Appendix talk:List of protologisms

The discussions about Protologisms in general is to be found on Wiktionary:Beer parlour/Protologisms

policy

And on that page I now propose that we should move to some proper decision on how to treat protologisms. I've been a bystander to date, but I feel that the decision to go with the List of Protologisms "policy" was not properly debated, and that the policy has not yet been decided, as a collective decision.--Richardb 15:33, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No balls! No Cojones! KOHONAS is often be confused with "kahunas" surfboards originating in Hawaii. KOHONAS is the phonetic spelling for "COJONES" Pronounced KŌ HŌ’ NĀS. The three syllables are KO / HO / NAS.Dictionary definitions include TESTICLES N. PL. {INFORMAL} BALLS. {FIG.} COURAGE; GUTS. Although used widely in the Spanish language it is used in most languages and is widely used in English. There are many different meanings in Spanish. To denote courage there is a famous Spanish saying "You've got more balls than Espareto's horse". Espareto was a famous Spanish General and the statue with the very large testicles is located in Madrid. Can't see any of these? Shouldn't they be added? llatsrub

alphabetical v topical

Although I recognize the potential utility of an alphabetical listing (say for people wanting to find a word they have found someone using), the whole idea of my starting this page was to provide a means by which people could monitor and keep track of proposed neologisms in their field(s) of interest. I would strongly urge we go back to the topical listing, and move the most recent alphabetical list to its own page. Brettz9 04:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Something else.

Each of the above make points that are clearly worthy of response, but though I've instinct and will to, I've no defendable right to contribute to that discourse so I won't. This post is about something else:

I don't think the links to the words proposed on this page should be to the definitions pages on Wiktionary (or to search results pages that offer the chance to create the article/definition; dunno the appropriate lingo that should be applied here). I think they should be to sub-pages where an actual article/definition page is proffered/developed, and on whose discussion page further discourse can be encouraged. Or maybe to the discussion page of the article/definition that is being proposed but hasn't yet been published (if that's possible using MediaWiki)?

Where is the intermediate step between the Ogism and Real Word, Neo? More. -:)Ozzyslovechild 04:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Something else else.

Seems like there might be use for a convention, especially if the protologisms-to-real-words process is not fully fleshed out here on this wiki in such a way that is definitive for the rest of societies, to make reference to some outside pulse-beat kinda shit. I added a Google link to each of the proposed words in the A section. Seems to speak to one of the first things that anyone passing over it would want to know. Maybe some wiki-friendly types will take the moment or two to fill in the other letters?

Wob

I've added this here, even though it's not actually a protologism, in order not to lose track of it entirely. It would be great if we could bring in the attribution and other material that was present in the original article, in case the term is still used in a year. I would rather find a different way to record terms that have actually been seen but don't yet have enough attestation to merit a full entry. -dmh 14:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mary Sue.

The phrase "Mary Sue" is not a progologism; it's a slang term in very wide usage, dating back to the 70's. IMHO it deserves to be defined, not relegated to this page. — This comment was unsigned.

We now have Mary Sue. Equinox 17:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

GoogleIt & ?

Has the API for programming dynammic bits into MediaWiki been opened up yet? Is there talk of it being?

I think any talk of Neologisms andor Protologisms should knowt in automated fashion stuff like the current number of hits returned by queries to the herd for their relevence, however said relevance might deem itself worthy to incarnate defendably.

Is it possible to include tag that displays how many hits are returned by Google in MediaWiki yet? Is it possible to make that sort of notion infinitely extensible? Yes and no.

-:)Ozzyslovechild 03:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

New Neo/Proto convention?

Might it be worth it to create a convention on the Neo/Proto pages that links to the discussion pages of the neo/proto at hand?

Where further discussion could ensue without lending the credibility of an actual article/entry's presence on Wiktionary?

If the discourse is, inherently, bent to tread the boundaries of the hinterlands, might not some trading posts be worthy of establishment?

My neighbors are young, so they never remember to take their laudry out on time, sometimes for days (until it smells funny).

