Would you use a word that is not in the dictionary?
Would you use a word that is not in the dictionary?
Yes, use it. The meaning is clear enough whether it is in a dictionary or not. The idea is to communicate and the use of this word, proper or not, does not hinder communication.
Yes,I'd use it. As long as the meaning is clear, you're fine. Dictionaries are great for understanding words that don't immediately suggest a meaning, but if the meaning is already clear, why look it up? As long as people understand the same meaning you intended then the word is fine.
My sentence is: "My distraughtness changed to confusion."
What a fantastic word. The anarchist in me says to go for it.
The trivial concern I have is about the speed of the change mentioned in your sentence. Distraughtness is quite a slow word so if the change was relatively quick, it might be better to use a synonym such as anguish.
AJ
Somebody somewhere, had to use nearly every word in the dictionary a first time.
Somebody already used it somewhere if it's showing up in Ngram and Google, so why not use it?
had to use nearly every word in the dictionary a first time.
But the word isn't in the dictionaries I checked. Nor did MS Word or my Safari browser know it.
Although I've come to a decision on this specific situation, my question is still out there. I would tend to shy away from such a word simply because I write so that's it's easy to read. I always hated reading books that I had to look up words. I saw the author of those books as a pompous intellectual.
I always hated reading books that I had to look up words.
I think the meaning is obvious enough to anyone who knows what distraught means. While I agree with your sentiment, I think instances using common words with an extra prefix or suffix deserve a free pass.
AJ
Would you use a word that is not in the dictionary?
Definitely.
Dictionaries are an excellent reference source. However, I don't accept a dictionary as being the final authority on the existence of a word and its meaning. New dictionaries aren't released annually. Mirriam-Webster states that they currently release new versions of their dictionary at 10-12 year intervals.
Lexicographers use a set of rules regarding what should and should not be added to a dictionary. I seem to recall 'frequency of usage' being one of those rules. If it is not in common use the word is not added to the dictionary, but I don't know what they consider to be common use. They also change the definition of a word to conform to how it is currently used and may omit the prior meaning.
A second rule lexicographers use is to include the base word but not all of the variations formed by adding prefixes and suffixes. Sometimes some of the variations are included in the definition of the base word.
Would you use a word that is not in the dictionary?
In my military stories I often use words that are not in most Word Programs, or even civilian dictionaries. They are documented in military sources I have. (I add them to my personal word programs.)
Also, in my fictional writing I use words I have created (or "borrowed") for fantasy or sci-fi content. (I use some terms from the Byzantine Empire for an alien race. They have a vague resonance for some well read people. Being an actual language there are noticeable relationships between certain words.)
Would you use a word that is not in the dictionary?
The Communist Chinese have significantly changed the names of various cities and other geographic features. This is a form of Han (Chinese) racism, erasing other cultures. Such as changing Canton to Quangdong. Frequently in contemporary stories, and even more so in historical tales, I use the "traditional" spelling.
Communist Chinese influence upon Google, Microsoft, and others, has erased the traditional spelling/words.
"Politic correctness" and "cancel culture" has caused some words to disappear. Often for ignorant bullying, such as the Nordic word Niggardly, meaning parsimonious or reluctant to spend for even necessary things; because a few agitators mistakenly feel it relates to skin color. (The word is Not in my phone, nor online. Auto-Incorrect tried to change it...)
I often use those words. Unfortunately, too many universities won't allow them...
The Communist Chinese have significantly changed the names of various cities and other geographic features.
You mean like re-naming a city "USA" (Yoo-Sah) so they can legally sell goods as "Made in USA"?
You mean like re-naming a city "USA" (Yoo-Sah) so they can legally sell goods as "Made in USA"?
That was said about Japan after WWII, but when you fact check it, it isn't true.
As a speaker of native language that is much closer to the Indoeuropean core, I can't wrap my mind around how the "not-a-word" is even a concept to consider. We talk by making up words as we go. Grab a root or two, then "bend" it, derive, slap on a suffix or two, a prefix, until you're reasonably close to the concept you want to express. With some creativity and work, in Latvian I could tell a story consisting exclusively of derivatives of a person's name and expect it to be generally understood even though there could be some unavoidable ambiguity.
That's a long way of saying, if the word is correctly derived, it has a default meaning assigned by that operation. I would use any derivative word without hesitation and checking. Yes, there's small chance of running into special, unexpected meanings assigned to that derivative, but those would most likely be excluded by context.
But that's me, someone used to (very) fuzzy language and having the Soviet underground resistance experience where commonly ideas were communicated in multi-layered symbolic language.
If a text contains less than about 15% percent unknown words I don't usually look any of them up, but derive the meaning from context. Well, unless it's a key word, but sometimes even then. Like, let's say, he did some kind of operation with some gadget. I would read on quite a lot before deciding I really need to understand what that gadget was doing, more often than not it's not material to the story.
In the example discussed, at most the reader would lose the exact color of the person's state of mind before the change, if they somehow failed to follow the etymology of that word in question. With is rather unlikely, in my opinion. How important such a loss would be? Not likely critical for understanding the story.
"Worky"
Meet me after I get off this afternoon. This is a conversation for someplace less "worky".
I heard what I thought was a motorbike yesterday but instead it turned out to be a Chelsea Tractor. 'Wow, that sounds rorty,' I thought.
I have been unable to find that usage of rorty in a dictionary, but motoring sites use the term 'rorty engine' and it doesn't always seem to be a misspelling of 'rotary'.
AJ
I have been unable to find that usage of rorty in a dictionary, but motoring sites use the term 'rorty engine'
I would've guessed they meant 'roarty engine', an engine you can easily bring to roar when revved up.
HM.
The real question is, 'can one be 'traught'? (As in the opposite to 'distraught'). Like 'gruntled' / 'disgruntled'.
Why that is, I have no idea.
As I said above, lexicographers don't include words in their dictionary if the word is not in common use. I doubt "Distraughtness" is a commonly used word.
I doubt "Distraughtness" is a commonly used word.
Common, no. But it is in at least one dictionary. Perhaps *the* dictionary.
OED: distraughtness, noun: Distractedness, distraction. (obsolete, rare)
I wouldn't be distraughtful if any readers were to object. Nor would I distraughtify my demeanour. And I certainly wouldn't affect a distraughtlike expression.
AJ
I would use the word if it was appropriate for the passage and came the closest to what I wanted to convey.
And then it stopped being used around 2012.
Maybe it is time to revive the word. :)
I didn't even see that awnlee jawking had already suggested that.
I didn't even see that awnlee jawking had already suggested that.
Don't tell me you blocked him. LOL
I haven't blocked anyone here. It takes some doing to get me to block someone. It pretty much requires their posts to be not merely completely useless, but also actively offensive.
I was just skimming because I had something else I should have been doing instead of reading SOL forums, which I was only doing in the first place because my usual Sunday morning reads didn't go up until late.
I didn't even see that awnlee jawking had already suggested that.
I noticed, but I was secretly flattered.
AJ