Talk:Neologism/Archive 1

Section listing notable neologisms?
Perhaps a section listing notable neologisms? Dante Alighieri 12:16 Dec 2, 2002 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, it's a bad idea to list examples at all, because they'd have to be constantly updated as they enter the dictionary. - Hephaestos 08:45, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * This could be said to true of any article in WP that is about a topic that isn't 100% historical in nature. It's not a real problem at all, just part of the nature of Wikipedia, or any encyclopedia. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 21:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Resolution: Section was added and is regularly maintained. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 22:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Christian Bible edits
re comment in recent changes by Tarquin(?) christian bible malarkey I guess shows the importance that religion etc has traditionally associated with names. So only tangentially relevant. I'm unfussed either way. -Martin


 * Resolution: The objected-to material was evidently removed. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 22:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Neologism stages dispute
This really is a pretty easy concept to grasp. There is no such thing as an "old new word". There is no such thing as an "old new" anything. If you want to disagree with me, that's fine, perhaps it would be easier to agree with every English dictionary on the planet. - Hephaestos 09:43, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)


 * It is a pretty easy concept to grasp that Neologism go through stages .... There is such thing as an "old", "mature", "young", and "new" words.
 * If you want to disagree with wiktionary, that's fine ... but don't take out the information. - reddi 11:23, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)


 * Where have I disagreed with wiktionary, and where have I taken out any reference to wiktionary? Where, in fact, have I disagreed with any of the references you cite? There are plenty of places where you yourself disagree with plenty of these references.
 * Neo-new. Logos-word. Not old words, not mature words, not even young words, new words.  I'm not going to do a blanked revert this time, because the server's running too slow to go over your multitude of changes, but I can tell you your first revert is completely off base (spelling and grammar completely aside).  I will be fixing it sometime later. - Hephaestos 14:18, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)


 * Where have you disagreed with wiktionary? look at the links ....
 * Where have you taken out any reference to wiktionary? STABLE portions
 * Where, in fact, have you disagreed with any of the references you cite? See links .... [do a bit of searching on the web too)
 * There are plenty of places where you yourself disagree with plenty of these references.
 * Neo-new. Logos-word ... very good .... Not "old" words (but the age to become "old" is debateable (as the article has stated)) ... but new words can be in a "maturing" state (the point be fore it changes over to be an "old word) ... mabey a synonym of 'stable' would be better (but mature was the only thing i could think of off-hand; and it goes with the analogies of newborn and young ...)
 * I hope you DON'T blanked revert this time, as there is alot of new info in the article ....
 * [snip fix comment]
 * reddi 14:30, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)
 * Resolution: Article text on this topic is now stable, and references Wikitionary categories relating to neologisms, protologisms, and their classification, for people interested in more on the topic. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 22:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Diffused and stable neologisms an oxymoron?

 * A question: Would a "diffused" and a "stable" neologisms still be considered neologisms? It seems like an oxymoron to me. I mean if we accept that then all words would become "stable neologisms" won't they? Beta m (talk)
 * Resolution: Article text on this topic is now stable, and references Wikitionary categories relating to neologisms, protologisms, and their classification, for people interested in more on the topic. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 22:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sir T. Brown
The most vigoroous neologist in the 17th c. Was Sir T.Browne. In fact if one were to thumb through all 17 vols. of the Oxford Dictionary one would discover that his name occurs more than any other contributer. Examples of Browne's latinate neologisms to the Eng. lang? Medical, literary, hallucination, vetinarian, computer, electrical, electricity, caricature, precarious, pathology, gymnastics, ambidextrous, antediluvian, pubescent,etc. etc etc. But perhaps these are not considered as neologisms by the poster 'cos they are obviously more than 70 years old, but do reflect the 17th c. need for new words as the scientific revolution rumbled into beingNorwikian 12:08, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Should this be on word coinage? Martin 12:37, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Should go quite well there, yes; might even make for a whole new section. - Hephaestos 22:45, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Agreed. 17th c. neologisms are no longer neologisms in the 21st c., they are coinages (where they can be sourced at all), and they once were neologisms.  &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 21:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, So.. who coined the term "coined the term"? excele01 (undated; circa late 2005 to early 2006)


 * Resolution: The consensus after several years is that non-recent coinages are not appropriate to list here (though there is room for debate on what constitutes "recent"; see disagreement about "radar" above). &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 22:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Kudos
Just wanted to express my gratitude to whoever changed my well-meaning but rather amatateurish stub into the current brilliant prose. Cheers! :) Martin 23:39, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Anglophone bias
This article is very Anglophone at the moment. If someone is able to do so, it would be interesting to see comparisons with other cultures (for example, I have the subjective impression that the French are much less prone to neologise than are English speakers.) Securiger 09:19, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Find a source for that claim of fact and add it. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 21:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Trademarks as neologisms
Personally I consider it a bad idea to consider genericized (and slowly genericizing) trademarks to be neologisms, in the context of the list of this article, other than a few examples that are clearly truly and legally generic at this point (e.g. "asprin"). To list colloquialisms and slang that appropriate still-valid trademarks ("xeroxing", "googling", etc.) is likely to lead to disputes, especially since some of the examples already given in this vein are not anywhere near universal. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 21:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Kodak", "Xerox", "Kleenex", "Saran Wrap"
I don't think Kodak is a particularly good example of a trademark becoming a neologism, I've never heard it used in that context but this might be due only to a difference between English-speaking countries. An alternative example might be Hoover, which in the U.K. at least, people will almost universally use instead of the term vacuum cleaner. I am also given to understand that what a Brit would call a photocopier, is usually referred to as a Xerox machine in the USA. &#91;&mdash; anon.&#93;
 * Your take on Xerox is correct. In the States, we call disposable facial tissues "Kleenex" (a brand name), which may be true on your side of the drink, too. Plastic food wrap is colloqually called "Saran Wrap" in many parts of the country. There's another word for this: the taking of a brand name and using it as a generic term for all similar products. I just can't think of it right now. --Amoore 17:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should Google it. :) &#91;&mdash; anon.&#93;


 * Resolution: After over a year, the consensus has been to not add such terms. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 22:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Google"
I was surprised that 'google' is not in your list of neologisms. It seems to me to be the best, most recent example of a diffused neologism... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.179.193.203 (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC).


