NationStates Jolt Archive

When it's a door!*
(inspired by the “skyntic” suggestion in the “Cynical or Skeptical?” thread OP)
What does it take for a word to be officially recognized as a word? Does it have to be in OED? Is common usage enough? Then what constitutes “common usage”? And, as a corollary, when does a word stop being a word? When OED drops it? When it falls from common usage? What about those pesky foreign words? Who signs the adoption papers? 'Tis thine to opine! (Mine? I decline, I'm a swine)


*”When is a door not a door?” “When it's ajar!”

It has to be accepted by Webster's Dictionary...

You can't be inspired by your own posts in your own threads. It just doesn't count.

You can't be inspired by your own posts in your own threads. It just doesn't count.
I was inspired by the ideas! They seemed too disconnected to put all in one post :tongue:

You can't be inspired by your own posts in your own threads. It just doesn't count.

It does if youre curious enough, ;)



(I think he was inspired byyour post here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14736263&postcount=2)

When it's an n-word.

If person A uses it and person B understands it, it's a valid word.

When it's included in some lesser dictionary, but of reasonably similar quality to the OED.

Actually, I think I have a much more authoritative source, If its a word, its in this, you can make shit up, and itll be in this:

http://www.makefive.com/images/200904/9fe30d5bd826cedd.jpg

If person A uses it and person B understands it, it's a valid word.

this strikes me as right. but do person a and person b need to be different people? can there be private words, used only to communicate with oneself? i mean, clearly we could use whatever symbols to communicate whatever ideas we want with ourselves by committing them to paper and remembering what we intended. and such things could in principle be deciphered by others, if anyone cared to, just like any other code. but are they words?

It isn't the dictionary that creates words, though. They only write them down afterwards for reference purposes.

If a large amount of people accept it as a word ex. More than ten. Say a certain group, or a region.

Any collection of (pronounceable?) letters that has, or had, meaning to someone, at sometime, can be considered a word.

Whether other recognise it as such is another matter, of course.

Actually, I think I have a much more authoritative source, If its a word, its in this, you can make shit up, and itll be in this:

http://www.makefive.com/images/200904/9fe30d5bd826cedd.jpg
Martha may indeed trump OED, although that is a different game, now that I think on it.

this strikes me as right. but do person a and person b need to be different people? can there be private words, used only to communicate with oneself? i mean, clearly we could use whatever symbols to communicate whatever ideas we want with ourselves by committing them to paper and remembering what we intended. and such things could in principle be deciphered by others, if anyone cared to, just like any other code. but are they words?

In your example person a = person b. Makes it a valid word for me.

It isn't the dictionary that creates words, though. They only write them down afterwards for reference purposes.

Yeah, but for reference purposes, what else are you going to use?

when else would you need to decide if something is a word, except for during reference purposes? ;)

Yeah, but for reference purposes, what else are you going to use?

when else would you need to decide if something is a word, except for during reference purposes? ;)Is posting on NSG considered "during reference purposes"?

Yeah, but for reference purposes, what else are you going to use?

when else would you need to decide if something is a word, except for during reference purposes? ;)

But think of all the small communities within our larger community that have their own words. Would a non-motorcyclist know what a highsider is? Or a tankslapper? You won't find them in a dictionary but they are well understood by significant numbers of people. Surfies have their own language. And it goes on.

Is posting on NSG considered "during reference purposes"?
If the conversation demands referencing something, which, presumably, you would need to do when proving something is a word....
But think of all the small communities within our larger community that have their own words. Would a non-motorcyclist know what a highsider is? Or a tankslapper? You won't find them in a dictionary but they are well understood by significant numbers of people. Surfies have their own language. And it goes on.

true, but, when it comes to proving that this is an accepted word, I would think there needs to be documentation...

Any collection of (pronounceable?) letters that has, or had, meaning to someone, at sometime, can be considered a word.

