Words you think English should have or bring back.

[Kizyr]

A friend of mine and I have taken the word 'ebble' into our general usage. It describes the act of giving some preemptive explanations for something you else you have yet to say, which often make very little sense until the second part is actually reached. Anyone else guilty of doing this, even if you have found a word for it?

*#($!@ I find myself doing that constantly! I've been trying to get out of the habit, but I always feel like I have to provide context for everything--even if it makes no sense while I'm doing it.

Maybe now that I have a word for it, I'll be more aware of when I'm doing it, and it'll make it a bit easier to kick the habit. KF

[d33p]

I've never heard the term "overmorrow" before; I quite like that.

Is there a word for that space halfway between sleeping/dreaming and being fully awake? You know, that spot where you sort-of have lucidity, but it doesn't last very long before you realise what's going on? I'd like a term for that. Maybe "gloaming" or something dawn-related, transitional?

[Bobber]

I know there is a word. I can't remember the word, but I know that you can stick "jerk" after it to describe a phenomemon. It's like "cognic" or "hoptic" or something. Damn it.

[Roĝer]

How interesting, all the examples I saw flying past could very easily be solved in Esperanto... but I guess that doesn't really help you English-speakers.

[krazykate]

How interesting, all the examples I saw flying past could very easily be solved in Esperanto... but I guess that doesn't really help you English-speakers.

How does Esperanto go at some of these problems? maybe we could adapt it to work for english.

also, I think this is appropriate to the discussion:
http://xkcd.com/191/

[Number3Pencils]

Word we need: an aural equivalent for the visual "show". I'm always wishing there were a better way to say this than "I'll show you this great song when we get to the house." I'll try and come up with something. Meanwhile, everyone else feel fry to try making one up too. As for the singular ungendered pronoun, when I need one I use e. E, em, eir, eirs, emself. All these zie, hir, xe things look decidedly bizarre and unpronounceable to me. E looks like it could actually be a part of English.

But on the whole, English has almost every word I've ever needed. Some other languages are a bit deficient, even the more popular ones - the Spanish-speaking can't distinguish between cookie, cracker, and biscuit. Or between hope and expect - that one's always seemed to me like a pretty crucial distinction they're missing.

[Perpy]

I'm sure this has been mentioned in other threads, but I'd really like for both exclusive and non-exclusive first-person plural pronouns. That is, a distinction between the exclusive "we" (me and someone else), and the inclusive "we" (me and you). It only comes up occasionally, but there are a few cases where I've had to specify that "we" didn't include the person I was talking to. KF

Actually, there was a specified pronoun in Old Norse signifying when you were talking about you and another person. They would also bend other subjects in singular, plural (di) and plural in a sentence.

As for words we need, most of the words spawned from The Meaning of Liff would be great. Like the word for when you walk into your kitchen, forget what you're about to do, and must walk back to you living room to find out. Which I can't remember right now.

[goofy]

Actually, there was a specified pronoun in Old Norse signifying when you were talking about you and another person. They would also bend other subjects in singular, plural (di) and plural in a sentence.

Old Norse and Old English pronouns had the dual number in addition to singular and plural. There was a pronoun for "we (two)" and a pronoun for "we (more than two)".

But this is different from the inclusive/exclusive disctinction. Apparently Altaic languages make a distinction between inclusive "we" (including the addressee) and exclusive "we" (excluding the addressee).

[bigglesworth]

Word we need: an aural equivalent for the visual "show". I'm always wishing there were a better way to say this than "I'll show you this great song when we get to the house." I'll try and come up with something.

I always use "play". Because, even if you're not playing it yourself, you're playing it on a CD player or on an mp3 player.

[Perpy]

Actually, there was a specified pronoun in Old Norse signifying when you were talking about you and another person. They would also bend other subjects in singular, plural (di) and plural in a sentence.

Old Norse and Old English pronouns had the dual number in addition to singular and plural. There was a pronoun for "we (two)" and a pronoun for "we (more than two)".

But this is different from the inclusive/exclusive disctinction. Apparently Altaic languages make a distinction between inclusive "we" (including the addressee) and exclusive "we" (excluding the addressee).

OK, I see the difference.