 * See above; this is not a truly genericized trademark. There is room for debate on whether such a trademark consititutes a genuine neologism just because it is used jargonistically as if it were a regular word. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 22:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought that it's based on on the word for 10^100. http://www.google.com/corporate/history.html Googol <-> Google Rather it's a neologism is of course, a matter of opinion. JWhiteheadcc 11:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Neologowiki?
I know it is against an encyclopedic policy to 'coin' your own term in any article of wikipedia for reasons of it not being an entrenched referencable utility and highly close to vanity. However, there being other Wikis around based on & built upon Wikipedia though having different rules, wouldn't be one of the most useful types of sub-wikis to create a Neologism Wiki? Where people coin their own terms and debate it, edit it upon the usefulness of their terms, what those words would encompass, and see how well it catches on in an immediately deletable/debatable context? This would work great with things such a music genres, classifications of 'fuzzy' grey area concepts, different types of philosophies, etc. I think someone with the means should put something like this together, it would garner a lot of interest from me at least Nagelfar 13:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Try searching for "jargon site neologism" on Google. I found www.wordspy.com. Also, "neologism dictionary" lead me to a TON of good candidate links on Google. I had totally forgotten the Urban Dictionary people. This should lead to some useful references for this subject, as well. JWhiteheadcc 11:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Questionable examples
"Sport Tractor" - was considered neologism and the article was deleted from Wiki. It still is a work of an idea, that is in operation today.--Sanderrl (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"Radar" and "zen"
This article needs a lot of work. "Radar" is not a neologism, it's 62 years old. No word that old is a "neologism". "Zen" is listed here, and M-W shows "zen" was being used in English as early as 1727. &#91;&mdash; anon.&#93;


 * "Zen" would be an example of a Loan word, rather than Neologism. Where the line is drawn is debatable, and it is a new concept, but I'd still consider this a loan word. Nagelfar 14:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Definitely a loan word. I suspect it was added here because "zen" is being used in genuinely new slang ways that don't relate very closely to the original definition (as in "He was very drunk, but zenned his way through the police sobriety-test roadblock with ease.")  Doesn't make it a neologism, but I can see how someone might find these usages "quasi-neologistic", as it were.  NB: Radar is actually an acronym. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 21:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Resolution: Consensus appears to have (over the last year+) to keep "radar", and remove "zen". &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 21:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Potato"?
As far as I know, the Quechua word "papa" was directly borrowed by the Spanish, where it was later bastardized into patata and potato. Certainly no Quechua speaker would know what a "potato" is. The word evolved from language to language.


 * This would be a loan word rather than a neologism. A neologism usually has a full root in the language in question but is used in a new definitional context. Exceptions being onomatopoeic words such as 'bling-bling', but not dialectal cognates or loan words. Nagelfar 14:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 21:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Resolution: "Potato" was removed. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 21:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Rare usage - "prerogative"
Do you think words that are 200- years old would be considered neologisms if they are rarely used in public or something? --SuperDude 22:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The word 'prerogative' has taken on slightly new meanings since the age of prerogative law has passed. So yes. "Prerogative" used to mean a legal right bestowed upon an individual from above. Something having nothing to do with their own will on the matter; i.e. they could choose not to take advantage of that legal right, and it was bestowed on them from the government; it had nothing to do with self-determination; in fact, it was somewhat the opposite. Today "prerogative" is used in the context of "it is his/her prerogative to do such & such", meaning it is an equal right which everyone has to do what they will in terms of self-determination, not an exclusive right for one outside of normative law or anything to do with their personal desires necessarily. I believe this change in meaning has come from misunderstanding. Though it is interesting to note how a minor misunderstanding can make a word have almost the opposite meaning as society shifts its norms. In the context of modern usage, "prerogative" is a neologism. Though this isn't quite what you mean, a word coming back with its original meaning, which would be an atavistic revival of a word more than a neologism. Nagelfar 14:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd have to take exception to the statement that 'In the context of modern usage, "prerogative" is a neologism.' A shift in meaning of an extant word is not the same thing as creation of a new word. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 21:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Resolution: "Prerogative" was removed. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 21:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Lathiocracy"
The following cropped up on the page Neologisms as a replacement of the redirect to Neologism. It's not really suitable for this article, IMO, but perhaps if it can be verified, someone will find a place for it. OTOH perhaps someone just coined a new word and used Wikipedia to advertise it. "Lathiocracy. LATHI is the greek word for oil and serves as a basis for new words to indicate the dominance of oil and oil interests in contemporary American government politics and policy. (Pronunciation - the a is long as in 'fa la la' and the th is prononced as in 'the.' In addition to lathiocracy, other new words include lathiocrats and lathiocratic." &mdash; (LJD, 4/26/06)
 * No comment on "lathiocracy" other than its use will need to be cited in multiple reliable sources to even show that it exists, is genuinely being used and wasn't simply a one-off nonce word, and is notable enough to bother including. As for the bogus Neologisms competing page, it has long since been merged. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 22:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Brutalitarian"
The bottom of the politics example section says "Some political neologisms, however, are intended to convey a negative point of view. Example: brutalitarian." Does that mean that genocide, corporatocracy, and homophobia are not conveying negative points of view? I've replaced it with Dixiecrat, which was very important both historically and at the time it was coined. I'm not opposed to putting brutalitarian back, it just doesn't seem terribly important (I've never heard it used and it's not exactly widespread on google), nor is it dated. Kyle J Moore 13:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If the term can be cited in multiple reliable sources (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N), I can't think of a reason not to add it. This article is not making value judgements about the sentiments that a new word is intended to convey; that "brutalitarian" isn't a neutral-point-of-view term is irrelevant for WP:NPOV purposes in this context (as opposed, to say, using that term in an article on a political leader to describe that person).  The article itself is neutral. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 22:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"E-mail"
The term e-mail, as used today, would be an example of a neologism, as the previous use of the word goes back to the 1300s to refer to images traced onto foil.