Whether other recognise it as such is another matter, of course.

philosophical nitpicking time!

it seems to me that words cannot depend on letters, as words come before written language (and even some written languages just don't use letters like we do). but it can't be collections of phonemes/sounds either, on pain of having to say that american sign language lacks words. so what's left?

philosophical nitpicking time!

it seems to me that words cannot depend on letters, as words come before written language (and even some written languages just don't use letters like we do). but it can't be collections of phonemes/sounds either, on pain of having to say that american sign language lacks words. so what's left?Symbols? A sound, a mark, or a gesture can all be symbols, yes?

Symbols? A sound, a mark, or a gesture can all be symbols, yes?

maybe, but we'll need to be careful there. an artistic work can be symbolic of some concept without being a word. i think we'd need to link it up to the notion of communication, but i'm not sure how, given that those symbolic works of art are also partaking of communication in a sense.

maybe, but we'll need to be careful there. an artistic work can be symbolic of some concept without being a word. i think we'd need to link it up to the notion of communication, but i'm not sure how, given that those symbolic works of art are also partaking of communication in a sense.
But, can the concept expressed via visual art not also be summarised in words?

true, but, when it comes to proving that this is an accepted word, I would think there needs to be documentation...
Ahhh, but an accepted word is something quite different.


philosophical nitpicking time!
My favourite time of the day.

it seems to me that words cannot depend on letters, as words come before written language (and even some written languages just don't use letters like we do). but it can't be collections of phonemes/sounds either, on pain of having to say that american sign language lacks words. so what's left?
I'm sure you can work my definition around a lack of letters, say. It's not dependent on letters, and I'm happy to let the definition transcend them.

What about:

'A written word is any collection of letters, or similar symbols, that correspond to a concept that has, or had, meaning to someone, at sometime.'

philosophical nitpicking time!
My favourite time of the day.

you know, there really must be something quite wrong with us

you know, there really must be something quite wrong with us
On the contrary, old chap.

I'd say a word is a vocal sound used to express a meaning, where symbols (letters) can be used for the person reading to hear the sound in his head. If the sound was not used to express a meaning, then it's not a word.

I'd say a word is a vocal sound used to express a meaning, where symbols (letters) can be used for the person reading to hear the sound in his head. If the sound was not used to express a meaning, then it's not a word.

But a grunt can be used to express meaning, is a grunt a word?

If a large amount of people accept it as a word ex. More than ten. Say a certain group, or a region.

what is the word before it gains wide enough acceptance? some sort of proto-word?

what is the word before it gains wide enough acceptance? some sort of proto-word?
Ramblings of a madman.:p

But a grunt can be used to express meaning, is a grunt a word?

Perhaps, for instance, you can write down a grunt: 'arrrgh!' or 'grrrrrrrrr' or 'SHHHH!'. If I wrote down a sentence like this - "Arrrrgh! Shhhh you silly!", you wouldn't say there are only two words in that sentence, would you.

Perhaps, for instance, you can write down a grunt: 'arrrgh!' or 'grrrrrrrrr' or 'SHHHH!'. If I wrote down a sentence like this - "Arrrrgh! Shhhh you silly!", you wouldn't say there are only two words in that sentence, would you.

I would, idk about other people, but i would say there are two words, and two sound effects...

I would, idk about other people, but i would say there are two words, and two sound effects...

Ok then, you can have an alternate definition. If the sound is peculiar, and cannot be properly spelled using symbols, it is a sound effect. If it isn't a peculiar sound, then it's a word. But that definition sounds silly.

Perhaps, for instance, you can write down a grunt: 'arrrgh!' or 'grrrrrrrrr' or 'SHHHH!'. If I wrote down a sentence like this - "Arrrrgh! Shhhh you silly!", you wouldn't say there are only two words in that sentence, would you.

I'd call them words. Onomatopoeia, to be exact.

Ok then, you can have an alternate definition. If the sound is peculiar, and cannot be properly spelled using symbols, it is a sound effect. If it isn't a peculiar sound, then it's a word. But that definition sounds silly.

