they meant or bothering to look it up, but that risk exists any time an uncommon word is used, and if the word is appropriate to the intent of the work, it's totally kosher. The greatest English-language writer of the whole last century is most famous for a pair of novels that use language so intricately and manipulate words, grammar, and punctuation to such a fine extent that they are nearly incomprehensible without years of study; I don't think that it's fair to no longer consider a word a part of the English language because a majority of people would have to look it up if they read it someplace.

[Marged]

these words are exactly the kind that would show up in really good fiction writing

Ah, my darlin. You and I have such a wildly different idea of what "really good fiction writing" is.

[Marged]

The greatest English-language writer of the whole last century is most famous for a pair of novels that use language so intricately and manipulate words, grammar, and punctuation to such a fine extent that they are nearly incomprehensible without years of study


I really consider those two things to be completely incompatible, but ya know, that's just me.

[Euri]

Vilipend was the only word on that list I was familiar with.

[Marged]

I don't see why it should have to catch on as a result of a writer's use of it for that usage to be retroactively considered correct.


We've had this conversation before and it goes in familiar patterns. You're hung up on whether or not something is considered correct - and I'm not. I'm completely agnostic about whether or not it's "correct," because I don't believe that language is correct or incorrect. Your language is only incorrect when you have aphasia or are named Sarah Palin.

Now, a writer might not accomplish what she wants to accomplish, in which case there are fixes that editors can make. If a writer is writing a business letter, that letter needs to communicate certain things and there is a certain type of etiquette and style required. If a poet wants to write a love poem in dactylic hexameter, more power to them, and you could certainly take their poem and judge it subjectively as a piece of art. And finally, if a writer wants to show off her extensive, obsolete vocabulary to some particular end - who am I to judge that as "incorrect" if it accomplishes her goals?


I don't think that it's fair to no longer consider a word a part of the English language because a majority of people would have to look it up if they read it someplace.

How is it a question of fair? People can use language however they want. If they want to be readily understood, there's a vocabulary available to them. If they don't and choose to use an obsolete or jargony vocabulary, then they live with that decision. I don't dictate to people how to use the English language, I just try to describe it. And I wouldn't describe SAE as containing most of that list of words. I also wouldn't use a dictionary that would purge words like that. OED FTW!

[Bill]

I'm unfamiliar with the CED; is that even a major dictionary? I think of the OED as the definitive source of my verbiage.

[Marged]

I think of the OED as the definitive source of my verbiage.

The #1 absolute worst thing about graduating from college was losing my access to the OED. It was tragic. I am actually the queen of using obsolete words (and not realizing their obsolescence) and my friends once gave me grief for saying something was "licit," - insisting that only "illicit" was a word. Well, licit is a perfectly cromulent word - it's in Webster's, after all.

But one of my friends said "You can't just make up words willy nilly, you can't just say "Orp!" and say it's a word." Well, I looked up orp in the OED and lo and behold, they had a definition - it means (rather, meant) to gripe or complain incessantly. My group of friends still uses it occasionally and I'm rooting for it to catch on.

[Miramon]

Ah, my darlin. You and I have such a wildly different idea of what "really good fiction writing" is.
Of course these words are mostly wildly inappropriate for popular modern fiction. However, I'm sure some of them occur in otherwise mostly-readable classics, especially of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Some of them may be also okay for deliberately highbrow modern fiction, say something tossed off by Umberto Eco....

Most of the time you naturally don't want the reader to stop in perplexity or to unconsciously skip a mysterious word in a sentence. But on occasion an obscure word has such a beautifully clean and precise meaning that it is superior to the phrase that would otherwise have to be used in its place, even though a certain percentage of readers may have to stop to look it up, or may have to guess at its meaning in context.

[Marged]

I absolutely agree and understand why a writer might choose to use those words. But my subjective estimation of "really good fiction" includes many writers who prize clarity in their prose, and still provide the reader with a profound experience. extarbags goes for different fare, and that's fine. I'd personally rather shoot myself in the foot than read Joyce, and am skeptical of claims that he's the greatest modern writer. But those things are subjective...

[Robert Sharp]

Collins is not the OED. It's an abridged dictionary. So they intentionally eliminate words that aren't common. This is NOT the same as saying they aren't in the language anymore at all.