 * I'd like to see a citation for this. Funnyhat 02:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Strange as it sounds, apparently it is true. It's in the well-respected jargon file, a dictionary of words coined and used by computer hackers, and also in this Wiki derivetive: this wiki derivative.


 * Never seen that image-tracing one myself, though I do know that "email" (no dash) is an archaic verb meaning "to put armor upon oneself, or another, such as a horse)." At any rate, it's questionable to me whether we should consider a simple abbreviation of a descriptive phrase ("electronic mail") to be a neologism. I think that opens a major can of worms. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 21:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, almost forgot- I'm not familiar with established Wikipedia style, but should "e-mail" be changed to "email"? That seems to be the preferred spelling. This also goes for Wikipedia's email entry itself, which addmits that the version without the hyphen is the more usual spelling but uses the hyphenated version throughout.
 * --24.115.80.11 02:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Whether something is a "preferred" spelling by someone or other is prescriptive grammar and not appropriate here.  "E-mail" is arguably a more sensible spelling, since it is an abbreviation of "electronic mail" (cf. "e-commerce", "e-law", "e-community", etc.; no one writes "ecommerce"), and as noted above "email" is already a word, relating to armor.  The common usage of "email" to mean electronic mail is (IMNERHO) simply laziness, of the "brb, lol" sort. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 21:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Resolution: The self-evident consensus after 6 months has been to keep the passage that uses "e-mail" as an example, remove the unsourced chatter about foil-tracing, and preserve the "e-mail" (vs. "email") spelling. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 22:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Neologism"
Isnt Neologism a Neologism 199.43.48.130 17:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No; see second paragraph of the article. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 22:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Neologism" pronunciation
The introduction should include the pronunciation of neologism. Rintrah 11:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? WP is not a dictionary, and most articles do not have such pronunciation guides. I mostly see them used on articles about proper nouns. Is there a policy or guideline suggesting that all articles should have pronunciation guides? I don't have any particular objection to one, just don't see that it serves a vital purpose (fluent English speakers, for whom en.wikipedia is written, will generally already know intuititively how to pronounce words like this) or that it fits in with general practice. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 22:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"(pronounced /niˈɒlədʒɪzəm/)" - Yeah, that really helps. At first, I didn't think the word had the sound of a d and a 3 in it :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekgreer (talk • contribs) 11:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Simple mispronunciations
I do think that this morning George Bush, the Second, called me "agnostarc" and "ignostic" (for agnostic).

I do think that we should list such pronunciations.

Is there a page regarding famous persons' neologism, & famous mispronunciation?

Thank You.

hopiakuta 15:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * None one has suggested we should. NB: The wikilinking formatting in your post was mangled, so I twiddled with it. If I didn't correct it correctly please recorrect it. :-)  Don't know of a list of "famous mispronunciations", but see word coinage, which is pretty much synonymous with "famous neologisms", I suppose. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 22:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC))

Statler & Waldorf "From the Balcony" as a source
A probably minor, but interesting source/generator of neologisms is a segment in the weekly Statler & Waldorf "From the Balcony" clip on movies.com called balconism (a neologism in itself). --Belg4mit 01:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Neologisms coming out of there have to be citable as in use, in multiple, independent, reliable sources, as per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N or they don't belong in the article. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 22:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: "Balconism" isn't a neologism, it's a nonce word. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 22:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Fecundity.com ext. link deletion
I deleted the addition of a link to fecundity.com but did not cite policy/guidelines as to why. Here's why: Wikpedia:External links, point #2. Linking to an external source that intentionally provides misinformation, even for humorous purposes, is generally worse than pointless. (An exception might be linking, with a warning, to www.TheOnion.com in an article about humor websites, but that sort of exemption doesn't apply in this case.) &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 06:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Protologism
There is a link to this word on the page, but it simply redirects here. I suspect the two articles have been merged without thought. Protologisms, as distinct from neologisms, are neither defined nor referenced on this page.
 * Fixed. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 00:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Italicization
sorry for not using italised words when in english. Thanatos666 01:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries; you don't need to apologize for such things; if it bugs someone they'll just fix it. :-) Thanks for adding the English-orthography transliterations, by the way.  Hardly all readers understand Greek characters. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 12:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Making nouns into verbs?
I'm not a grammar expert, so I'm not sure if the current definition covered this issue in a manner that is unfamiliar to me, or if it just isn't considered a neologism, but what about nouns that find a completely new meaning by being used as verbs, such as 'texting'? Anchoress 06:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Autism Citation
Sorry--I'm new to Wikipedia, and I'm not sure how to add a citation. I added the sentence under psychiatric disorders, regarding the use of neologisms by people with autism. My source would be the DSM-IV-TR, by the American Psychiatric Association, which states that autism involves "idiosyncratic language"--that is, neologisms. I've also seen discussion of neologisms in books about autism, including ones meant to be primarily factual; but I don't have a reference for those. --Callista450 11:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I wonder if the Autism should be a separate sentence or shoved up onto the preceding para (keeping as the sentence stands). It *is* a mental disorder in fact, even if it is an unpleasant fact. My personal belief is that it seems to be exaggerated these days bur leaving that aside, it is surely still a mental disorder. I have had mental health problems myself, and casually cared for many others with such problems, so I am not being abusive; but this is an encyclopaedia and we should not put it separate from other mental disorders. SimonTrew (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Autism is a developmental disorder or learning disability, not a "psychotic mental illness". NJGW (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Linguistics not science?
As a non-linguist, I find it funny that the sources here list linguistics separate from science. --Xeeron 11:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Depends on your definitions. As a linguist by training, I'm firmly of the opinion that linguistics is a social science, a kind of "soft science", by contrast with physics, chemistry and other "hard sciences".  Linguistics is a branch of anthropology.  I don't find the article's layout jarring; I think most readers understand the distinction being drawn, and I'm having a hard time thinking of how to re-word it, other than maybe by changing "Science" to "Hard sciences". —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 23:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Paleologism reference
The section "A note about paleologisms" seems to contradict the rest of the article. It states: "By contrast, a paleologism is (in this context) a word or phrase that is alleged to be a neologism but turns out to be a long-used (if obscure) term." It also gives truthiness as an example. I think it should be removed:
 * 1) The accepted definition of neologism (as used in the rest of the article and elsewhere) includes words with newly acquired definitions (even if they already had other accepted definitions).  For example, truthiness is certainly a legitimate neologism while not a new word altogether.
 * 2) This definition of paleologism is bogus. A quick google search reveals no history of usage of this definition of paleologism outside of wikipedia mirrors (or at all really...)