“A little nonsense now and then, is cherished by the wisest men.” Willy Wonka

lol :p

Words are words when they are wordified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniglet

/thread

I am not certain that a word even needs to be understood by someone. Is a word from a dead and undeciphered language like Etruscan not still a word even though it has meaning for nobody?

when it is "18 Dog baby".

Is a word from a dead and undeciphered language like Etruscan not still a word even though it has meaning for nobody?
I'd say so.

Actually it is programming. We are programmed to know what a combination of letter mean. No reads each letter when they read. You do a mental lookup although you may not be aware of it.

We do not do for example.......

D O G =Dog a furry animal that pants

We look at the whole DOG and then do a mental look up. Do I know that pattern of letter, yes, a hit, DOG is a furry animal that pants.


When is a word a word. When I say something or write something and you understand it.

First it would have to be an aceptable definition

let say

Dartarg is the length of one human finger. That pencil is one dartarg in length. dartarg is a noun. It is pronounced Dar.Targ with a heavy g sound at the end.


Now if I can get this word into the common lexicon of words in a particular language, it will become a word.

When is a word a word. When I say something or write something and you understand it.
But what if you say a word I've never heard before, or in a language I don't understand?

For me, local slang is enough use to make it a word.

Yadadamean?

Haven't you heard?

The bird is the word!

The bir, bir, bird bird bird, the bird is the word!

I would, idk about other people, but i would say there are two words, and two sound effects...

Onomatopoeia are words...slam, bang, crash, yahoo, woot...all words. Shh is no different.

a word is any sound that represents a concept. One can have a word that is used only by himself, but the concept must be able to be communicated to others...For example, the text of jabberwocky:

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
contains all words, because the character defines them for the reader. Therefore, they are sounds that represent a communicable concept.


If I just hit a bunch of keys to create something that looks like an English word, say "bilgremst", but had no meaning behind it, then it is not a word. If I assign it meaning, then it is a word.

A door - adore, I get it!

When it's in a text message, apparently.

Onomatopoeia are words...slam, bang, crash, yahoo, woot...all words. Shh is no different.

a word is any sound that represents a concept. One can have a word that is used only by himself, but the concept must be able to be communicated to others...For example, the text of jabberwocky:


contains all words, because the character defines them for the reader. Therefore, they are sounds that represent a communicable concept.


If I just hit a bunch of keys to create something that looks like an English word, say "bilgremst", but had no meaning behind it, then it is not a word. If I assign it meaning, then it is a word.

Agreed, except for Jabberwocky. Define any of those words. The context doesn't apply meaning, it applies a kind of impressionism -- a gauzy connotation with no denotation.

Agreed, except for Jabberwocky. Define any of those words. The context doesn't apply meaning, it applies a kind of impressionism -- a gauzy connotation with no denotation.

not quite. Earlier in the text, humpty dumpty gives the definition, such as
Brillig – Four o'clock in the afternoon: the time when you begin broiling things for dinner
and
Slithy – Combination of "slimy" and "lithe."[4] The i is long, as in writhe
and
Tove – A combination of a badger, a lizard, and a corkscrew. They are very curious looking creatures which make their nests under sundials and eat only cheese.[4] Pronounced so as to rhyme with groves.[5] Note that "gyre and gimble," i.e. rotate and bore, is in reference to the toves being partly corkscrew by Humpty Dumpty's definitions.


Of course, this depends on when we're talking about it being read...Carroll first published it with no definitions. In the book, he provided some. He later provided more...but some he says he doesn't know what they mean. So brillig, slithy, and tove are, in fact, now words. The ones he provided definitions for may initially not have been words, but became one when a definition was provided. Ones that he cannot communicate a meaning for are not words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniglet

/threadThe more relevant, but not as amusing link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism

I am not certain that a word even needs to be understood by someone. Is a word from a dead and undeciphered language like Etruscan not still a word even though it has meaning for nobody?
I think I asked this in the OP . . . so, is it?

not quite. Earlier in the text, humpty dumpty gives the definition, such as
Brillig – Four o'clock in the afternoon: the time when you begin broiling things for dinner
and
Slithy – Combination of "slimy" and "lithe."[4] The i is long, as in writhe
and
Tove – A combination of a badger, a lizard, and a corkscrew. They are very curious looking creatures which make their nests under sundials and eat only cheese.[4] Pronounced so as to rhyme with groves.[5] Note that "gyre and gimble," i.e. rotate and bore, is in reference to the toves being partly corkscrew by Humpty Dumpty's definitions.