Also, Marged, your definition of a legit word seems odd. Most English speakers would not know what I meant by many perfectly valid words. Just because I couldn't use epistemology on the street doesn't mean it's not a perfectly useful word, for example.

[Miramon]

...any more than we consider somdeel, peraventure or balke SAE words.

'Peraventure' is not really a fair example, since 'peradventure' is a fairly common word that I believe (?) has exactly the same meaning. So there is no reason at all to use 'peraventure' unless you are trying to write a pastiche on Chaucer. But there may be a good reason to use 'skirr' since it is onomatopoeic. If you read "the skirring of the mosquitoes" I really don't think anyone is going to have to stop to look it up.

[Funkula]

I was a bit surprised that I didn't recognize any of those words, except maybe skirr (not entirely sure, since it's onomatopoeic). What really surprised me was that none of them were familiar from Lovecraft. I mean, olid is perfect for him, aside from maybe not having enough syllables.

[Aeon221]

ROBORANT! That is all.

[Marged]

Also, Marged, your definition of a legit word seems odd. Most English speakers would not know what I meant by many perfectly valid words. Just because I couldn't use epistemology on the street doesn't mean it's not a perfectly useful word, for example.

Epistemology is a useful word in certain contexts (amongst philosophers, for instance) - and in the appropriate register (formal more than casual). You wouldn't use it in certain circumstances or risk alienating the people you're communicating with. Most of us just do this automatically - we modulate our register without even noticing. You speak differently with your spouse than you do with your boss, ya know?

To me, the words on that list were completely alien and I wouldn't have thought they were part of any American lexicon I was familiar with. But some of them actually are in use amongst some social groups! If it's in use today amongst speakers of English somewhere (and that can include pretty small groups, like philosophers), then it's part of the modern language. You still wouldn't use it in all circumstances.

[extarbags]

But my subjective estimation of "really good fiction" includes many writers who prize clarity in their prose, and still provide the reader with a profound experience.

I think that good writing generally does seek to be as clear as possible, but great writing often strives to use language in a way that conveys more than simple, unmuddled word choice ever could, and it thereby advances the language itself. So no, if you're looking for a cozy beach read, I wouldn't recommend Finnegan's Wake, but that book (along with Ulysses) wrung more out of the English language than anything else published in that century or this one, or arguably the one before it.

[Marged]

but that book (along with Ulysses) wrung more out of the English language than anything else published in that century or this one, or arguably the one before it.

I know you feel this way but I do wish you wouldn't present it as an indisputable fact for all time.

[extarbags]

I know you feel this way but I do wish you wouldn't present it as an indisputable fact for all time.

Is there another contender? I mean, Joyce isn't really very many people's favorite author, and he's certainly not mine, but I don't know of an English language author after him whom I've ever heard anyone say was more groundbreaking, influential, or generally important. Before him, you can make the case for Dickens, possibly Twain. Who are your picks (anybody)?

[Marged]

groundbreaking, influential, or generally important

What ground did he break?

Who did he influence?

What qualifies as "important"?

[tromik]

Yea! Fuck Collins! OED + Roget!

[Funkula]

I'd make an argument that Hemingway's minimalism is a legitimate alternate candidate, because he managed to use a spare, clean style that left volumes unspoken, yet had profound depth to reward a close and thorough reading.

Also, while I like Dickens, I don't class him as a great author. He was basically the John Grisham of his time. I mean, his two most enduring classics are a maudlin Christmas story and an espionage thriller. But then, I'm not too big on English lit, I'm more of a Russian/French/Eastern European guy.

[tromik]

Also, while I like Dickens, I don't class him as a great author. He was basically the John Grisham of his time. I mean, his two most enduring classics are a maudlin Christmas story and an espionage thriller. But then, I'm not too big on English lit, I'm more of a Russian/French/Eastern European guy.
I wonder what spoken English will sound like 200 years then...

[hido]

They should probably go ahead and wipe "maverick" at this point, as well.

[extarbags]

What ground did he break?

What ground didn't he break? Multi-lingual puns? Punctuation as symbolism? Stream of consciousness? Some of it caught on, some of it less so, but there's an unbelievable amount of linguistic innovation in his catalog.

Who did he influence?

I think that his work was groundbreaking enough that it has become a general influence on just a lot of literature, but specifically he was a major influence on everyone from Samuel Beckett to Vladimir Nabokov to Joseph Campbell to Dave Eggers. A huge range of very disparate authors, all of whom draw on his accomplishments.