-:)Ozzyslovechild 03:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hasemalphaginnojinglanaporphomism

Is it even a protologism or was it added due to the bash.org quote located at http://www.bash.org/?13599. The quote is also listed below:

---

1. 13599 +(377)- [X]

<Sumez> Jar: I can't believe you don't know what a Skoda is <Aximili> Sumez: I can't believe you don't know what a Hasemalphaginnojinglanaporphomism is <Sumez> Axi: I do, oh I do <Aximili> What is it, then? <Sumez> Axi: a reversed contradicting metamorph phrased as an anagram <Aximili> Sumez: Damn.. you did know..

---

AFAIK, that particular word has no real meaning and 'a reversed contradicting metamorph phrased as an anagram' doesn't really mean anything either.

Seriousness rating?

It would seem that this is the correct page for submitting a term that is variously used but whose merit for entry into Wiktionary is at least somewhat questionable. (I recently submitted dispulsion, the act of dispelling or the state of being dispelled, for review. The word appears in multiple games and at least two papers on IEEE's site [1] [2], but doesn't show up on MW, AHD, or Dictionary.com, so I figured I'd leave the judgement call to the moderators here.) But it would appear that a very large proportion of the protologism entries are submitted solely for humor, with no intent of being made earnest entries, while a much smaller share of the list is for actual consideration.

Is there any way to specifically mark a submission as earnest to expedite its review? — DK, 2006 Mar 23 11:58 -0500

The easiest method is to simply add the word with a definition and an example of its use. It may get deleted, but you have a good chance of it being accepted if you provide evidence. SemperBlotto 17:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

< http://www3.m-w.com/opendictionary/newword_display_alpha.php?letter=a >:

"aaabeduation (noun) : The practice of adding the letter 'A' to the beginning of a business name so it appears at the beginning of the phone book."

Please, tell me what is "--beduation"??

71.102.31.67 Hopiakuta 22:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Whigga

"whigga: a white person who acts like a black person"

Is this really a protologism? I doubt it. Shoof 00:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Looooooong page

Consider splitting it into 4-5 smaller pages? bd2412 T 19:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

notation for large numbers

There are a number of entries like this: quinteegol: The number {10,10,10,10,10,100,4}

What is that notation for large numbers? RJFJR 20:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I was wondering that, too. And I was also wondering if it's time to split off a subpage for all those crazy goo* and *gol coinages... —scs 15:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There are quite a few wikipedia pages on large numbers:

• w:Large numbers
• w:Tetration
• w:Googleplex
• w:Graham's number
• w:Names_of_large_numbers
• w:Steinhaus–Moser notation
• w:Knuth's up-arrow notation
• w:Hyper operator
• w:Conway chained arrow notation

Those pages define and use several notations for large numbers, none of which seem to match any of the notations used here. So we really need to explain the nonstandard notations used here, or (perhaps better) convert to one of the standard notations. —scs 23:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'd say this type constructed word isn't a protologism. Assuming a nomenclature is formalized it is the system that is new, not the individual words which derive from that system. Take chemistry for instance, Polytetrafluoroethylene is a chemical construct. That isn't a protologism, but rather a term constructed based on a formalized naming system. Its common brand name, Teflon, was a protologism at one point, and is now in common usage. All of the numbers that have been recently added as protologisms fall in this category. They are names constructed following a formalized nomenclature. They aren't protologisms. 207.235.66.3 18:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If they're not protologisms, that's great news; it means we can move them somewhere else and stop clogging the protologisms page with them!

But that wasn't the question -- the question is, what do those notations like {10,100,3 (1) 2} and g(2, 299, 598) mean? —scs 18:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

They come from Jonathan Bowers' array notation http://members.cox.net/hedrondude/home.htm . Roozh 00:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Senicide

The word senicide may really be either a diffused neologism or a paleologism, as I searched across the Web. Tedius Zanarukando 22:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Enstub" as a Wikipedia term

The protologism enstub would be used as a Wikipedia term in a verb sense referring to an edit that reduced the article to a stub. It has been coined because there have been several edits like that at Wikipedia. Tedius Zanarukando 03:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Number words

Can we make a separate page to move "number words" to? I think that entries like "nabooboodilliony-one: the number 2^11^13^17^19 + 1" (a name that I just made up and will never be used) are so numerous (and utterly pointless) that they should have their own page. In my high and mighty opinion. Carsonc

Sounds good to me. What do we call them? List of Numeric protologisms? If we get a consensus I'll see about making the split, (if we can get people to stop adding protologisms long enough for me to finish). RJFJR 15:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• I split them off to a subpage. There are now 63Kbytes of numbers, and around 120kbytes of non-numbers (i.e. 30% were just these numbers). RJFJR 16:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I accidentally blanked the page

How is that fixed? Googe 23:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Then why did the edit summary say that "Removing all content from page"? Didn't you put that in? Get tired of your play?