Of course, this depends on when we're talking about it being read...Carroll first published it with no definitions. In the book, he provided some. He later provided more...but some he says he doesn't know what they mean. So brillig, slithy, and tove are, in fact, now words. The ones he provided definitions for may initially not have been words, but became one when a definition was provided. Ones that he cannot communicate a meaning for are not words.

You only prove my point.

The words have no connotation outside of Carroll's telling you they do. Few, if any, have ever fallen into any kind of general usage.

A word's a word when it has a consistent use in a language. That doesn't mean that anyone else has to know about the word though, just that it be able to fit into a language and be used consistently within it.

... Therefore, they are sounds that represent a communicable concept.


If I just hit a bunch of keys to create something that looks like an English word, say "bilgremst" ...

Owing to the phenomenon that the mind fills in missing letters, I read this as "bilgremist".

"-ist" is a regular English suffix representing "one who" (performs an action, espouses a philosophy).

So, one who does what? Obviously, one who bilgrems.

"To bilgrem" is an unfamiliar verb, therefore I turn to the context in which it is used. That proving unrewarding, I turn to the broader context, ie, this thread.

From this, I deduce that "to bilgrem" is "to create a word for use on NSG".

May I be the first to congratulate Sarkhaan, NSG's premier bilgremist.

When it's a door!*
(inspired by the “skyntic” suggestion in the “Cynical or Skeptical?” thread OP)
What does it take for a word to be officially recognized as a word? Does it have to be in OED? Is common usage enough? Then what constitutes “common usage”? And, as a corollary, when does a word stop being a word? When OED drops it? When it falls from common usage? What about those pesky foreign words? Who signs the adoption papers? 'Tis thine to opine! (Mine? I decline, I'm a swine)


*”When is a door not a door?” “When it's ajar!”

Tough to say.

Tellurian, isn't exactly in common use, and it's not in the Firefox spell-check dictionary. But it's a word.

Do portmanteaus count as words or is a portmanteau something distinct from a word?

I think it's one of those things that works best if we all just pretend we know exactly what we're talking about when we say it and just stay away from the fuzzy edges. We didn't throw out the word "species" just because a mule had a baby.

A word is not a word, when I have not heard of the word. Word.

Seriously .. Do you consider Word a word? We know what it means. Is it in a legit dictionary?

No. Word.

Tellurian, isn't... in the Firefox spell-check dictionary.
What the fuck is?

philosophical nitpicking time!

it seems to me that words cannot depend on letters, as words come before written language (and even some written languages just don't use letters like we do). but it can't be collections of phonemes/sounds either, on pain of having to say that american sign language lacks words. so what's left?

ooh, i've got it. ignore sounds and symbols altogether and just talk about units of meaning in language. which still leaves us in a bit of trouble as there are clearly units of meaning that are smaller than words (prefixes, for example). but at least allows sign languages to have words and paintings to not count - until some assholes come up with a language based on flash cards of works of art, at least.

ooh, i've got it. ignore sounds and symbols altogether and just talk about units of meaning in language. which still leaves us in a bit of trouble as there are clearly units of meaning that are smaller than words (prefixes, for example). but at least allows sign languages to have words and paintings to not count - until some assholes come up with a language based on flash cards of works of art, at least.
'Units of meaning in language'... I like that.

Though you're right, there's still a few kinks to be ironed out. We need to get our necessary and sufficient conditions pinned down.

(I don't do enough philosophy of language for my liking.)

But what if you say a word I've never heard before, or in a language I don't understand?