Algorythmic 05:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like WP:OR. And truthiness is in fact listed in the list of neologism examples.  So, I support the proposed deletion. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 23:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Names are not neologisms
We should not be adding personal, place, animal, chemical, etc. names here as examples of neologism. Neologisms are are invented descriptive conceptual is better terms, not nomenclature. There isn't much similarity between inventing a term like ansible or truthiness versus giving someone or something a novel name (Moon Unit Zappa, Sealand, water bear, plutonium, etc.) The first is inventing or newly encapsulating a concept, while the latter is simply giving something a designation. I.e. "Moon-Unity", "Sealandizing", "diswaterbearian" and "plutoniumism" are all potential neologisms for concepts no one has thought of yet. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 23:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * &#91;The following post was copied here from User talk:SMcCandlish since it is a dispute about editing this article, not appreciably about editor behavior.&#93;


 * Stanton:


 * In your rush to remove my contribution, apparently you ignored or overlooked that the posting was about words. Did you look at the source material?


 * The place names were words, which wre influenced by change in culture, politics etc. These in fact were made up words, and words that were new, with meanings that were manipulated for the larger purpose.  You've missed the point.


 * Where is it written that a place name, which purports to be a new word, would not qualify within the spirit and intent of this article?


 * Take a look and think about this. With respect, your unilateral action is wrong on this, and apparently did not look at what I posted, or at the source material.


 * Best to you.
 * 01:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Stan


 * I have not missed the point, I simply disagree with you. I did take a look and I did think about it, which is why I addressed the matter here on the article's talk page, and directed you (and anyone else who cared) to this discussion, in my edit summary. Creating new placenames out of a mishmash of made-up syllables and borrowed bits of Native American and Irish names is not neologism (though in this case it does have some superficially similar memetic qualities because of the intent behind crafting of the new names). Strange, yes, interesting, perhaps, but it is not the same process. What you are talking about is neonymy, not neologism.
 * Also, please do not be so sensitive about your material. It's a bit hyperbolic to speak of "unilateral action", when you "unilaterally" added off-topic and WP:NPOV-violating material to a remarkably stable article, a former WP:FA candidate.  You must expect to be "mercilessly edited", as the WP canard goes, when editing articles of that sort.  That's just how WP:BRD works: You were bold, I reverted, and then I opened the discussion here on the article's talk page.
 * You also added a big bunch of text in the middle of a lean, clean list, which was rather disruptive to the flow of the article. Of the three parts to that material's argument/point, only one, the first, is even vaguely related to the topic of the article – even if it were conceded (and it is not) that using made up syllables and stuff to create new county names is "neologism" in any way recognized by the article so far (it isn't), the stuff about picking Irish placenames and politician's surnames is way out in left field.
 * If you can fully and reliably source – and more neutrally write about – the topic, it should probably be an article of its own. The principal concern with that is that you and your source (singular - just because your source has multiple sources does not mean you are citing multiple sources) appear to have an axe to grind about the matter, with a lot of heated opinion and melodramatic wording about the politics behind it ("unvarnished"?), which isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedia. It would be a lot more Wikipedia-useful to read what a bunch of those sources say, look for other sources not cited by your original source (e.g. because they don't agree with his/her views), dig up old news stories about the controversy from all angles, and present both sides of the argument dispassionately, per WP:NOT.
 * —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 02:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear SMcCanlish:
 * Thanks for your clear explanation and constructive suggestions. I'll have to digest this and decide what, if anything, to do next.


 * Before I proceed to respond to you, I have INSERTED the offending portion of the article, so that the reader can find it without further adieu, and put this in context.


 * The wholesale renaming of Michigan counties in the early 19th Century made several cultural and political points. First, under Henry Schoolcraft's tutelage, real Native American words were eradicated, and he substituted made-up pseudo words, sometimes with a kernel of Indian language or sound in them. A second group of counties were renamed for Irish locales, apparently because it was close to the heart for certain Michigan legislators or their constituents. The third group involved naming counties for persons in power (e.g."Schoolcraft) or for members of President Jackson's cabinet, who of course had nothing to do with Michigan in particular, other than their political affiliation. In doing this, the prior roots were largely obscured or entirely eradicated; and the legislature provided tangible proof of its ownership, its disrespect for the culture that was being displaced, and its exercise of unvarnished political power. I deleted the reference points, as it made the citation disappear.  Michigan government of the renaming of Michigan's counties, which contains additional references at the end of the article


