Is esquivalience now a bona fide word?
Today, I came across WP's entry for the word esquivalience:
"Esquivalience" is a fictitious entry in the New Oxford American Dictionary (NOAD), which was designed and included to protect copyright of the publication.
The word was invented by Christine Lindberg, one of the editors of the NOAD and discovered by Henry Alford.
It was leaked that the dictionary had put in a fake word in the letter "e" and Alford set out to find the word. It was discovered after review of a short list by several experts. When the editor, Erin McKean, was contacted she admitted that it was indeed a fake word and had been in since the first edition, in order to protect the copyright of the CD-ROM edition.
The word is defined as "the willful avoidance of one's official responsibilities."
The first edition of the NOAD was published back in 2001 and two more have since seen print. Eleven years later, the word continues to be defined as a legitimate entry on ODO, Google, and going by the WP article, in the print editions. Is it now considered an authentic word? Or are OUP esquivaliently demonstrating the use of their esquivalience?
dictionaries is-it-a-word
edited Mar 30 '13 at 20:05
tchrist♦
109k30292468
asked Oct 16 '12 at 17:09
coleopteristcoleopterist
26.4k24101188
add a comment |
Today, I came across WP's entry for the word esquivalience:
"Esquivalience" is a fictitious entry in the New Oxford American Dictionary (NOAD), which was designed and included to protect copyright of the publication.
The word was invented by Christine Lindberg, one of the editors of the NOAD and discovered by Henry Alford.
It was leaked that the dictionary had put in a fake word in the letter "e" and Alford set out to find the word. It was discovered after review of a short list by several experts. When the editor, Erin McKean, was contacted she admitted that it was indeed a fake word and had been in since the first edition, in order to protect the copyright of the CD-ROM edition.
The word is defined as "the willful avoidance of one's official responsibilities."
The first edition of the NOAD was published back in 2001 and two more have since seen print. Eleven years later, the word continues to be defined as a legitimate entry on ODO, Google, and going by the WP article, in the print editions. Is it now considered an authentic word? Or are OUP esquivaliently demonstrating the use of their esquivalience?
dictionaries is-it-a-word
edited Mar 30 '13 at 20:05
tchrist♦
109k30292468
asked Oct 16 '12 at 17:09
coleopteristcoleopterist
26.4k24101188
3
Invented by X and discovered by Y? Did X forget about it?
– Mitch
Oct 16 '12 at 17:16
1
I am sorely tempted to use this word next time I write a formal letter of complaint. :)
– Pitarou
Oct 16 '12 at 23:09
Denying the word's authenticity would be a parade example of the etymological fallacy.
– StoneyB
Oct 17 '12 at 1:51
add a comment |
Today, I came across WP's entry for the word esquivalience:
"Esquivalience" is a fictitious entry in the New Oxford American Dictionary (NOAD), which was designed and included to protect copyright of the publication.
The word was invented by Christine Lindberg, one of the editors of the NOAD and discovered by Henry Alford.
It was leaked that the dictionary had put in a fake word in the letter "e" and Alford set out to find the word. It was discovered after review of a short list by several experts. When the editor, Erin McKean, was contacted she admitted that it was indeed a fake word and had been in since the first edition, in order to protect the copyright of the CD-ROM edition.
The word is defined as "the willful avoidance of one's official responsibilities."
The first edition of the NOAD was published back in 2001 and two more have since seen print. Eleven years later, the word continues to be defined as a legitimate entry on ODO, Google, and going by the WP article, in the print editions. Is it now considered an authentic word? Or are OUP esquivaliently demonstrating the use of their esquivalience?
dictionaries is-it-a-word
edited Mar 30 '13 at 20:05
tchrist♦
109k30292468
asked Oct 16 '12 at 17:09
coleopteristcoleopterist
26.4k24101188
Today, I came across WP's entry for the word esquivalience:
"Esquivalience" is a fictitious entry in the New Oxford American Dictionary (NOAD), which was designed and included to protect copyright of the publication.
