The Lexicographer's Rules

The meaning of “to coin (a word or phrase)” is changing and there’s a clear-cut need for some kind of disambiguation.

The new meaning of the verb, supported by any number of news articles or blog entries, seems to be “to say, especially in a noteworthy fashion” and not the older “to create a unique expression; to say something for the first time ever; to neologize.”

This article claims two fellows coined the word redonkulous, but it’s not clear which meaning of “coined” was intended. Probably the old meaning—that the word was first said, ever, by the two men in question, in which case the reporter is wrong.

A clear-cut case of the old meaning of “coined” is in this article, where the author claims Clarence Williams, the Delta-born pianist and publisher, coined the word “jazz.” Here they are citing Williams himself who made the bold claim that he used the word first, ever, which is so far unsupported by the evidence.

In this article, when Raymond Graves writes, “President Bush coined the word ‘war’ to suit and fuel his desire to attack Saddam Hussein,” it’s clear the new meaning of “coined” is intended, because, of course, the word “war” was not first said, ever, by the president of the United States and nobody sane would think so.

No doubt the expression “to coin a phrase,” tacked on after things that the speaker knows has been said before, is influencing this change in meaning.

In my own writing, I think I’ll disambiguate by using the verb “neologize” when necessary and by avoiding “to coin” altogether.

To listen to the “decorum is declining daily” crowd, you’d think propriety had disappeared from the American media landscape. But it still has a foothold yet.

Jan Freeman writes, “Even when Rosten first issued his caution, nearly 40 years ago, dreck was not truly taboo: The New York Times, which takes a tough line on vulgarity, used it as early as 1967.”

I teased a Times editor recently that they’re all prudes, prigs, and squares over there, because when I submitted my second-annual words-of-the-year list to the New York Times, a different editor declined to include crotchfruit because it was “vulgar.”

Later, I also nominated crotchfruit as the “most outrageous word of the year” in the American Dialect Society’s 16th-annual word-of-the-year vote, a category which it won. Despite the enormous press coverage of that vote, only a handful of newspapers—most notably the Atlanta Journal-Constitution—included the word in their stories. I know I’m over-conditioned to accept nearly all words no matter what their connotations or subtextual invocations, but this outcome surprised me. I would’ve thought it would’ve been in headlines.

How can anyone possibly write an article about job-hunting online and not mention Craigslist? It’s no longer the open secret it once was—Alexa says Craigslist is the 34th most-visited web site on the Internet (although Netcraft doesn’t concur)—so how does one explain the omission? Because it’s informal? Because it offers other services? Because the article is little more than a listicle with padding?

Glad to see that this review of Henry Hitching’s Defining the World: The Extraordinary Story of Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary on Bookslut was changed to this.

Before it was changed, the first line contained the phrase “Samuel Johnson, creator of the Oxford English Dictionary.”

Johnson was no such thing. Although the OED has used citations that appeared in Johnson’s dictionary, in no way are they the same work, nor is the OED a later version or edition of Johnson’s work. Johnson had no editorial role in the OED. He was dead.

Johnson died in 1784 and the proposal for the creation of what became the OED didn’t appear until 1857.

The original review repeatedly conflated Johnsons dictionary with the Oxford English Dictionary, making me wonder if the reviewer even read Hitching’s book.

“This is the first time I have come into the office in a long time. You should see all the people who work here. I wonder who they all are. None of them are wearing bathrobes, and all of them seem to be wearing real shoes. It is very odd.” (Source Link)