But I still think it would be kind of nice to use some kind of dual in English too, in some sense or another.

[Jack.]

it'd be funny if we could define some words from the Jabberwok.

When i saw this i realised that we have missed a goldmine of potential new words - The Jabberwocky!

How could a peice of poetry be so famous and convey so much meaning by using made-up nonsense words? I think it's because the words the poet has made up can be related phonetically to what they mean/are describing.

For example "brillig" is sometimes taken to mean brilliant, because it sound a bit like it. Mimsy might be interpreted as unsecure/wavering, because it sounds... it just sounds mimsy.

instead of finding a place where a new word is needed, lets give some of The Jabberwocky's words a use - here are some:

1.) brillig,
2.) slithy,
3.) toaves,
4.) gyre and gimble,
5.) wabe,
6.) mimsy,
7.) borogoves,
8.) mome,
9.) raths,
10.) outgrave.


That's just the first stanza, but see if you think any of these words fit a meaning.

[bigglesworth]

Mimsy sounds "unsecure/wavering" because it rhymes very closely with whimsy.

[d33p]

I'm pretty sure "gyre and gimble" could be interpreted as "whirl and frolic". /nod - I have no substantiating evidence for this claim other than my own brain. Well, "gyre" resembles "gyrate". I guess that works.

RE: the "we" conversation. In my region of the US, you generally hear a distinction between "us" and "all of us." The former being the speaker and immediate listener (singular) and the latter meaning everyone generally assumed to be part of the audience. Similarly, it's typically understood that "we" and "we all" mean two and more-than-two participants, respectively. That clarification may be restricted to Upstate NY, for all I know, but I'd be interested to hear if other locales have similar constructions.

[Shimbekh]

A friend of mine and I have taken the word 'ebble' into our general usage. It describes the act of giving some preemptive explanations for something you else you have yet to say, which often make very little sense until the second part is actually reached. Anyone else guilty of doing this, even if you have found a word for it?

I really don't particularly know why we chose 'ebble'.. but I like it. Spread the word!

that's kinda cool. what part of speech is it? would you say (verb) "stick with me, I'm ebbling right now.", or would you say (noun) "pardon my ebble"?

It is a verb to us, so 'stick with me, I'm ebbling right now' would be perfect:)

A friend of mine and I have taken the word 'ebble' into our general usage. It describes the act of giving some preemptive explanations for something you else you have yet to say, which often make very little sense until the second part is actually reached. Anyone else guilty of doing this, even if you have found a word for it?

*#($!@ I find myself doing that constantly! I've been trying to get out of the habit, but I always feel like I have to provide context for everything--even if it makes no sense while I'm doing it.

Maybe now that I have a word for it, I'll be more aware of when I'm doing it, and it'll make it a bit easier to kick the habit. KF

Heh heh, it is a hard habit to kick. I always find I want to set context, so that when they finally hear the article of information I'm trying to get to, they don't think in the wrong direction, leap to a wrong assumption, or maybe miss on the comedy. I say carry on ebbling!

[Aram]

" Apparently Altaic languages make a distinction between inclusive "we" (including the addressee) and exclusive "we" (excluding the addressee)."
Like ''we' versus 'Ya'll/ you all'. In turkish you will see 'You all' more often than you will use 'you' in conversation. Also making stuff plural also makes it more formal. Also is a ''Ya'll'' form comparable to Vosotros in spanish? I think it is, but I don't really know spanish but I've heard of the conjuagtion pattern it has.

Is Ebble like Eb-el, or like Ee-ble, or something like that?

[Simbera]

Word we need: an aural equivalent for the visual "show". I'm always wishing there were a better way to say this than "I'll show you this great song when we get to the house." I'll try and come up with something.

Japanese has an interesting take on this - they sort of run whatever the verb is with 'taste', so it's like you're getting a small taste of the sound/sight/whatever. Perhaps we could do something similar? "Play" does work fairly well for most instances though, and I suppose "sing" would work for the ones it doesn't.

<^>

[csam]

" Also is a ''Ya'll'' form comparable to Vosotros in spanish? I think it is, but I don't really know spanish but I've heard of the conjuagtion pattern it has.