The word was invented by Christine Lindberg, one of the editors of the NOAD and discovered by Henry Alford.
It was leaked that the dictionary had put in a fake word in the letter "e" and Alford set out to find the word. It was discovered after review of a short list by several experts. When the editor, Erin McKean, was contacted she admitted that it was indeed a fake word and had been in since the first edition, in order to protect the copyright of the CD-ROM edition.
The word is defined as "the willful avoidance of one's official responsibilities."
The first edition of the NOAD was published back in 2001 and two more have since seen print. Eleven years later, the word continues to be defined as a legitimate entry on ODO, Google, and going by the WP article, in the print editions. Is it now considered an authentic word? Or are OUP esquivaliently demonstrating the use of their esquivalience?
dictionaries is-it-a-word
dictionaries is-it-a-word
edited Mar 30 '13 at 20:05
tchrist♦
109k30292468
asked Oct 16 '12 at 17:09
coleopteristcoleopterist
26.4k24101188
edited Mar 30 '13 at 20:05
tchrist♦
109k30292468
asked Oct 16 '12 at 17:09
coleopteristcoleopterist
26.4k24101188
edited Mar 30 '13 at 20:05
tchrist♦
109k30292468
edited Mar 30 '13 at 20:05
tchrist♦
109k30292468
edited Mar 30 '13 at 20:05
tchrist♦
109k30292468
109k30292468
asked Oct 16 '12 at 17:09
coleopteristcoleopterist
26.4k24101188
asked Oct 16 '12 at 17:09
coleopteristcoleopterist
26.4k24101188
asked Oct 16 '12 at 17:09
coleopteristcoleopterist
26.4k24101188
26.4k24101188
3
Invented by X and discovered by Y? Did X forget about it?
– Mitch
Oct 16 '12 at 17:16
1
I am sorely tempted to use this word next time I write a formal letter of complaint. :)
– Pitarou
Oct 16 '12 at 23:09
Denying the word's authenticity would be a parade example of the etymological fallacy.
– StoneyB
Oct 17 '12 at 1:51
add a comment |
3
Invented by X and discovered by Y? Did X forget about it?
– Mitch
Oct 16 '12 at 17:16
1
I am sorely tempted to use this word next time I write a formal letter of complaint. :)
– Pitarou
Oct 16 '12 at 23:09
Denying the word's authenticity would be a parade example of the etymological fallacy.
– StoneyB
Oct 17 '12 at 1:51
3
3
Invented by X and discovered by Y? Did X forget about it?
– Mitch
Oct 16 '12 at 17:16
Invented by X and discovered by Y? Did X forget about it?
– Mitch
Oct 16 '12 at 17:16
1
1
I am sorely tempted to use this word next time I write a formal letter of complaint. :)
– Pitarou
Oct 16 '12 at 23:09
I am sorely tempted to use this word next time I write a formal letter of complaint. :)
– Pitarou
Oct 16 '12 at 23:09
Denying the word's authenticity would be a parade example of the etymological fallacy.
– StoneyB
Oct 17 '12 at 1:51
Denying the word's authenticity would be a parade example of the etymological fallacy.
– StoneyB
Oct 17 '12 at 1:51
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
This is one place where I think NGrams can throw a little light on the subject.
Even when you narrow the search to between 2000 and 2008, you're still looking at a flatlining entry.
In cases where a word is defined by a dictionary but nobody is really using it, I think it's safe to say it's not a real word. If people pick it up and start using it, then sure, it will qualify. For now, though, I would call it artificial — a Potemkin village of a word.
Edit
It was pointed out to me that I misspelled the made-up word. I'm not sure how a fake word can be misspelled, but here is an NGram for the "correct" spelling. Note the huge jump in usage.
answered Oct 16 '12 at 17:19
RobustoRobusto
129k30308522
If you care, I've just verified that this non-word does not appear in the current online version of the OED. It's a shame though that this question will now be one of the top Google hits for the non-word I shall not type. :(
– tchrist♦
Oct 16 '12 at 17:39
@tchrist I'm unfamiliar with the online OED. Does it incorporate the NOAD?
