Word Invention!? and betterising ... stuff!

[Herman Munster]

Am I allowed to keep inventing new words and why not?

Things like representationally ... is that not allowed as a word, is there another word that says the same thing? Or is it not understandable, even uncomprehendable? Even firefox dic gave me several alternates, all valid for uncomprehendable. Am I just causing trubble?

Most of the words I want to invent, and do, are just adding a new or different suffix, is that the right word?
I mean say there are 20 suffixes and prefixes. If there are 10 currently assigned, who says if or when the 11th is assigned or says it is not allowed to be assigned?
I mean the words I tend to invent are just common sense to me and I suggest are self explanatory. Apart from the odd one, [pick me, pick me!] I suggest that they are all perfectly valid and just haven't been created yet or conventionalised. Is the dictionary not fluid, particularly over periods like a century or so. I understand officials, of some place, apparently, do add and delete many words per year.

Attributation is one me and someone else invented recently when talking about the lack of putting He said, John said, Mary asked on enuff lines of dialogue. We agreed that every line was unnecessary and as long as the words used or ideas expressed were obviously spoken by one certain character to another, say professor to student, policeman to perp, then maybe a line or two per ten was sufficient.
Does attributation, in context, which defines most words anyway, make sense or confuse you and or the reader?

Pick me, I am looking for an argument here.

My other pet peeve with words are the old way of spelling and the proper [read: MY] way of spelling.
Tuff, Ruff, Thort, Tho, almost all gh and ght words. Apart from confusing the hell outa foreigners what about these ones: Thought, Though, Through, Thorough and maybe more. I contend my 'modern' spelling makes more sense and should define the written and spoken language better. I am not suggesting change for change sake or even trying to be pedantic, I just feel that these words, in particular, ought to be replaced with better speelings and spellings. It won't change the meaning but may change the comprehension, improve it in fact.

Wanna, helluva, outa, coulda, shoulda, woulda etc, etc ... ad infinitum!
I had a wooden dog once. Wooden walk, wooden rollover, wooden eat, wooden sh... A wooden dog!

[Lea Zalas]

Well, I guess it's a good thing you're not Chinese. That language would give you way too much fodder for thought.

But you might like Russian. Once you master the Cyrillic alphabet you'd find the words are spelled phonetically, ending all of your above arguments.

[Emily MacGowan]

Hi Herman,

I guess when you say "representationally" - you could use a better word to explain just how one thing represents another. Is it metaphorically? Figuratively? Literally? etc etc. You can go down to the base root of a lot of these words (like represent), which are inherently vague, but I think one argument against doing so is that it leads to the rise of a doubleplusgood vocabulary. Simplification in language has been suggested, on a non-trivial scale, to lead to simplification in thought. (Citation needed: This is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and exists currently in a weak but experimentally validated form http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity)

For instance: It's been shown that tribes who have the same word for "orange" and "pink" have difficulty separating objects of the two colours. If you don't have a word for it - it becomes difficult for the brain to visualise and even recognise something. These people simply didn't see the difference between orange and pink, all because they had the same word for the two colours. If you simplify your language enough, you run the risk of painting yourself into a corner of simple thought - and here we've come back to doubleplusgood.

As for attributation - I could be wrong, but do you just mean "attribution"? Not sure what that extra syllable represents. It's representationally confusing. Or even just confusing

And the spelling - yes. It's moving in that direction anyway. Teens are finding it hard to spell these days because they've spent years texting and using shortened, phonetic writing.

[jayce]

Thort?

[Kitty Foyle]

Am I allowed to keep inventing new words and why not?

I dunno.

Thort?

I thort you were bringing the chocolate bars.

*_*

[jayce]

I thort I thaw a puthy cat?

[Kitty Foyle]

Nope. It's twaut.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89FDA...feature=topics

*_*

Or "taut," depending on what video you watch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38aDW...eature=related

[leslee]

http://cartoonspot.net/looney-tunes/tweety-bird.php

Actually, it's tawt. I tawt I taw a puddy tat.

[Herman Munster]

Emily, the concept that less is better really resonates with me.
I wanted to kick your arse for picking holes in my proposition but by the end all I could think of was my #1 language HATE.

Orientate.
There ain't not never been no such word as orientate.
You orient. Simple.
"I want that oriented there."
"Move that and orient it to that."

If you want a quick rule of thumb to note IQ with public figures, ORIENTATE is that indicator. No one with an IQ bigger than their shoe size and education past year one would use orientate. That cuts out a lot of people from my watch and listen to list.

Now, with regard to the 'putty tat', your marks are but 50%. I shall relate you a true story.

The nubile sex slave was descending from Mt Olympus. Suddenly there was a bolt of lightening and the crash of thunder.
"I'm Thor!" The God said.
"Tho am I!" She replied.
I know, I was that God!

Language and vocabulary is our province to maintain and expand. Hell, if writers can't do that, aim for that, and not necessarily descend totally into strings of four letter words for impact and emotion and colour and imagery, who else should be doing it?

I have two examples from arseholes of the past creating words for us and them.
Dyslexia - how is someone who suffers with this meant to discern and spell this?
Lisp - I mean ...

So maybe the orientators of old, our predecessors, put those inappropriate words into our lives. STOP the orienting by those orientators, cos they are simply wrong!

[Kitty Foyle]

http://cartoonspot.net/looney-tunes/tweety-bird.php

Actually, it's tawt. I tawt I taw a puddy tat.

Yeah, as I say, it depends on what link/video you happen to find. Only Mel Blanc would know for sure, and the dude's been daid for over twenty years.

(I have a Sylvester watch; his tail is the second hand. )

Language and vocabulary is our province to maintain and expand. Hell, if writers can't do that, aim for that, and not necessarily descend totally into strings of four letter words for impact and emotion and colour and imagery, who else should be doing it?

I have mucho relatetedness to this.

*_*