Okay, in European Spanish, vosotros is the informal, plural you. It's for when you're addressing a group of friends, for example. If you want to address a more formal crowd (or at the very least address more than one person formally), you would actually use ustedes, another verb conjugation entirely.
In Latin-American Spanish, however, vosotros is dropped and people only use ustedes to make "you" plural (this is at least what I learned - and the reason teachers used for not teaching, which left me in the lurch when I came to Europe).
Here's my problem with the romance language pattern (and probably other languages, too, but I'm not as familiar with them) of different yous: Yes, it's nice to have a singular you vs. a plural one, but I hate the idea of a formal vs. informal you. It's such a pain, and a leftover from a more hierarchical society that just makes interaction more complicated and kinda political (who is formal? who isn't? are you being polite or distant? friendly or condescending?). I am a native English speaker, though, so my opinion probably doesn't count for much, being raised to address everyone with the same, equal you.

But speaking of y'all: I had one native Southerner (USA) tell me she used "y'all" as singular and "all y'all" as plural. Can anyone else back this up, or is she an outlier?

[bigglesworth]

Ironically, the intimate "thou" was dropped for the formal "you".

Take from this what you will.

[Luthen]

Ironically, the intimate "thou" was dropped for the formal "you".

Take from this what you will.

And now is considered by lay-people to be more formal. If only for its old-fashioned-ness and modern rarity.

[Aram]

''But speaking of y'all: I had one native Southerner (USA) tell me she used "y'all" as singular and "all y'all" as plural. Can anyone else back this up, or is she an outlier?''



All you all? That sounds odd, but if she told you she used it like that she did, but I don't think there is a large group that used that word in her manner. Ya'll is a shorted form of you all, and is plural to the extent of my knowledge.

[BrainMagMo]

Ironically, the intimate "thou" was dropped for the formal "you".

Take from this what you will.

Actually, you had already been generalized from plural to plural OR polite singular.
So It just ate the rest of the way.
And I kind of understand why. I paid close attention to my speech once and I realized I didn't know whether i was using singular you or plural.
It's sorta like, you want to be inclusive, you don't wanna try are shove others out. So when you're asking one person a question, but wanna be polite and allow others the ability to jump in, then the plural sort of gets fuzzy in its plural status.

[zekone]

Me and my partner had a long discussion about "you" and "thou", and upon remembering it, I must try to use "thou" more with him!

As part of our crazy pillow-talk the other day, I told him there should be a word for that feeling of rubbing your finger over someone's skin, or especially nail, where it feels like your skin is stopping and starting as it moves along... it's not "smooth", it's not "juddery"... it's something in between...

[coldelectrons]

Speaking of missing words, is seems a small one has "slipped through the cracks", and been left out:

http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=no

"No results found for no."

"Did you mean no?"

Not the best example, I know - it's the thesaurus, not dictionary. Still, we adopt words yearly, how many get dropped?

[Aram]

Looking through some websites I stumbled upon a proposal to switch to Hexadecimal and had English word proposals for the normal and cardinal numbers.C twelve /twelfth,D draze / drazeth, E eptwin/ eptwinth, F fim/fimth, 10 tex/texth. Had alot of other stuff like that. I though it was rather cool, but the letters are odd to use when unaccustomed to them.

http://www.intuitor.com/hex/words.html

[TaintedDeity]

it'd be funny if we could define some words from the Jabberwok.

1.) brillig,
2.) slithy,
3.) toaves,
4.) gyre and gimble,
5.) wabe,
6.) mimsy,
7.) borogoves,
8.) mome,
9.) raths,
10.) outgrave.
That's just the first stanza, but see if you think any of these words fit a meaning.

I seem to remember that a lot of these words had meanings, I think the author defined them at some point.
I'll go look.
EDIT: Yup, Humpty Dumpty gives a definition for some of the nonsense words in the first verse.
There's a glossary type thing up here if you want t learn sme new words.

[ukaberry]

''But speaking of y'all: I had one native Southerner (USA) tell me she used "y'all" as singular and "all y'all" as plural. Can anyone else back this up, or is she an outlier?''