– coleopterist
Oct 16 '12 at 17:59
2
@Robusto Hey, you misspelled it in your NGram search. It's esquivalience, with another i in. (Not that that changes the results, mind.)
– Mr Lister
Oct 16 '12 at 19:37
3
@MrLister: The difference is plain. See above.
– Robusto
Oct 16 '12 at 19:45
add a comment |
A Google search yields a few genuine hits for that word. Here's one that contains some comments by the NOAD editor who created the word. She says "that she finds herself using it regularly". A few dictionaries contain the word, or used to (Dictionary.com) but deleted it.
The question is whether anyone but the NOAD editor and her buddies use the word. If English speakers see it in NOAD and actually start using it because they believe it's a real word, then it becomes one because it's used. If no one actually uses it, then it's not a real word. But the real test, it seems to me, is when it's included in the Scrabble dictionary: then and only then is it a real word. But maybe it's just a matter of faith: If I believe it's true, then it's true for me and that's all that's important. Solipsism is everywhere.
Alford's New Yorker article about it is interesting. The Chicago Tribune article cited in Wikipedia is a dead link.
What about exagmination?
– StoneyB
Oct 17 '12 at 1:48
Strictly for specialistas and Finnegan's Wake lovers. I read the first 32 pages of the latter and decided to save the rest for my next life. It might be interesting to read the Exag to see what JJ's friends had to say, though: "... His writing is not about something; it is that something itself." Samuel Beckett. link
– user21497
Oct 17 '12 at 2:09
Thanks. The Tribune article is here.
– coleopterist
Oct 17 '12 at 5:56
Unfortunately last I checked the Scrabble dictionary doesn't include words longer than 8 letters (in base form) so I think you're going to be in a bit of trouble with that rule.
– Merk
Oct 18 '12 at 6:42
I was being a bit facetious with that remark. :-)
– user21497
Oct 18 '12 at 9:53
add a comment |
Well it apparently appears in the online video game Fallen London ("What do they study at the Department of Antiquarian Esquivalience? Sadly, it would go against their very ethos to explain it to you unless you already know.") which means that it seems to be being used, but only as a sort of in joke about about its own artificial nature (or possibly its real definition, the context makes it kinda unclear)
edited just now
Andrew Leach♦
80k8153257
answered 16 mins ago
alexanderalexander
1
New contributor
alexander is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f87063%2fis-esquivalience-now-a-bona-fide-word%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
This is one place where I think NGrams can throw a little light on the subject.
Even when you narrow the search to between 2000 and 2008, you're still looking at a flatlining entry.
In cases where a word is defined by a dictionary but nobody is really using it, I think it's safe to say it's not a real word. If people pick it up and start using it, then sure, it will qualify. For now, though, I would call it artificial — a Potemkin village of a word.
Edit
It was pointed out to me that I misspelled the made-up word. I'm not sure how a fake word can be misspelled, but here is an NGram for the "correct" spelling. Note the huge jump in usage.
answered Oct 16 '12 at 17:19
RobustoRobusto
129k30308522
If you care, I've just verified that this non-word does not appear in the current online version of the OED. It's a shame though that this question will now be one of the top Google hits for the non-word I shall not type. :(
– tchrist♦
Oct 16 '12 at 17:39
@tchrist I'm unfamiliar with the online OED. Does it incorporate the NOAD?
– coleopterist
Oct 16 '12 at 17:59
2
@Robusto Hey, you misspelled it in your NGram search. It's esquivalience, with another i in. (Not that that changes the results, mind.)
– Mr Lister
Oct 16 '12 at 19:37
3
@MrLister: The difference is plain. See above.
– Robusto
Oct 16 '12 at 19:45
add a comment |
This is one place where I think NGrams can throw a little light on the subject.