That is where Canada becomes a country name. Canada likely means village. To the explorer they felt the natives where describing where they were.


Something along the lines of Tarzan start to emerge. People generally speak louder and slower as if that will help.

I think I asked this in the OP . . . so, is it?

I think so. I would go for a definition along the lines of a symbol or collection of symbols capable of meaning.

why is there no Merriam–Webster's dictionary I am fairly certain they have a much higher circulation then Oxford. So i wouldn't consider it lesser and I would consider it more authoritative.

A word is a word when it's got 4 letters, starts with a W, ends in a D, and has OR in between.

When is a word not a word? Uhm, when it's used as an interjection that has no apparent meaning?

Like when a teacher is just about to start a lesson and they start by saying "So, today will will look at whatever". It seems to me that this conveys no meaning what-so-ever to anyone -- it's just a noise to garner the attention of a group.

When is a word not a word? Uhm, when it's used as an interjection that has no apparent meaning?

Like when a teacher is just about to start a lesson and they start by saying "So, today will will look at whatever". It seems to me that this conveys no meaning what-so-ever to anyone -- it's just a noise to garner the attention of a group.

Uh...isn't it be definition a word if you can classify it as an interjection? That's a part of speech. They're in dictionaries, too.

Uh...isn't it be definition a word if you can classify it as an interjection? That's a part of speech. They're in dictionaries, too.So far the thread seems to have been describing what a word is. I just wanted to provide an example of word isn't. Interjections can have meaning, it's just that they can also be used in situations where they have no meaning. Another example might be the slang use of like eg. "Like, this thread is pretty interesting".

So far the thread seems to have been describing what a word is. I just wanted to provide an example of word isn't. Interjections can have meaning, it's just that they can also be used in situations where they have no meaning. Another example might be the slang use of like eg. "Like, this thread is pretty interesting".

But that doesn't make the interjection any less a word.

But that doesn't make the interjection any less a word.Are you saying that a word doesn't necessarily have to convey meaning? I think interjections like 'ouch' can still convey meaning. To me a word is meaning in and of itself. It is the tone and tempo of interjection of words that convey meaning, not the interjection itself. This doesn't mean tone and tempo are not invalid means of communication, just that they are not words.

Are you saying that a word doesn't necessarily have to convey meaning? I think interjections like 'ouch' can still convey meaning. To me a word is meaning in and of itself. It is the tone and tempo of interjection of words that convey meaning, not the interjection itself. This doesn't mean tone and tempo are not invalid means of communication, just that they are not words.

The use conveys an implied meaning, based upon its usage.
In your example So, is used to get attention.
So the implied meaning is attention please.

Are you saying that a word doesn't necessarily have to convey meaning? I think interjections like 'ouch' can still convey meaning. To me a word is meaning in and of itself. It is the tone and tempo of interjection of words that convey meaning, not the interjection itself. This doesn't mean tone and tempo are not invalid means of communication, just that they are not words.

An interjection conveys meaning. They are therefore words. The meaning doesn't have to be deep or significant to qualify as a word.

The experience in Natural Language Programming seems to be that it's very hard to write a dictionary for a computer that includes interjections. The meaning of interjections seems to be purely how they are said -- the interjection itself seems to have little meaning. There are a few exceptions like 'ouch'. But for most purposes it seems there should be an alternative way to analyse interjections in speech.

Are you saying that a word doesn't necessarily have to convey meaning?

A sentence/phrase has to convey meaning, but a word within that sentence does not have to have meaning in itself. For example, the French word "du", as in "du vin", doesn't actually mean anything by itself, but it does contribute to the meaning of the phrase.

