Talk:Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis

Nee not nahy

The sound file "Pnlicovolcanoconiosis2.ogg" pronounced the word's ending kon-nahy-oh-sis. I was wondering if I'd been pronouncing it wrong all these y http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis

Microsoft word

On microsoft word the spell check says that it is spelt pneumonou">—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contrile, without slowdown on certain syllables (uploaded to  Pneumonoulthiramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis2.ogg AledJames 18:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

UMWA

would the UMWA's use of the word at http://www.umwa.org/blacklung/blacklung.shtml be sufficient citation?

One citation is not enough, otherwise many of James Joyce's coinages would be words. Canon 01:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a second citation, and it's even from a medical source: http://www.pathology.med.ohio-state.edu/pews/glossary/DisplayGlossaryImage.aspx?Keyword=PNEUMONOULTRAMICROSCOPICSILICOVOLCANOCONIOSIS

I agree that this evidence starts to add up to a case for the word. At this point I'd refer it to the dictionary editors who have dropped the word from their latest editions for reappraisal. Perhaps the word has entered the language as a synonym for "black lung disease," which is not the original meaning, by the way. If so, the route it took is rather twisted, starting as a hoax, passing through the dictionaries, and ending up in the medical literature. Many words get into English in odd ways, so oddness of etymology is not a conclusive criterion for exclusion. The word has been dropped from dictionaries since the 1970s; let's see if it shows up again in the future. Canon 04:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

According to http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis , it's still in the 2002 edition of the merriam webster medical dictionary, and definied as "a pneumoconiosis caused by inhalation of very fine silicate or quartz dust," which is decently close to it's original meaning. Some indication in the article might be appropriate.

According to http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19980916 , it's also still in the random house dictionary of the english language, albeit marked as a fictitious word.

As I've dug up two innocuous non-dictionary uses of this word, I am editing the page to reflect.

TDOE

It is the longest word ever to appear in 'the English Dictionary'.
Is that a real book? or just bad grammar? If it exists, it should have a link. jazzle 10:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Critics

Critics have complained that this word is a technical term (specifically, a medical term), and hence not worthy of consideration as the "longest word in general usage".

critics? of what?! 03:03, May 30, 2004 User:Resister (attrib by Ben Brockert)

of the suggestion that it's the longest word. jazzle 10:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Divides

"Also, it naturally divides into two words, "pneumonoultramicroscopic" and "silicovolcanoconiosis", because "-ic" is a common suffix that forms adjectives, not an infix that joins combining forms into one word."

It sounds good, but doesn't work. The fact that microscopic is included doesn't mean you can split it into two words, because then the words make no sense. pneumono goes with osis, otherwise you get lungs very extremely small rather than lungs full of very extremely small volcanic silica dust, the disease. --Ben Brockert 03:35, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

And what about factitious? a "factitious" word alleged to ..... Aren't all words factitious? Its not like a goat can coin a word in the dictionary. Zeichs 20:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Zeichs

But it is totally valid

If the word was suggested to at some point be used by the medical profession and, eventually, was adopted by said profession as a word which describes a condition then that only makes the proposal of the word prophetic and not a hoax.

Therefore, while the etymology of the word did not stem from the medical community it was none the less adopted by the medical community and therefore is a completely acceptable word.

Thus I declare the assumption that this word is a hoax to be fallacious.

Valid argument based on incorrect assumptions. Pneumoconiosis is the word used by medical journals and dictionaries. Will Spiller 203.59.123.73 07:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Will you are wrong. Try Miriam Websters online medical dictionary - and there it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.230.173 (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hoax

The above statement by an anonymous editor that the word has been adopted by the medical community requires some evidence to be believed. Unless some such evidence is forthcoming, the statement in the main article that "some people" disagree that the word is a hoax should be removed as it violates Wikipedia standards for accuracy. Canon 01:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has come forward with evidence of medical usage, I will remove the statement from the main article. Canon 22:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That seems correct. OED's Sept 2006 draft update, which I added as a footnote, changed from "occurring chiefly" to "occurring only as an instance of a very long word." A current search of scholar.google.com supports this; it does appear in medical journals, but only to discuss the word itself, not used to describe a condition. -Agyle 07:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

National standards?

