Talk:Neologism

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neologism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 months

Linguistics C‑class Mid‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Culture C‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neologism is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 19, 2004	Refreshing brilliant prose	Not kept

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Kstraatmann.

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)[reply]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paine Ellsworth (talk • contribs) 00:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agreed. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting quote/source

This process [of lexicalization] does not seem to be coincidental because neologisms themselves are prone to go through certain stages of transformation. They begin as unstable creations (otherwise called protologisms), that is, they are extremely new, being proposed, or being used only by a small subculture, then they advance to the phases of diffusion (reaching a significant audience), and stability (gaining a recognizable and lasting acceptance), to the moment where the word becomes dated, in other words, it ceases to be a novelty and acquires acknowledgment both culturally and linguistically.^[1]

^ Gryniuk, D. (2015). "On Institutionalization and De-Institutionalization of Late 1990s Neologisms". In Malec, W.; Rusinek, M. (eds.). Within Language, Beyond Theories (Volume III): Discourse Analysis, Pragmatics and Corpus-based Studies. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. p. 150. ISBN 1-4438-7822-7. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[1] Gryniuk, D. (2015). "On Institutionalization and De-Institutionalization of Late 1990s Neologisms". In Malec, W.; Rusinek, M. (eds.). Within Language, Beyond Theories (Volume III): Discourse Analysis, Pragmatics and Corpus-based Studies. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. p. 150. ISBN 1-4438-7822-7. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

[1]