A sentence/phrase has to convey meaning, but a word within that sentence does not have to have meaning in itself. For example, the French word "du", as in "du vin", doesn't actually mean anything by itself, but it does contribute to the meaning of the phrase.I believe that's different Insofar that the use of du/de/des is part of the syntax of French. It would be my guess (I know very little French) that 'du' does impart some meaning, but that in the English language this meaning is implied in the context of the sentence and so English speakers see the word as having no meaning.

edit: a brief look on a website gives the following examples
le panier du chien the dog's basket (as opposed to Lisa's basket)
le panier de chien dog basket (basket for a dog)
Notice in the first example the "de" describes possession, in the same way that "'s" does in the English translation. In the second example "de" is used as a descriptor -- it is a basket for the use of dogs. However, in the English example this meaning is implied and there is no third word to describe the relationship.

When the word can be used in crimethink.

I believe that's different Insofar that the use of du/de/des is part of the syntax of French. It would be my guess (I know very little French) that 'du' does impart some meaning, but that in the English language this meaning is implied in the context of the sentence and so English speakers see the word as having no meaning.

edit: a brief look on a website gives the following examples
le panier du chien the dog's basket (as opposed to Lisa's basket)
le panier de chien dog basket (basket for a dog)
Notice in the first example the "de" describes possession, in the same way that "'s" does in the English translation. In the second example "de" is used as a descriptor -- it is a basket for the use of dogs. However, in the English example this meaning is implied and there is no third word to describe the relationship.


You're quoting a different use of the word "du". The "du" I am talking about is a word that, as a word, in this context ("du vin" = "wine"), has no meaning, just like your interjection "so", which does have a direct meaning in other contexts.
So, ;) there are words that do not have a meaning per se, other than helping form meaning for other words.

You only prove my point.

The words have no connotation outside of Carroll's telling you they do. Few, if any, have ever fallen into any kind of general usage.
So Carroll tells us that they have meaning, and even tells us what the meaning is...meaning that it both represents a concept, and that concept can be communicated to others.
Your argument brings us back to "is it only a word if it is in common usage?" in which case, I have to ask what the cut off is...15 people? 20? 20000? If two people create a seperate language to speak to each other, then can you claim that they aren't using words just because they haven't gotten a certain number of people to use it? Are old words that have fallen out of general use no longer words (such as the word "kine" instead of "cow")?

Assassination had no connotation or denotaion outside of Shakespeare telling us it did.
Owing to the phenomenon that the mind fills in missing letters, I read this as "bilgremist".

"-ist" is a regular English suffix representing "one who" (performs an action, espouses a philosophy).

So, one who does what? Obviously, one who bilgrems.

"To bilgrem" is an unfamiliar verb, therefore I turn to the context in which it is used. That proving unrewarding, I turn to the broader context, ie, this thread.

From this, I deduce that "to bilgrem" is "to create a word for use on NSG".

May I be the first to congratulate Sarkhaan, NSG's premier bilgremist.
w00t!

Owing to the phenomenon that the mind fills in missing letters, I read this as "bilgremist".

"-ist" is a regular English suffix representing "one who" (performs an action, espouses a philosophy).

So, one who does what? Obviously, one who bilgrems.

"To bilgrem" is an unfamiliar verb, therefore I turn to the context in which it is used. That proving unrewarding, I turn to the broader context, ie, this thread.

From this, I deduce that "to bilgrem" is "to create a word for use on NSG".

May I be the first to congratulate Sarkhaan, NSG's premier bilgremist.Mmmmmm! This post made the whole thread worth it!

'Units of meaning in language'... I like that.

Though you're right, there's still a few kinks to be ironed out. We need to get our necessary and sufficient conditions pinned down.

right, so any ideas on how to distinguish the various affixes, letters, and other smaller-than-word units of meaning from words?

right, so any ideas on how to distinguish the various affixes, letters, and other smaller-than-word units of meaning from words?

Subunits of meaning?

right, so any ideas on how to distinguish the various affixes, letters, and other smaller-than-word units of meaning from words?
How about heading down the route of 'self-contained units of meaning'?

How about heading down the route of 'self-contained units of meaning'?
Quarks of thought!

Quarks of thought!
Lollerz.

Lollerz.

But that is the spirit of what we're looking for, is it not?

When is a word not a word? When uhm... I dunno.