In any case, I've removed all the stuff, and put it back as it was before. (user Googe blocked, infinite, also vandalized whom) Robert Ullmann 00:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it automatically says that when a page is blanked. Why don't you try blanking your userpage and see if it says that before blaming me purposely blanking the page. I don't know how it got blanked, but somehow it did when I was editting it. 4.235.147.194 00:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. And adding "asshole" to whom wasn't? Go away. Robert Ullmann 00:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

words from The Meaning of Liff

like aalst (to grab the first example I spotted). They aren't words which aren't used much, they're all placenames which Douglas Adams and John Lloyd gave alternative definitions to and I'm not aware of anyone seriously suggesting that they should be brought into regular English usage. Surely if the policy is to allow Adams & Lloyd's joke definitions to be included as protologisms then they should all be added, which would have the sole effect of ripping the whole book off.

It makes a nice inside joke, but isn't really much use in a project striving to be a 'real' dictionary. Wikipedia doesn't quote this definition of the word on any of the places called Aalst or the disambiguation page presumably just because it's from the book - two definitions of words (but not aalst) are on the meaning of liff page and that seems to cover the subject quite nicely.

Summary: Is an inside joke suitable for wikitonary? If not, can we justify providing proper coverage since to do so will involve ripping the whole book off?

82.13.83.244 16:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Entries from the list of protologisms are words that cannot (yet) be added to Wiktionary in their own right, since they will not meet the criteria for inclusion. If the words are real names of places, then they can be added, captialised, as proper nouns. Jonathan Webley 16:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO we should remove the terms copied verbatim from Liff, as it's probably a copyright violation. I've spotted several of them on this page too. Equinox ◑ 22:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Spam filter

There seems to be a bug in wiktionary's spam filter. I was unable to modify this page, because wiktionary thought I was trying to add links to l a n g m a k e r . c o m even though the offending links were already present and had nothing to do with my change. In order to ram my change through, I had to remove all those links. — This unsigned comment was added by Language Lover (talk • contribs).

Thanks for removing the pre-existing links. I see comments like this every few weeks. My guess is that it happens when the spam filter target list is updated and one of the new addresses has already got links to it. But one of the more technical people may know better. --Enginear 15:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That's right, and lang|maker.com was just added this month. Means the next poor sot who tries to edit the page has to clean them up ... ;-) Robert Ullmann 15:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Veiled Political Activism

Some anonymous editor keeps seeking to make a political statement using the List of Protologisms page. The word in question is "Christi-insanity." The supposed meaning is more of a criticism than a bona fide word proposition. — Joe Webster 16:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What Wiktionary is not

1. ...
2. ...
3. Wiktionary is not a soapbox, chatroom, or discussion forum...

Are the links a good idea?

Is it a good idea for all the words to be linked? After all, the whole point of this page is that these words don't meet our CFI, and (G-d willing) most never will. Maybe it would make more sense to use boldface or italics to set off headprotologisms? —Ruakh_TALK 01:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

An observation.

We now have three suggested neutral third person pronouns "en", "hu", and "thon." I just find that interesting. bd2412 T 21:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a special linkbox template for them: {{gender-neutral pronouns}}. —Ruakh_TALK 22:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

sexy time

where is sexy time and why is it a protopaleologism.

Creative inventions (protologisms) are not in the purview of the English Wiktionary. Please see WT:CFI for a basic understanding of why that isn't something we're interested in listing in this general-use dictionary. It `could` be added to this list but as it is also what we call a Sum of Parts (the meaning of the term can be worked out by looking at the two words seperately) there is not much point. Conrad.Irwin 19:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

@buse

Doesn't this usage also refer to IRC culture where operators are prefixed with @? Perhaps this may be worth noting, although I'm not sure myself (and that's why I post it here). — 72.93.198.213 17:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

would if whooptif

Alternative spelling of would if whooptif, whooptif i, whooptif you

Superginormous

Superginormous-Something so exceedingly huge that is to a very ridiculous degree, range, or extent.