Even when you narrow the search to between 2000 and 2008, you're still looking at a flatlining entry.
In cases where a word is defined by a dictionary but nobody is really using it, I think it's safe to say it's not a real word. If people pick it up and start using it, then sure, it will qualify. For now, though, I would call it artificial — a Potemkin village of a word.
Edit
It was pointed out to me that I misspelled the made-up word. I'm not sure how a fake word can be misspelled, but here is an NGram for the "correct" spelling. Note the huge jump in usage.
answered Oct 16 '12 at 17:19
RobustoRobusto
129k30308522
If you care, I've just verified that this non-word does not appear in the current online version of the OED. It's a shame though that this question will now be one of the top Google hits for the non-word I shall not type. :(
– tchrist♦
Oct 16 '12 at 17:39
@tchrist I'm unfamiliar with the online OED. Does it incorporate the NOAD?
– coleopterist
Oct 16 '12 at 17:59
2
@Robusto Hey, you misspelled it in your NGram search. It's esquivalience, with another i in. (Not that that changes the results, mind.)
– Mr Lister
Oct 16 '12 at 19:37
3
@MrLister: The difference is plain. See above.
– Robusto
Oct 16 '12 at 19:45
add a comment |
This is one place where I think NGrams can throw a little light on the subject.
Even when you narrow the search to between 2000 and 2008, you're still looking at a flatlining entry.
In cases where a word is defined by a dictionary but nobody is really using it, I think it's safe to say it's not a real word. If people pick it up and start using it, then sure, it will qualify. For now, though, I would call it artificial — a Potemkin village of a word.
Edit
It was pointed out to me that I misspelled the made-up word. I'm not sure how a fake word can be misspelled, but here is an NGram for the "correct" spelling. Note the huge jump in usage.
answered Oct 16 '12 at 17:19
RobustoRobusto
129k30308522
This is one place where I think NGrams can throw a little light on the subject.
Even when you narrow the search to between 2000 and 2008, you're still looking at a flatlining entry.
In cases where a word is defined by a dictionary but nobody is really using it, I think it's safe to say it's not a real word. If people pick it up and start using it, then sure, it will qualify. For now, though, I would call it artificial — a Potemkin village of a word.
Edit
It was pointed out to me that I misspelled the made-up word. I'm not sure how a fake word can be misspelled, but here is an NGram for the "correct" spelling. Note the huge jump in usage.
answered Oct 16 '12 at 17:19
RobustoRobusto
129k30308522
edited Oct 16 '12 at 19:45
answered Oct 16 '12 at 17:19
RobustoRobusto
129k30308522
answered Oct 16 '12 at 17:19
RobustoRobusto
129k30308522
answered Oct 16 '12 at 17:19
RobustoRobusto
129k30308522
129k30308522
If you care, I've just verified that this non-word does not appear in the current online version of the OED. It's a shame though that this question will now be one of the top Google hits for the non-word I shall not type. :(
– tchrist♦
Oct 16 '12 at 17:39
@tchrist I'm unfamiliar with the online OED. Does it incorporate the NOAD?
– coleopterist
Oct 16 '12 at 17:59
2
@Robusto Hey, you misspelled it in your NGram search. It's esquivalience, with another i in. (Not that that changes the results, mind.)
– Mr Lister
Oct 16 '12 at 19:37
3
@MrLister: The difference is plain. See above.
– Robusto
Oct 16 '12 at 19:45
add a comment |
If you care, I've just verified that this non-word does not appear in the current online version of the OED. It's a shame though that this question will now be one of the top Google hits for the non-word I shall not type. :(
– tchrist♦
Oct 16 '12 at 17:39
@tchrist I'm unfamiliar with the online OED. Does it incorporate the NOAD?
– coleopterist
Oct 16 '12 at 17:59
2
@Robusto Hey, you misspelled it in your NGram search. It's esquivalience, with another i in. (Not that that changes the results, mind.)