 * Let me now respond to your missive.
 * First, if I overreacted, I'm sorry. I was not impugning you integrity or actions as an editor.  Indeed, your knowledge about language concepts and words to describe them is admirable, and a true asset for Wiki.
 * As you say, we disagree. For the record, these "made up words" were not English, but were a combination of various Native American, Greek and Latin words.  FWIW, I had several other sources (and the Michigan government article itself has the bibliography I referenced in the article, too), but did not want to burden this article with them.  What Henry Schoolcraft did, in part, was try to eradicate or obscure a culture, and 28 counties were renamed with his gibberish.  The legislature used the occasion to 'rechristen' a dozen counties to honor  Democratic politicians in the Jackson administration, who had nothing to do with Michigan at all  -- kind of like now renaming a Michigan county to 'Condoleeza.'  That there were political and cultural overtones would seem to be fairly obvious, and it would seem to be tied in with at least some of the article.
 * Of course, these actions are not unique. Renaming St. Petersburg to Petrograd, or Stalingrad to Volgograd, or Burma to Myanmar has been done elsewhere.  I am also sure that displacing the names used by displaced indigenous populations has been done all over the world, and was an inherent part of the colonial process.
 * The observations about the Michigan legislature's actions were accurate, and were a fair conclusion from the facts in the source. Indeed, that they changed all of these place names is a matter of historic record, and would seem to be beyond dispute.
 * Moreover, with respect, your distinction between neologism and neonym is not the bright line that you imply. If the article doesn't already have it, a cross reference and differentiation between neonym and neologism might be useful.  These were new words that purportedly redescribed places.  They displaced the prior names, and eventually were adopted as the new place names.  This was an historical example that I thought of some relevance.
 * In conclusion, all place names are not neologisms, but if they are new place names that describe a place than they are neonyns and neologisms. Therefore, some neonyms can also be neologisms, which in fact was the case here.
 * If you have more suggestions, please feel free to offer additional constructive criticisms and suggestions.
 * With best regards,
 * 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Stan


 * I've taken the liberty of numbering your points so I can respond to them by number instead of substantively repeating them.
 * No need to genuflect.
 * What languages the made-up placenames were based on isn't determinative of anything related to this artice. Your views on what Schoolcraft did are precisely what I'm talking about with regard to WP:NPOV. You do have a bone to pick, and Wikipedia doesn't permit that in articles.  I even agree with you, but we're not here to write opinion pieces.  But more to the point, what Schoolcraft did wasn't neologism, it was just naming (or rather renaming).  That it was was motivated by crass and manipulative politics is neither here nor there.  Renaming a town "Condoleeza" or "Condoleezaville" wouldn't be neologism either.  It's not that anyone is disputing the history you report or even the political point of view you are bringing here (other than that you are bringing one at all in articlespace), it simply isn't relevant to this article.
 * The renames you are talking about here aren't relevant either. "Volgograd" is simply Russian for "Volga City", and "Stalingrad" for "Stalin City" (Likewise,  "St. Petersburg" is just "St. Peter's City").  We don't list "Pennsylvania" ("Penn Woodland") as a neologism, either, because it isn't one. It's just a name.
 * That the names were changed may not be disputable, but would still have to be sourced reliably, as would any analysis of the political or other motivations and processes at work behind the renaming. Per WP:NOR (see in particular the material on "novel synthesis"), we cannot present our own analyses, only those that are provided by reliable third-party sources.  None of this is on-point here, however, and was only in reference to creating a new article about this (I'm not sure what one would call it, maybe Michigan counties renaming controversy or something.)  Even providing 200 sources for this stuff doesn't make it appropriate for the Neologism article, even if it would be surely suitable for the encyclopedia in some other way.
 * Re: "These were new words that purportedly redescribed places. They displaced the prior names, and eventually were adopted as the new place names.": I.e., they were names.  You keep coming back to this angle that "they were words", but there is no evidence they were in fact words at all. If they do not appear in any English dictionaries, even of slang or local colloquialisms, then we don't have any basis per WP:V and WP:RS to label them words; that would be original research again - the advancing of a personal theory or belief, or a synthesis of others', as if it were reliable fact.
 * There is no basis in the article or any of its sources so far for your claim that placenames that are descriptive are neologisms. I don't think any other editor of this article would agree with you.  On such a basis, virtually every placename on the planet would have to be considered a neologism, as would most common and scientific names for animals and plants, and so on, since they are, in one language or another, descriptive.  "Brown bear" and "Notophthalmus viridescens" and "Colorado" are not neologisms by any definition yet recognized and sourced here; they're simply descriptive names.  If I came up with (supposedly) clever pun, which caught on, that referred to people who wander around undressed in the morning foraging hungrily for food like bear just coming out of hibernation as "brown-bareassed" or "brown-beararsed" (or whatever), that would be a neologism. If I labeled people from Colorado who were (allegedly) particularly jingoistic and isolationist by the new term "Coloradoids", that would be a neolgism.  If I invented a new kind of space vehicle and designated it a "notophthalmobile" because the retrorockets on it looked like the spots on a certain kind of newt, that would be a neologism (so long as it was a generic term; if it were a tradename – Notophthalmobile&trade; – that would would just be a name).
 * No one is trying to tell you that you can't possibly write an encyclopedic article about this (sounds like a worthwhile topic to me in fact, though you may have to try really hard to make it non-POV). This article simply isn't the place for that material. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 03:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: Schoolcraft personally advancing the names as new words only makes them protologisms or nonce words. For example I can hereby declare that "storkelwussel" is a new word for a toe- or fingernail clipping that was cut too close and came away with some skin. Doesn't make it a neologism, unless and until it is widely adopted.  If someone happens to think it sounds good (or coincidentally independently reinvents this string of letters) and names a new neighborhood "Storkelwussel", but the word as a word has no currency, then it's just a name, and a lost protologism. If fifty years later "storkelwussel" comes to be a recorded term in actual usage as a verb meaning "engage in behavior that seems to characterize people who come from Storkelwussel", then it would be a neologism in that case (and of no relation to the original protologism). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 03:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * PPS: What Schoolcraft was up to appears to be simply a politicized/agendaed personal attempt at something like Boontling. Making up your own new vocabulary to replace existing words, with the intent of obscuring (against outsiders in the case of Boontling, and to further marginalize certain groups in Schoolcraft's case) isn't neologism either. It's more akin to cockney rhyming slang or Orwell's Newspeak. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 03:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * PPPS: I think part of the difficulty here may be that I misused the word "descriptive" in my first post on this thread; I have since struck that and replaced it with "conceptual" (which might also be inadequate, but is at least a little clearer). Also, you seem to be using the term "word" to mean something different from the way it is used in this article; something more like "morpheme".  I don't see any consensus on or off of Wikipedia that morphemes by themselves are ever termed neologisms; i.e. the "i" and "e" or "e-" we see a lot of today ("e-mail", "iPhone", etc.) are certainly new-ish uses, but I'm unaware of anyone calling them neologisms in and of themselves, even if combined forms (that aren't names) like "e-mail" (and unlike "iPhone") may qualify. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 03:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Any further input on this? Since this thread is a defense (the debate on which has ceased in the defender's favor) to a one-editor challenge of established consensus at the article, I'm going to mark this topic Resolved pretty soon, in the absence of any further discussion. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 23:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