I'd make an argument that Hemingway's minimalism is a legitimate alternate candidate, because he managed to use a spare, clean style that left volumes unspoken, yet had profound depth to reward a close and thorough reading.

This is kind of a tough call. On the one hand, I am really not a fan of Hemingway at all, so I have to take that out of the equation as best I can. On the other hand, yes, that was pretty innovative and pretty influential in a sense, but on the third hand, it's an almost regressive style, like the way a child would right if he could get the mechanics down. I don't really think that he rivals Joyce, but I can see how a case can be made, so fair point.

Also, while I like Dickens, I don't class him as a great author. He was basically the John Grisham of his time. I mean, his two most enduring classics are a maudlin Christmas story and an espionage thriller.

Plot-wise, sure, but the guy was a phenomenal writer. Ever notice how movie adaptations of his books never change the dialogue? It's because his is just pitch-perfect.

[Marged]

I enjoy his sexy letters, but otherwise I'll never understand how impenetrable prose became something so admirable.

I suppose I'm just fundamentally disinterested in whether or not people consider some book important, or influential, and more interested in its value to me personally. The books that are important to me are the ones that moved me, stuck with me over the years, were populated with characters so real to me that I felt like I'd run into them, or were simply filled with beautiful language that I wanted to read over and over again. Books like that made this bleak and stupid world worth living in.

Since I no longer have to read novels like it's my job or write papers about them in my head as I go, I also expect some pleasure and delight from the books I read.

[extarbags]

books that were filled with beautiful language that I wanted to read over and over again.

That's the one that Joyce falls under, for people who like him.

Edit: sorry, I just mean later Joyce. Early Joyce fits all three.

[Marged]

That's the one that Joyce falls under, for people who like him.

Well, they're entitled to their opinion, but won't you please concede that it remains an opinion?

[Wallapuctus]

I named my iPod shuffle "Periapt of Stolen Music".

[extarbags]

Well, they're entitled to their opinion, but won't you please concede that it remains an opinion?

Well obviously.

[Marged]

Well obviously.

That's all I wanted from the get go, you doofus!

[hong]

This isn't another supertaster thread, is it?


Hong "superwriter" Ooi

[Bill]

That's all I wanted from the get go, you doofus!

Lamest internet flame evar. Which is actually kind of nice!

[Rimbo]

Write a short story using all of the above words.

[EvilIdler]

I see at least half the words on that list being used often enough to warrant their stay in the dictionary. But if they intend to remove "exegesis" next time, I'm starting a riot.

[Miramon]

By the way, the OED is less than ideal, because a) it's too British, and b) it adopts faddish slang too slowly and too quickly at the same time -- often by the time they've noticed the neologism, the word has practicallydied out because it wasn't a keeper. The OED is better than any of the little dictionaries you can hold in one hand, but it's still not the best thing evar.

The best dictionary I've seen is Webster's 1913 edition. The real Webster's, not this Merriam-Webster bullshit. Sure, it has no techie words or modern slang, but then you know better what those words mean than some dictionary does anyway.

You can use the One True Dictionary online at http://humanities.uchicago.edu/orgs/ARTFL/forms_unrest/webster.form.html

[Brendan]

I'm going to make it my mission in life to use at least two of those words in conversation every day for the next two weeks.

[John Sansker]

I wonder what spoken English will sound like 200 years then...

See the Mike Judge movie "Idiocracy" for your answer.

Also, removing 24 words to make room for 2000 more, makes total sense.

[Miramon]

ROBORANT! That is all.
Patrick O'Brian uses 'roborative' all the time in his novels. Not to mention 'inspissated'.

[Gordon Cameron]

Joyce is generally acknowledged to be the greatest author in English in the 20th century. And Finnegans Wake is generally acknowledged to be incomprehensible except to those who have a PhD in Finnegans Wake.

If I ever actually read Finnegans Wake, perhaps I'll offer a personal opinion on this topic. (I do think Portrait of the Artist is a pretty darn good book, though the Catholic stuff bores me a bit now.) But I generally side with extar in this dispute, at least insofar as he is repeating conventional wisdom. Most of the time I think "communication and clarity" are excellent criteria for good writing, and things like musicality, evocativeness, and so forth, take a back seat (but are far from insignificant). However, geniuses will do what geniuses will do, which I suppose is why we call them geniuses.

riverrun