– Mr Lister
Oct 16 '12 at 19:37
3
@MrLister: The difference is plain. See above.
– Robusto
Oct 16 '12 at 19:45
If you care, I've just verified that this non-word does not appear in the current online version of the OED. It's a shame though that this question will now be one of the top Google hits for the non-word I shall not type. :(
– tchrist♦
Oct 16 '12 at 17:39
If you care, I've just verified that this non-word does not appear in the current online version of the OED. It's a shame though that this question will now be one of the top Google hits for the non-word I shall not type. :(
– tchrist♦
Oct 16 '12 at 17:39
@tchrist I'm unfamiliar with the online OED. Does it incorporate the NOAD?
– coleopterist
Oct 16 '12 at 17:59
@tchrist I'm unfamiliar with the online OED. Does it incorporate the NOAD?
– coleopterist
Oct 16 '12 at 17:59
2
2
@Robusto Hey, you misspelled it in your NGram search. It's esquivalience, with another i in. (Not that that changes the results, mind.)
– Mr Lister
Oct 16 '12 at 19:37
@Robusto Hey, you misspelled it in your NGram search. It's esquivalience, with another i in. (Not that that changes the results, mind.)
– Mr Lister
Oct 16 '12 at 19:37
3
3
@MrLister: The difference is plain. See above.
– Robusto
Oct 16 '12 at 19:45
@MrLister: The difference is plain. See above.
– Robusto
Oct 16 '12 at 19:45
add a comment |
A Google search yields a few genuine hits for that word. Here's one that contains some comments by the NOAD editor who created the word. She says "that she finds herself using it regularly". A few dictionaries contain the word, or used to (Dictionary.com) but deleted it.
The question is whether anyone but the NOAD editor and her buddies use the word. If English speakers see it in NOAD and actually start using it because they believe it's a real word, then it becomes one because it's used. If no one actually uses it, then it's not a real word. But the real test, it seems to me, is when it's included in the Scrabble dictionary: then and only then is it a real word. But maybe it's just a matter of faith: If I believe it's true, then it's true for me and that's all that's important. Solipsism is everywhere.
Alford's New Yorker article about it is interesting. The Chicago Tribune article cited in Wikipedia is a dead link.
What about exagmination?
– StoneyB
Oct 17 '12 at 1:48
Strictly for specialistas and Finnegan's Wake lovers. I read the first 32 pages of the latter and decided to save the rest for my next life. It might be interesting to read the Exag to see what JJ's friends had to say, though: "... His writing is not about something; it is that something itself." Samuel Beckett. link
– user21497
Oct 17 '12 at 2:09
Thanks. The Tribune article is here.
– coleopterist
Oct 17 '12 at 5:56
Unfortunately last I checked the Scrabble dictionary doesn't include words longer than 8 letters (in base form) so I think you're going to be in a bit of trouble with that rule.
– Merk
Oct 18 '12 at 6:42
I was being a bit facetious with that remark. :-)
– user21497
Oct 18 '12 at 9:53
add a comment |
A Google search yields a few genuine hits for that word. Here's one that contains some comments by the NOAD editor who created the word. She says "that she finds herself using it regularly". A few dictionaries contain the word, or used to (Dictionary.com) but deleted it.
The question is whether anyone but the NOAD editor and her buddies use the word. If English speakers see it in NOAD and actually start using it because they believe it's a real word, then it becomes one because it's used. If no one actually uses it, then it's not a real word. But the real test, it seems to me, is when it's included in the Scrabble dictionary: then and only then is it a real word. But maybe it's just a matter of faith: If I believe it's true, then it's true for me and that's all that's important. Solipsism is everywhere.
Alford's New Yorker article about it is interesting. The Chicago Tribune article cited in Wikipedia is a dead link.
What about exagmination?
