Talk:Neologism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Linguistics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Cscr-former.svg Neologism is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Not kept

Psychiatry[edit]

"In psychiatry, the term neologism is used to describe the use of words that have meaning only to the person who uses them, independent of their common meaning.[2] This is considered normal in children, but a symptom of thought disorder (indicative of a psychotic mental illness, such as schizophrenia) in adults.[3]"

Oh, psychiatry. What would we do without your pathological pathologising? --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Not yet been accepted?[edit]

defined as a newly coined term, word, or phrase, that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language.

Most, if not all of the words listed on this page have been accepted into mainstream language. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. As far as I can tell there is no official consensus on when a neologism becomes a word in its own right, but words like X-ray, radar and robotics are pretty clearly accepted into mainstream language. PatrickAnimi (talk) 09:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps that is why the example lists were removed. I don't think we shouldn't have examples, but clearly some of them have to go. They were neologisms at a certain point, but not anymore. Should older examples be removed or separated into a list of past examples? I think they should just be cut since every word was new at some point. --WikiDonn (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Corporate branding[edit]

this seems like just a blatant placement/advertisement for these firms, as this argument could be made for almost any company's naming development, particularly technology-based ones or consulting firms that cover a wide variety of services (Microsoft = microchip+software, Macromedia = macros+multimedia, etc. etc.). none of these company names are terms that are "in the process of entering common use, but [have] not yet been accepted into mainstream language," as a company's name is either recognized by someone or not, there is no "acceptance" of a company name unless it's also an actual neologism, like "laser corporation" or whatever. i could not find anything reliable about using any of these names colloquially to be referential or indicative of the varied work they do; thus, i've WP:BOLDedly removed them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impasse (talkcontribs) 18:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Recently deleted link[edit]

The following recently deleted link is moved here:

  • Langmaker.com, a regularly updated directory of over 1,100 invented languages and neographies.

According to the root link, http://www.langmaker.com, the Langmaker website has been "temporarily" disabled. It is moved here so that it may be checked from time to time to see if it has been re-enabled. Then it may be added back to the article. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 19:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that the Langmaker site has been archived. The web archive is at:

Apparently, the wiki-ish website is down for the count. These archived pages are searchable and might still prove useful.