But that is the spirit of what we're looking for, is it not?
Sure; whole units of meaning, not prefixes or the likes.

if i were to say "the third letter of the english alphabet is C", is 'C' a word?

Sure; whole units of meaning, not prefixes or the likes.

i think i'd call words atoms, if we're going particle physics. and in the modern rather than ancient sense.

You're quoting a different use of the word "du". The "du" I am talking about is a word that, as a word, in this context ("du vin" = "wine"), has no meaning, just like your interjection "so", which does have a direct meaning in other contexts.
So, ;) there are words that do not have a meaning per se, other than helping form meaning for other words.Oh, I see. I'm sure that's necessarily a problem either. If 'du vin' and 'vin' exist as separate entities then that's okay, because it's not a requirement of language that words have mutually exclusive meanings. However, 'du vin' can be consider the word for wine. That is the word is comprised of two smaller words, but stands a single word itself because frequent use. As such it is a linguistic irregularity, but not wrong. I'm having trouble thinking of English examples. I can think of reverse examples where words lose their meaning. Like how 'cow' no longer refers to the meat of the animal.

Actually, I suppose the close example might be a phrase like 'PIN number' or 'ATM machine', where the latter word conveys no extra meaning and is entirely redundant.

So Carroll tells us that they have meaning, and even tells us what the meaning is...meaning that it both represents a concept, and that concept can be communicated to others.
I'd say you got it in one. I've always been taught that a word is a symbol that conveys a concept for the purpose of communication.

Your argument brings us back to "is it only a word if it is in common usage?" in which case, I have to ask what the cut off is...15 people? 20? 20000? If two people create a seperate language to speak to each other, then can you claim that they aren't using words just because they haven't gotten a certain number of people to use it? Are old words that have fallen out of general use no longer words (such as the word "kine" instead of "cow")?
You'd probably classify it as jargon, slang, or perhaps other terms like pidgin or creole. The threshold for widespread use is (more or less) can meaning be conveyed between two non-like people from different geographic areas?

Assassination had no connotation or denotaion outside of Shakespeare telling us it did.
All hail the Bard and the fact that he made up about half the words in the English language. :hail::D

when its an invissible hug instead.

When it's a door!*
(inspired by the “skyntic” suggestion in the “Cynical or Skeptical?” thread OP)
What does it take for a word to be officially recognized as a word? Does it have to be in OED? Is common usage enough? Then what constitutes “common usage”? And, as a corollary, when does a word stop being a word? When OED drops it? When it falls from common usage? What about those pesky foreign words? Who signs the adoption papers? 'Tis thine to opine! (Mine? I decline, I'm a swine)


*”When is a door not a door?” “When it's ajar!”

If people use it then it is a word.

if i were to say "the third letter of the english alphabet is C", is 'C' a word?

Yes. All letters have spelled-out versions of themselves. Believe it or not, "C" is spelled "cee".

Yes. All letters have spelled-out versions of themselves. Believe it or not, "C" is spelled "cee".

You see now? You sea!?

if i were to say "the third letter of the english alphabet is C", is 'C' a word?
sound that represents a communicable concept, so I'd say yes. A proper noun to be specific (as it is the specific name of the third letter)
I'd say you got it in one. I've always been taught that a word is a symbol that conveys a concept for the purpose of communication. ditto that.


You'd probably classify it as jargon, slang, or perhaps other terms like pidgin or creole. The threshold for widespread use is (more or less) can meaning be conveyed between two non-like people from different geographic areas?Potentially, but then, it is still a set of words...even if it is jargon, slang, or other. But then, the distinction between language, dialect, creole, and pidgin aren't all that firm


All hail the Bard and the fact that he made up about half the words in the English language. :hail::D
A good reason to like the guy. Even if he didn't necessarily create the words in the same way that Carroll created them in Jabberwocky, he gave plenty of words new meanings, and was the first to use many others in writing. Ah, Shakespeare.

i think i'd call words atoms, if we're going particle physics. and in the modern rather than ancient sense.
So, would splitting atoms be akin to splitting infinitives?