– StoneyB
Oct 17 '12 at 1:48
Strictly for specialistas and Finnegan's Wake lovers. I read the first 32 pages of the latter and decided to save the rest for my next life. It might be interesting to read the Exag to see what JJ's friends had to say, though: "... His writing is not about something; it is that something itself." Samuel Beckett. link
– user21497
Oct 17 '12 at 2:09
Thanks. The Tribune article is here.
– coleopterist
Oct 17 '12 at 5:56
Unfortunately last I checked the Scrabble dictionary doesn't include words longer than 8 letters (in base form) so I think you're going to be in a bit of trouble with that rule.
– Merk
Oct 18 '12 at 6:42
I was being a bit facetious with that remark. :-)
– user21497
Oct 18 '12 at 9:53
add a comment |
A Google search yields a few genuine hits for that word. Here's one that contains some comments by the NOAD editor who created the word. She says "that she finds herself using it regularly". A few dictionaries contain the word, or used to (Dictionary.com) but deleted it.
The question is whether anyone but the NOAD editor and her buddies use the word. If English speakers see it in NOAD and actually start using it because they believe it's a real word, then it becomes one because it's used. If no one actually uses it, then it's not a real word. But the real test, it seems to me, is when it's included in the Scrabble dictionary: then and only then is it a real word. But maybe it's just a matter of faith: If I believe it's true, then it's true for me and that's all that's important. Solipsism is everywhere.
Alford's New Yorker article about it is interesting. The Chicago Tribune article cited in Wikipedia is a dead link.
A Google search yields a few genuine hits for that word. Here's one that contains some comments by the NOAD editor who created the word. She says "that she finds herself using it regularly". A few dictionaries contain the word, or used to (Dictionary.com) but deleted it.
The question is whether anyone but the NOAD editor and her buddies use the word. If English speakers see it in NOAD and actually start using it because they believe it's a real word, then it becomes one because it's used. If no one actually uses it, then it's not a real word. But the real test, it seems to me, is when it's included in the Scrabble dictionary: then and only then is it a real word. But maybe it's just a matter of faith: If I believe it's true, then it's true for me and that's all that's important. Solipsism is everywhere.
Alford's New Yorker article about it is interesting. The Chicago Tribune article cited in Wikipedia is a dead link.
answered Oct 16 '12 at 22:49
user21497
What about exagmination?
– StoneyB
Oct 17 '12 at 1:48
Strictly for specialistas and Finnegan's Wake lovers. I read the first 32 pages of the latter and decided to save the rest for my next life. It might be interesting to read the Exag to see what JJ's friends had to say, though: "... His writing is not about something; it is that something itself." Samuel Beckett. link
– user21497
Oct 17 '12 at 2:09
Thanks. The Tribune article is here.
– coleopterist
Oct 17 '12 at 5:56
Unfortunately last I checked the Scrabble dictionary doesn't include words longer than 8 letters (in base form) so I think you're going to be in a bit of trouble with that rule.
– Merk
Oct 18 '12 at 6:42
I was being a bit facetious with that remark. :-)
– user21497
Oct 18 '12 at 9:53
add a comment |
What about exagmination?
– StoneyB
Oct 17 '12 at 1:48
Strictly for specialistas and Finnegan's Wake lovers. I read the first 32 pages of the latter and decided to save the rest for my next life. It might be interesting to read the Exag to see what JJ's friends had to say, though: "... His writing is not about something; it is that something itself." Samuel Beckett. link
– user21497
Oct 17 '12 at 2:09
Thanks. The Tribune article is here.
– coleopterist
Oct 17 '12 at 5:56
Unfortunately last I checked the Scrabble dictionary doesn't include words longer than 8 letters (in base form) so I think you're going to be in a bit of trouble with that rule.
– Merk
Oct 18 '12 at 6:42
I was being a bit facetious with that remark. :-)
– user21497
Oct 18 '12 at 9:53
What about exagmination?
– StoneyB
Oct 17 '12 at 1:48
What about exagmination?