All you all? That sounds odd, but if she told you she used it like that she did, but I don't think there is a large group that used that word in her manner. Ya'll is a shorted form of you all, and is plural to the extent of my knowledge.

I know a lot of people who do that; I do, too. :3 Well actually I don't use "y'all" as singular, but I use "y'all" as plural half the time and "all y'all" the other half.

But the context is different. Like, I'd say "y'all better not lose my cards", or "I can beat all y'all at cards." I can't think of a defining difference, just that it would sound weird to say "all y'all better not lose my cards".

[Xanthir]

But speaking of y'all: I had one native Southerner (USA) tell me she used "y'all" as singular and "all y'all" as plural. Can anyone else back this up, or is she an outlier?

She was laying/mistaken/crazy. Y'all is always plural, though it can sometimes be used in a sense that *feels* singular to the uninitiated. Frex, I could say "y'all" to a single waiter, referring to the class of waiters even though I'm addressing a single one personally.

"All y'all" is user either interchangeably with "y'all", or as an intensifier. It can indicate that you mean a *large* group of people. It can also indicate that you are specifically referring to *all* of a group, rather than just to the group in general (which may exclude some people, depending on what you are saying). For example, "Y'all are idiots." implies that the members of the group are idiots, but "All y'all are idiots." unambiguously states that you consider every member of the addressed group to be an idiot, and aren't just referring to the group as a whole out of convenience (rather than individually naming your targets). It can also be used to extend the focus of "y'all" to include those not physically present but logically part of the group.

So yeah, it's a general purpose intensifier for "y'all".

[TheFedoraPirate]

I've always wanted a word for the exact opposite of miracle. In the way a miracle is something that's so good but also insanely improbable but it happens anyway; but this is something bad. Like for when your kid is playing outside and a frozen chunk of ejection from an airplane toilet falls and crushes it's head. That needs a word dammit. Well, other than tragedy, "it's a tragedy!" just doesn't have the right ring for the opposite of "it's a miracle!"

How interesting, all the examples I saw flying past could very easily be solved in Esperanto... but I guess that doesn't really help you English-speakers.

How does Esperanto go at some of these problems? maybe we could adapt it to work for english.

I didn't see this answered so pardon if someone has. One of the ways (which would solve my problem) is that the opposite of anything is created by adding 'mal' to the front of the base word. So, 'bona' is 'good' and 'malbona' is 'bad' therefore I could take the word 'miraklo' (miracle) and create it's opposite 'malmiraklo'.

Esperanto is just really structured so it lends itself pretty well to the invention of new words.

((Also, I agree with Xanthir's analysis of the word "y'all", although, I do admit I know someone who uses it in the singular sense he's the only person I've ever met to do so.))

[Amoeba]

A word to describe someone so inept at correctly folding tortillas that they are reduced to using cutlery: fajitard.

[Bobber]

A word to describe someone so inept at correctly folding tortillas that they are reduced to using cutlery: fajitard.

I like it! I wish I ate more tortillas so that I could use this term. (And I would - my family is terrible with food.)

[bigglesworth]

I've always wanted a word for the exact opposite of miracle. In the way a miracle is something that's so good but also insanely improbable but it happens anyway; but this is something bad. Like for when your kid is playing outside and a frozen chunk of ejection from an airplane toilet falls and crushes it's head. That needs a word dammit. Well, other than tragedy, "it's a tragedy!" just doesn't have the right ring for the opposite of "it's a miracle!"

The problem is that the "good but very improbable" meaning of miracle is not the original meaning, making it much harder to come up with an opposite that retains the important connotations of the word miracle.

[Aram]

[...]

I didn't see this answered so pardon if someone has. One of the ways (which would solve my problem) is that the opposite of anything is created by adding 'mal' to the front of the base word. So, 'bona' is 'good' and 'malbona' is 'bad' therefore I could take the word 'miraklo' (miracle) and create it's opposite 'malmiraklo'.

Esperanto is just really structured so it lends itself pretty well to the invention of new words.

[...]

Better yet, malmiraklego, a big unmiracle. Too bad 'Unmiracle' just sounds odd, though. Looking at all the synonyms my dictionary gives for tragedy most do not really fit (calamity, catastrophe, cataclysm, misfortune, mishap, blow, trial, tribulation, affliction, and adversity). The only exception is catastrophe, I think it works best as an 'Unmiracle'.