How long is a word a neologism?
What's the age limit of a neologism? I tend to think of neologisms as words invented in the last few months and not in much use, yet. Is there a definition in this article as to maximum age or in the research? I looked through the article, without reading in depth, and this discussion page. Just point me to the line in the article would be helpful. Thanks. --Amaltheus (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Examples of Neologisms
I'm a speaker of Anglo-Saxon Old English, and OE communities often coin neologisms for modern concepts, while using the ancient language. For example, Wikipedia is a "wisdom book," Wiktionary is a "word book," and so forth. A few which I've coined, are that an exoskeleton is an "outbone," which a crab has, which is a "ten-foot" (decapod). —Ƿōdenhelm (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Links need checking
The external links at the entry need to be corrected as they lead to old website (one that hasn't been updated since 2001) and to parked websites with no content at all. Surely there are better sources of information out there on the web...at the least, the bad links should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.241.248 (talk) 04:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Two issues: Shakespeare and loan words
Shakespeare was probably the single most prolific creator of words in the history of the English language, yet he doesn't get a single mention in this article. A sentence in the 'Neologisms in Literature' should be at least expected. Can anyone explain why this isn't so? Are we saying that his creations are no longer applicable to the article because they are no longer neologisms, but part of the language? If so, then the listed words need updating - words like radar, laser and prequel are very definitely a part of the language now, and in the same way as Shakespeare's words are no longer neologisms. Further more, why not mention him anyway, if only to state that he created a large number of neologisms which have since passed into the English language. Thoughts on this?

In a debate below it was said and accepted that, "a neologism usually has a full root in the language in question but is used in a new definitional context". At the same time the article lists various words which are rooted in ancient Greek (homophobia, genocide, etc.) rather than English. Is this consistent, then? Do we allow these words because the Greek roots are used so much in the English language that they can be said to have been absorbed into it? Obviously the words aren't loan words, but they are creations from two foreign language words. Clarification is needed, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.247.21 (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Origin of "quiz"
"(In some cases, however, strange new words succeed because the idea behind them is especially memorable or exciting; for example, the word 'quiz', which Richard Daly brought into the English language by writing it on walls all around Dublin[citation needed].)" This claim is called into question by http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=quiz. The latter part (the example) has been removed pending objection. --Jesdisciple (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Eurabia a neologism?
The article on Eurabia begins "Eurabia is a political neologism that refers to a scenario where Europe allies itself to and eventually merges with the Arab World".

The word itself has been used since the 70s (and, as now, for political purposes) but in a somewhat different fashion. As the article says "The term originally had no pejorative intent ... Bat Ye'or was the first to use it in that way, especially in her 2005 book Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis."

Is it correct to call "Eurabia" a neologism? The pejorative use is only documented in the "Eurabia" article as being 4 years old (FrontPage Magazine, 2004) - does the adjectival "political" mean that the word, in it's latest use, should still be called a "neologism"? PRtalk 09:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC) Later - I discover the same thing at Dhimmitude - in fact, that word has been in (limited) use since 1985! PRtalk 09:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The future of wikipedia
Is anyone setting their alarm clock to go off 25 or 575 years from now, and remove the "neologism" tag from every page marked in this way? Neologism is not something that I would add to any definition page (see Botsourcing). It seems reasonable to have a list of neologisms, but that's a relative definition, the list should be somewhat timestamped, let's say "Neologisms in the 21st Century". Do you foresee the huge amount of work, if at all done, that will turn out whenever you consider a neologism is no longer a neologism? That is actually happening in lots of articles and documents on the internet, people talk about current state of lots of affairs, but nowhere is the current date mentioned. There is no way to know if the article talks about 1995 or 2004. I think this can turn out to be a real PITA in the long term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.219.187.39 (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Awkward
Wikipedia tells us to "be bold" but I won't be so bold as to change the lead-in sentence to this article, though I find it awkward: "A neologism is a word that, although devised relatively recently in a specific time period, has not been accepted into a mainstream language." Although it's been devised recently, it has not been accepted into a mainstream language? Wouldn't the fact that it has been devised recently be a major contributing factor as to why it hasn't been accepted into a mainstream language? Why say although? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricTN (talk • contribs) 07:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Could someone please add the proper pronunciation of Neologism? Capngreg78 (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing unnecessary line from intro sentence
"A neologism (IPA: /niˈɒləˌdʒɪzəm/; from Greek neo 'new' + logos 'word') is a newly coined word that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language (which can take up to a generation[1])." I'm taking out that last but in parenthesis "(which can take up to a generation[1])" because it's unnecessary and incorrect. Many words get accepted into the mainstream language very shortly after they are coined. But as for this word 'neologism', it was, according to the article, coined in 1803, which was several generations ago. So obviously words can take up to and much more than a generation to enter mainstream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.241.99 (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Date of origin of protologism
Hi,