– StoneyB
Oct 17 '12 at 1:48
Strictly for specialistas and Finnegan's Wake lovers. I read the first 32 pages of the latter and decided to save the rest for my next life. It might be interesting to read the Exag to see what JJ's friends had to say, though: "... His writing is not about something; it is that something itself." Samuel Beckett. link
– user21497
Oct 17 '12 at 2:09
Strictly for specialistas and Finnegan's Wake lovers. I read the first 32 pages of the latter and decided to save the rest for my next life. It might be interesting to read the Exag to see what JJ's friends had to say, though: "... His writing is not about something; it is that something itself." Samuel Beckett. link
– user21497
Oct 17 '12 at 2:09
Thanks. The Tribune article is here.
– coleopterist
Oct 17 '12 at 5:56
Thanks. The Tribune article is here.
– coleopterist
Oct 17 '12 at 5:56
Unfortunately last I checked the Scrabble dictionary doesn't include words longer than 8 letters (in base form) so I think you're going to be in a bit of trouble with that rule.
– Merk
Oct 18 '12 at 6:42
Unfortunately last I checked the Scrabble dictionary doesn't include words longer than 8 letters (in base form) so I think you're going to be in a bit of trouble with that rule.
– Merk
Oct 18 '12 at 6:42
I was being a bit facetious with that remark. :-)
– user21497
Oct 18 '12 at 9:53
I was being a bit facetious with that remark. :-)
– user21497
Oct 18 '12 at 9:53
add a comment |
Well it apparently appears in the online video game Fallen London ("What do they study at the Department of Antiquarian Esquivalience? Sadly, it would go against their very ethos to explain it to you unless you already know.") which means that it seems to be being used, but only as a sort of in joke about about its own artificial nature (or possibly its real definition, the context makes it kinda unclear)
edited just now
Andrew Leach♦
80k8153257
answered 16 mins ago
alexanderalexander
1
New contributor
alexander is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Well it apparently appears in the online video game Fallen London ("What do they study at the Department of Antiquarian Esquivalience? Sadly, it would go against their very ethos to explain it to you unless you already know.") which means that it seems to be being used, but only as a sort of in joke about about its own artificial nature (or possibly its real definition, the context makes it kinda unclear)
edited just now
Andrew Leach♦
80k8153257
answered 16 mins ago
alexanderalexander
1
New contributor
alexander is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Well it apparently appears in the online video game Fallen London ("What do they study at the Department of Antiquarian Esquivalience? Sadly, it would go against their very ethos to explain it to you unless you already know.") which means that it seems to be being used, but only as a sort of in joke about about its own artificial nature (or possibly its real definition, the context makes it kinda unclear)
edited just now
Andrew Leach♦
80k8153257
answered 16 mins ago
alexanderalexander
1
New contributor
alexander is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Well it apparently appears in the online video game Fallen London ("What do they study at the Department of Antiquarian Esquivalience? Sadly, it would go against their very ethos to explain it to you unless you already know.") which means that it seems to be being used, but only as a sort of in joke about about its own artificial nature (or possibly its real definition, the context makes it kinda unclear)
edited just now
Andrew Leach♦
80k8153257
answered 16 mins ago
alexanderalexander
1
New contributor
alexander is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited just now
Andrew Leach♦
80k8153257
edited just now
Andrew Leach♦
80k8153257
edited just now
Andrew Leach♦
80k8153257
80k8153257
answered 16 mins ago
alexanderalexander
1
New contributor
alexander is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 16 mins ago
alexanderalexander
1
answered 16 mins ago
alexanderalexander
1
1
New contributor
alexander is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
alexander is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
alexander is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f87063%2fis-esquivalience-now-a-bona-fide-word%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
Invented by X and discovered by Y? Did X forget about it?
– Mitch
Oct 16 '12 at 17:16
1
I am sorely tempted to use this word next time I write a formal letter of complaint. :)
– Pitarou
Oct 16 '12 at 23:09
Denying the word's authenticity would be a parade example of the etymological fallacy.
– StoneyB
Oct 17 '12 at 1:51