Talk:Neologism

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)

Recently deleted link

The following recently deleted link is moved here:

• Langmaker.com, a regularly updated directory of over 1,100 invented languages and neographies.

According to the root link, http://www.langmaker.com, the Langmaker website has been "temporarily" disabled. It is moved here so that it may be checked from time to time to see if it has been re-enabled. Then it may be added back to the article. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 19:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that the Langmaker site has been archived. The web archive is at:

• Archive.IS
• Langmaker's "About" page, the link that was deleted
• Langmakers Main Page from June 2008

Apparently, the wiki-ish website is down for the count. These archived pages are searchable and might still prove useful.

Neologisms aren't good

Extended content

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.