2 ms·
The wikipedia article doesn't say, but I'm curious if "esquivalience" or "dord" (another example) have been used in error to support their fictitious definition
by EvanKelly 13y ago
The wikipedia article doesn't say, but I'm curious if "esquivalience" or "dord" (another example) have been used in error to support their fictitious definitions, thus becoming suitable for inclusion in newer dictionaries.
- derleth 13y ago> I'm curious if "esquivalience" or "dord" (another example) have been used in error to support their fictitious definitions, thus becoming suitable for inclusion in newer dictionaries. This would be interesting: Can adding a word to a dictionary be a method of introducing it into the language as it is actually used? I don't know, and, you're right, nobody seems to talk about that. This is the kind of thing you need corpus linguistics to figure out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_linguistics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_linguistics > Corpus linguistics is the study of language as expressed in samples (corpora) of "real world" text. This method represents a digestive approach to deriving a set of abstract rules by which a natural language is governed or else relates to another language. Finding out how (or whether) a given word is used is right up that field's alley.
- derefr 13y agoVery similar to the effect when an otherwise "non-notable" wikipedia page is cited in the public press, and then cites the article citing it as a way to claim notability.