I plan on using fajitard now, too.

[Jeroen B]

In Dutch we have a affix that can be added to pretty much every noun "je" (it's a soft j in Dutch, also it could be "pje", "tje" or "kje" depending on the ending of the noun to make it sound better) which is called a diminutive apparently (thank you, Wikipedia)

It is used so much in Dutch, often to show affection, indicate a smaller form of something, make things sound more humourously or just because you can, and to be honest I've always had so much trouble translating it to English, because nothing really covers it and sometimes it can change the meaning of a word completely (of course it would be translated differently then)

Now, English does have diminutives to some extent, but it can hardly be applied to everything, for example "car", which is "auto" in dutch, and becomes "autootje" with the diminutive added, which could be used to refer to a small car or used in a sarcastic way (wasn't quite sure if "sarcastically" is really a word) to mock or joke about a larger one or used to just affectionately refer to a car. In English, I just wouldn't know how to cover this (as you could be using it in more ways than one at once)

English needs this, it would make my life a whole lot easier

As for suggestions.. I can't think of anything that would sound right in most situations, anyone else have any ideas?

[gmalivuk]

I'm pretty sure "gyre and gimble" could be interpreted as "whirl and frolic". /nod - I have no substantiating evidence for this claim other than my own brain. Well, "gyre" resembles "gyrate". I guess that works.

Yes, and it's already a word.

[d33p]

GMAL!!! *shakes fist in the air*
Why must you point out my stupidity? It's in plain sight.

[Velifer]

Yes, and it's already a word.

(risks eternal bannination with ninja-edit of mod)

Yup. must mean to act like a raptor...

[Rinsaikeru]

Sorry to reference the second post so late, but there is a proposed term for that intricate pavement dance between two people goin in opposite directions Chfan. Coined by Douglas Adams--it's a droitwich.

[BrainMagMo]

I think we need words for people that are living together, but haven't or choose not to marry. "Boyfriend" and "Girlfriend" just don't have enough "oomph," in my opinion, when you're talking about people who intend to stay together for the foreseeable future.

We have partner, which is fairly close. It sounds overly correct, though.

co-habitants works and has that specific meaning, but loses the romantic implication.
lover works, but whenever I hear it, I parse it more as "booty-call", which I'm sure the people who say it don't mean.

Also, we need a good word for the vagina -- all of the ones we have, in my opinion, are either too formal for general conversation, too informal, or just plain sound stupid.

The French use con, which translates directly to cunt but is much less offensive in their culture. It's about as forceful as ass in American English, I think, though any moderately fluent bilingual can correct me on this.

I rather like fanny, but it's British English. Fanny around here usually means butt.

girl parts, is what I'd say in polite conversation.
What specific context did you want, Threb?

[Rinsaikeru]

What polite conversations are you having about vaginae exactly?

Girl parts sounds like grade 2. Nothing wrong with the term, but it is sort of the silly thing a 7 year old would say.

[BrainMagMo]

I've set up my tent in the "he" as gender-neutral camp until someone comes up with something better. "Zie" isn't better. Try again.

I use "they". When writing, I reformat sentences to use "they" as a proper plural, but in speech I often give up and use it as singular. It's not widely accepted by grammarians, but it's been used this way for a few hundred years or so, I think.

I'm sorry, but has everyone in the English-speaking world forgotten the word "one"? I know it sounds pretentious, but it fills the exact role you're looking to fill. It's gender-neutral and singular. One does what one can. See? Now stop whining.

"Someone called for you, but one did not leave a message."?
"Nobody in one's right mind would do that!"?
One is not properly a pronoun, as it lacks endophora/deixis.

What polite conversations are you having about vaginae exactly?

Girl parts sounds like grade 2. Nothing wrong with the term, but it is sort of the silly thing a 7 year old would say.

Actually, I think I'd say feminine parts.
Tho' I don't often talk about vaginae (hahaha Firefox thinks that's the proper plural too).

Google:
vaginae: 155,000 results (top results are dictionaries)
+vaginas: 6,930,000 results