Super-Ultra:Tremendously or exceedingly.

Falcon Punch:A very overwhelming punch that absurdly destroy a universe.

More number words

The words for number of times (quarce/quadrice/fource, fivce/fifce/quince, sice/hence, sevence/septnce, eightce/ace, nince/nice, tence etc., continuing the sequence once-twice-thrice) have been coined and re-coined so many times that it's not clear any one version has more right to be on the page than another. I've added all the versions I know of and cross-referenced them so that people can decide for themselves which to use.

In case anyone needs a citation, here are the lists and their respective provenances:

• First seen here, and not to my knowledge anywhere else: quarce, quince, sess, sepce, okce, nince, dekce, elfce, duss, baikce (stops at 13)
• Used by the DROD computer games: quarce, quince, sence, septence, octence, novence, tonce, elevonce, twolce, thorce, quartonce, quintonce, sextonce, septonce, octonce, noventonce (stops at 19)
• Formed from the Latin number-names: quarce, quince, sece, septence, octence, novence, decence, undecence, duodecence, tredecence, quattuordecence, quindecence, sedecence, septendecence, decenoctence, decennovence, vicence.
• Formed from the Old English cardinal numbers, to match the pre-Norman coinage of once, twice, and thrice: feowerce, fif(e)ce, sixt'ce, seofonce, eaht'ce, nigonce, tien'ce.

I also added the Latin-derived words for every tenth number up to 100. 91.107.133.40 14:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Some people use the nonstandard word “frice” to mean “four times”, which has been attested by Google Books Ngram Viewer. --Yejianfei (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Mensiversary

Considering “mensiversary” has been in use for nearly 200 years (Page 250 of the 1835 book “Memoirs of the Life of the Right Honourable Sir James Mackintosh” is the earliest instance I have found) can it be still considered a protologism? --Kmsiever 22:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Definiton?

What exactly is a protologism? The link does not lead to an entry. Is it the same as a neologism? Also, the the following "sentence" is not actually a sentence: That being the case most links to these words should remain red. --Jubileeclipman 02:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It does lead to an entry. Read what it says and click the link. The sentence you mention is grammatically valid; what do you think is wrong with it? Equinox ◑ 02:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh... it eventually leads to an entry! Why not actually define it in a proper entry? Indeed, is this a made up word also? I cannot find it in any dictionary, online or paper. Also, now I look, that is a sentence. It appears to need a comma, though, since the first four words form a subordinate clause out of position: That being the case, most links to these words should remain red. I am assuming the "that" refers to the lack of articles? BTW, I don't normally edit here: I got here from the Wikipedia essay on Avoiding Neologisms in articles. It mentioned "protologisms" without defining them, the definition having been deleted in June. I've reintroduced the deleted definition back into the essay now. --Jubileeclipman 03:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The link to 'protologism' leads to a page that says: "Wiktionary does not have a dictionary entry for this term." — This comment was unsigned.

Yes, keep reading the rest of that page for an explanation. The first sentence of a page doesn't tell you everything! Equinox ◑ 17:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion debate

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Appendix:List of protologisms

Per above, this just seems to be like a Sanbox, or even worse a place where vandalism and personal attacks can thrive because nobody really patrols it. Do we really want subpages to list every nonexistent word someone can come up with? We'll have more non-words than actual words! Strong delete, we're not Urban Dictionary. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Strong keep until such time as we have a policy decision not to use it and rewrite the relevant sections of pages such as Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Protologisms, Wiktionary:Protologisms, Wiktionary:Page deletion guidelines and Wiktionary:Explanation of common deletion summaries. Thryduulf 17:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per Thryduulf, even though I'm not a big fan of the existence of this page.​—msh210℠ 18:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Hmmm. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • You didn't like that?  :-)  What I meant was that I want us to delete this page but that we can't unless we simultaneously remove references to it from other pages, at least one of which needs a vote to modify.​—msh210℠ 18:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
• I would also delete it, but this needs to be discussed somewhere more central, per above. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 22:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep - an institution, albeit a terrible one. Mglovesfun, do you have some over-arching plan you're not telling us? - maybe we could move faster if we knew the end result as opposed to lots of little steps on the way. Conrad.Irwin 22:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, nominate stuff for deletion if a) I think it should be deleted b) it has a realistic chance of failing the 'vote' or much much more rarely c) highlight a problem with Wiktionary policy (see Talk:United States of America), assuming it's there). Mglovesfun (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