I just changed the date Mikhail Epstein coined the word from 2005 to 2003 (November 2, to be precise: as per http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:List_of_protologisms&diff=26135&oldid=26134, removing a non-Wikipedia citation. I think in this case it is necessary to reference a Wikimedia site (just anticipating objections), since the word was coined at Wiktionary, though has come into a bit wider use as a result. Although that citation is an IP address, I can testify that although I started the concept of the page (the page I started was for a place to house very new words--I suggested we could even make a self-referential one ourselves such as "nowism" or "neo-neologism"--but subsequently accepted the much better "protologism"). I don't dispute it was Mikhail Epstein, because 1) I didn't create it and I was the only other person editing around (and before) that time, and Wiktionary wasn't as popular as it is now, and, 2) He was the first non-IP address name on both the listing page (the first occurrence) and the dedicated protologism page: http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=protologism&dir=prev&action=history and http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:List_of_protologisms&dir=prev&limit=500&action=history. The latter shows him being the first named person besides myself to add edits after the IP address. Anyhow, just for the record, and to anticipate objections--in this case citing a later article doesn't make sense since the edit is the news... Brettz9 (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Question
The word comes from morfologic tree of Neo (new) that derives from latin novus, nova, novum and sanskrit návah

What do you think?

Nevinho (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed. It doesn't come to English from either Latin or Sanskrit, and a Portuguese-language dictionary is neither reliable re English nor usable to more than a small minority of our readers. --Jerzy•t 09:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"Coined"
Typing in the term "coined" redirects to the page "Neologisms" but no explanation for the history of the term "coined" is immediately visible. In addition, very little usage of the term "coined" shows a possible lack of connection to the term resulting in a feeling of misdirection. A brief explanation of the history of the term would properly address these issues. Figment4444 (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)figment4444

Neologisms under Linguistics
In how far describe the words xerox, googling, photoshopping something related to linguistics? I think these neologisms might be in the wrong category, or is there a connection I don't see?

Since I am not a native english speaker I'd rather someone else would correctly reassign them :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.226.140.212 (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Date of origin of 'black hole'
The 'Sources of neologism' section of this article claims that the term 'black hole' was coined in 1997. I know that black holes were originally described in vaige terms (and that the name 'black hole') came along later, but the term 'black hole' was in use long before 1997.

In 1997 there was a film called The Black Hole, so the term had already become part of popular culture by that year.Big Mac (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * At about 1970, the Black holes were called something like "relativistic singularities" or "collapsars" (Astronomi och astrofysik / Gunnar Larsson-Leander, no ISBN, Swedish), at latest at 1979 they were called "black holes" (ISBN 0-900424-76-1). ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 11:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Also: Black hole section "History" tells us that the term was coined in the middle 1960:ies or earlier. ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 12:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Article should be deleted
This article is about a little known little used neologism. It should be deleted per wikipedias policy on neologisms 173.12.37.77 (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you post this to the wrong talk page, or was that a joke? --McGeddon (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of two sections
I think the two sections "Protologism" and "Evolution of neologisms" should be deleted. They're unsourced (except to wiktionary, which is not sufficient) and read like original research. The sequence described in the evolution section isn't implausible, but until something like this is found from a reliable source on lexicography or linguistics it has no place in the article. As for "protologism", without some indication that the term has currency in reliable sources discussing neologisms, it shouldn't be mentioned -- many neologisms are proposed, and without evidence of currency we should not be using them here. I'll wait a few days for comments in case someone disagrees. Mike Christie (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Since there were no objections I've removed the sections, and I also trimmed some of the examples. There are still too many -- this article doesn't need to list neologisms, just describe them.  I think the list should be cut to just those with secondary sources that comment on their notability as neologisms, not just on the fact that they are neologisms.  Without such a qualifying cite there is no way to limit the list.  I propose to cut all the examples to no more than three or four, as an illstrative list.  If anyone can find a source that talks about neologisms and cites some as particularly important examples, that would be a good guide to what to keep.  Without that I will make a guess at which are the most useful.  As above I'll wait a few days to see if anyone disagrees. Mike Christie (talk) 11:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No objections, so I've trimmed the list to a handful. Mike Christie (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Malamanteau
Is the coining of Malamanteau worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.47.9 (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not without sources to demonstrate that it is a notable example of a neologism. Mike Christie (talk) 09:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Even then, this article is about historically significant neologisms like "robot" and "quark", it doesn't try to list every invented word of the past hundred years. Even if a webcomic managed to get some passing news coverage of a word it made up, this is hardly on the same level as "agitprop" or "cyberspace". --McGeddon (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Coined?
If a neologism is a "newly coined word", then by that definition "Coined" should not redirect here since that makes "neologism" just one type (a logical subset) of  Coined words. Also coined words stay "Coined words" no matter how old they are, neologisms don't stay neologisms. Have redirected to Coin (disambiguation). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I've reverted you there: redirecting coining (linguistics) to coining (disambiguation) would only make sense if that dab page offered several different targets all pertinent to "coining" in linguistics. But it doesn't; all its other entries are unrelated to linguistics, so no reader who already has reached coining (linguistics) would be helped by being thrown back to that dab page. You may be right "coining" and "neologism" are different enough in meaning that they could be split into two separate articles, but as long as we don't have those, this article is the most pertinent match where "coining" is treated, as far as I'm aware. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. no objections against changing the redirect of coined from neologism to coining (disambiguation) though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

usage of neologisms
this was recently reverted, I reproduce it here to allow other editors to consider whether this is a relevant issue for this article

Some, including Wikipedia itself, (see WP:NEOLOGISM) have expressed concerns about the use of neologisms. It is the case that the English language already has a very large vocabulary compared to other human languages. Those supporting the creation of neologisms might call the former position "antineologismism".