d) just to see what will happen. Sometimes I RFD stuff that I would keep, but that I think that others would prefer to delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

c) and d) are irritating. For future reference :p. (We have WT:BP and WT:TR to discuss things like that). — This unsigned comment was added by Conrad.Irwin (talk • contribs). 17:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Irritating, yes, but necessary. Politics is not for gentlemen, sometimes you have to highlight a problem for no other reason than it is a problem, and it needs highlighting. As you pointed out, it's not likely to make me friends so I certainly don't do it for personal pleasure, pretty much the opposite I'd say. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Move to the Beer Parlor, per above. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this serves no real purpose and should be deleted. Users who want to add invented words to a dictionary can be directed to Urban Dictionary or various similar sites. Equinox ◑ 19:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Keep per Thryduulf, and I am a big fan of the existing page. Tedius Zanarukando 04:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP - yes, an institution, yes, I am a big fan of the existing page. Mglovesfun, does "lovesfun" include pointing to problems that do not exist? There is no problem here. I challenge you to make an actual case that there is an actual problem here, rather than a potential one. This is not a "Sanbox"(sp.?) per above - rather, this is not a "Playground" per above. This is a bona fide laboratory for the creative linguistic vanguard to express themselves within the parameters of the only globally recognized wiki-based Open Content dictionary on the WWW. This is exactly the kind of sandbox that Wiktionary should encourage, in my view - it has nothing in common with /more - it does not belong in the Beer-Parlor; there is no extant problem here w/ burgeoning subpages based on "non-words" as you call them, and this list is rather finite and slow-growing... 'they' aren't going to overrun and take over the "actual" language. And beside which, this list is fucking hilarious. It is brilliant. Patrol it more frequently if it frightens you so much. Stop threatening to ban creative lexical locutions within this Open Content dictionary - Open Content means inclusive, within the parameters of the current listed format, of exclusively dedicated content sites such as Urban Dictionary. Remove the rfd tag, keep and move on... go kicking sand in somebody else's sandbox if that's your idea of 'fun-loving'... play with your bulldozers in a parking lot... or in the street. Or, make up a word, publish it here, and feel proud of your accomplishment.Alterbookvisuary 15:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Kept.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

non-English

since the Non-English section was getting long, I split it off to its own subpage Appendix:List of protologisms/non-English, the same as the English entries are on subpages. 70.24.251.208 04:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sense

Must the definition make sense? For example

• great big hoss - the number equal to {big hoss, big hoss /////.......///// 2} - with big hoss /'s

is unintelligible and looks like some kind of joke/spam to me. Nowdays it can't even be posted without tricking around... -80.133.104.193 20:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

RFD discussion: February–April 2021

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Appendix:List of protologisms

LOP and all its subpages. @Equinox (who originally made this nom as a vote) says: "They have no particular value (and may have merely served as a way to prevent users from polluting the wiki mainspace with their inventions) and there are very few edits to this area these days; see for example [3] (only 28 edits for words beginning A-F throughout all of 2020, some of which edits are just cleanup). Keeping the appendix would suggest that we want it to continue to expand." —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete, even if it means losing "anti-bananist" (one who is opposed to bananas). Ultimateria (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete there's always UD (which doesn't have anti-bananist, sadly). – Jberkel 14:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Delete, although it looks like a decent amount of it would have fit better at WT:BJAODN in the first place. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep We'll add more and few of those may soon be adopted as neologisms. I have the source copypasted in Microsoft Word and I copypaste it back into page after a certain amount of time after making additions and other changes on it. PlanetStar (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• RFD-deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)