Govynn (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is a useful addition; the author of the article explicitly states that it is very much an idiosyncratic essay and does not represent the policy of his journal. In addition the author has no particular standing in linguistics or lexicography that would make them an interesting source to cite. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Why was the list taken out?
The list made sense as it added some reality to the term. Not everyone understands things without examples. I am putting it back, I hope that is not a problem. But I always come here to see the list.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Not covering all meanings
The article doesn't seem to mention words that are being used with a new meaning they didn't previously have. For instance: dude, sick, or ultimate. As seen from dictionary.com:

1. a new word, meaning, usage, or phrase.

2. the introduction or use of new words or new senses of existing words. Livingston 06:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Psychiatry
"In psychiatry, the term neologism is used to describe the use of words that have meaning only to the person who uses them, independent of their common meaning.[2] This is considered normal in children, but a symptom of thought disorder (indicative of a psychotic mental illness, such as schizophrenia) in adults.[3]"

Oh, psychiatry. What would we do without your pathological pathologising? --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Not yet been accepted?

 * defined as a newly coined term, word, or phrase, that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language.

Most, if not all of the words listed on this page have been accepted into mainstream language. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. As far as I can tell there is no official consensus on when a neologism becomes a word in its own right, but words like X-ray, radar and robotics are pretty clearly accepted into mainstream language. PatrickAnimi (talk) 09:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps that is why the example lists were removed. I don't think we shouldn't have examples, but clearly some of them have to go. They were neologisms at a certain point, but not anymore. Should older examples be removed or separated into a list of past examples? I think they should just be cut since every word was new at some point. --WikiDonn (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Corporate branding
this seems like just a blatant placement/advertisement for these firms, as this argument could be made for almost any company's naming development, particularly technology-based ones or consulting firms that cover a wide variety of services (Microsoft = microchip+software, Macromedia = macros+multimedia, etc. etc.). none of these company names are terms that are "in the process of entering common use, but [have] not yet been accepted into mainstream language," as a company's name is either recognized by someone or not, there is no "acceptance" of a company name unless it's also an actual neologism, like "laser corporation" or whatever. i could not find anything reliable about using any of these names colloquially to be referential or indicative of the varied work they do; thus, i've WP:BOLDedly removed them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impasse (talk • contribs) 18:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Neologisms aren't good
Here it is called a symptom of a thought disorder. But i can tell you what the real problem is: when you haven't got a normed language and people chatter chaotically with each other, language will change and decay over time. Just like everyone will start to believe crap. And that's what a thought disorder actually is. When you aren't in contact with the source in form of a good dictionary or consistent language use on TV, you will probably be considered as odd. But portals like Facebook make everyone a moron, they just don't notice because they're all conform. Using language creatively will not make it richer. It will ruin the semantics and in fact make it empty when you exaggerate it. Afterwards, you'll have like 50 synonyms for the same object. I guess that's exactly what is currently happening on the Internet very quickly. Someone wrote in his tag line: "Who finds spelling mistakes can keep them." Also, when someone like me writes in English as a foreign language over the Internet and makes mistakes, it will ruin the English language over time because the mistakes will be remembered by natively English-speaking people. I'm just pondering about my old German-Italian dictionary from Langenscheidt and wondering what already happened to your language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.201.11.196 (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Neologisms good or bad ?
New notions are evoling in science. We cannot use long polylectic terms in huge texts. The point is to add with some official methodology, and to create an Anglophone Institute like the French did.

Robert Sapolsky has made studies for extremely open to change people and extremely conservative to old-known notions. Both extremes are connected with mental health problems. Go to the Stanford University official page and ask if you can help us set a new behavioral experiment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.220.197 (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Large lat syndrome (LLS)
Large lat syndrome is a condition when a person who frequents a gym has received so many gains their lats prevent their arms from being able to rest against their body.

Unlike ILS, LLS is for people who can't actually put their arms down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy6536 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Scope of example list
A list of words and phrases which at one point were neologisms (ie. "in the process of entering common use, but [not yet] accepted into mainstream language") would be a list of every word in the dictionary, wouldn't it? Should the list of example neologisms be explicitly restricted to those which are "directly attributable to a specific person, publication, period, or event", and described as such? --McGeddon (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I came to this talk page to with the same exact concerns as above. Unless some criteria can be established these lists need to be removed as there is giant tangled mess of issues with these lists that has not be discussed at all. 97.104.138.227 (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  20:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting quote/source
—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Submission for Consideration: "Clown World"
I see this term commonly used in the internet circles I frequent. A Google search of the site: site:wikipedia "clown world" shows no results. I have no idea what standards are used to determine when a neologism becomes noteworthy, which is one question I have. It's listed on the Urban Dictionary, which is obviously not RS, but I did find this this. and this. I have the "NewsGuard" addon installed to my chrome browser, and both of these cites are listed as "green", which according the browser addon means "This website generally maintains basic standards of accuracy and accountability." Not sure how close that comes to Wikipedia's standard for what is (and is not) a reliable source, but that's the standard I used when deciding which search results to mention here, and which to exclude for not being RS.Tym Whittier (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Criticism
On Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language a user criticized the definition of the term "neologism" and the category about it. I would like to respond to it here. As I understand it, the current definition of the term "neologism" means that the neologism was in the process of entering common use at the time stated. Of course, a neologism from the 1900s, for example, is no longer in the process of entering common use, but it is still a neologism of its time. In my opinion, it is perhaps unclear whether each term was in the process of entering common usage at the time it was coined, and therefore whether perhaps each lemma is a neologism from the time the term was coined. Perhaps even surnames? – Gebu (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)