I've removed the claim that the word is used by "brainy children" which allows it to meet "national standards," since the first of these terms is pejorative and no source is provided for the second claim. Also, in order to establish that this is a word, an "innocent" citation must be found, which is a citation in which it is used in a medical context independent of its wordplay characteristics. Canon 20:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Would it be invented anyway

Humans seem to have a need for this kind of stuff. If pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis wasn't created in the early 20th century then the need for these superlative indications would probably make certain people and enthusiasts to invent some "longest word in the English language". Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis fits the bill perfectly. Most people who realise its length don't even know its meaning!

Regardless

Regardless if it was a hoax or not, the word is used and appears in several dictionaries. In short, its a valid word. It may have been a hoax or it may not have been, but a new word was "born" either way.

In other languages

I don't understand the list of words in other languages. These seem to be translations of "pneumoconiosis" as opposed to the full 45-letter word (except for the word in Portuguese). Are we to go through Wikipedia and list in every article the translations of the headword into other languages? Canon 15:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone just shortened one of the words in the "Other languages" table. Clearly this table is confusing. If it is supposed to be transliterations of the 45 letter word into other languages, then it has only one entry and really doesn't deserve to be in the article. If it is supposed to be a list of translations of "pneumoconiosis" (the name of the generic lung condition) then it makes no sense to have it in the article. Unless someone objects, I'll delete it soon. Canon 21:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Quotation and citation changes

I changed the interior of the quotes slightly, to better reflect the original sources. For example, Word Play's version of the New York Herald quote uses 103d, not 103rd; those sorts of things shouldn't be changed from within the quote, even if they conflict with normal Wikipedia style guidelines. I also extended the quote from the 1999 OED, and added a more detailed citation (I subscribe to OED online); the quote could be re-shortened if it used "...." at the end, but shouldn't insert a period mid-sentence. I put a 2006 draft OED definition in the same footnote; that could be moved to the lead of the article, to replace the 1999 definition, if people think that would be a better approach. -Agyle 08:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Smith credit is theory not fact

I changed the wording from "Word Ways...revealed in several articles that the word was invented in 1935 by Everett M. Smith..." to "Word Ways...suggests the word was...." My wording might be improved, but my intention was to indicate that Word Ways didn't state for a fact that Smith invented the word, it suggested that he may have ("...it appears that Smith..."). OED online's current definition also seems to share this view, saying it was invented "...(prob. by Everett M. Smith...." -Agyle 08:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Replace AOL member website as source

The aol website cited, while quite informative, does not meet WP's reliable sources guidelines. It's a minor point, but if someone can find a better source for the little information attributed to the website, I think it would be good to replace it. -Agyle 08:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Integrating pop culture references

There was a recent "edit war" with someone deleting the pop culture section, and another restoring it. I think the three current examples are specific enough (e.g. stating the episode title) that a proper reference citation could be generated for them. However, WP's guidelines generally suggest trying to integrate such material into the body of the article. I think the Simpson's and Beerfest usages could serve to illustrate usages of the term as a disease in fictional or comedic works, despite its not being used to describe a disease in actual medicine. The Rocket Power usage seems to be using it only as a long, hard-to-spell word, and I don't see that usage as noteworthy, so would favor its deletion. Possible wording to integrate the other two:

While the word is not known to be used to label a disease in medical literature, it has been used for comedic effect in fictional works such as The Simpsons and Beerfest. [Referencing the OED for the first part of the sentence, and referencing the Simpsons episode and Beerfest for the second.]

I'd also mention that it's used in discussions of long words, including in medical literature, to try to clarify the distinction being made in that sentence. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? -Agyle 21:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Nicely thought-out comments on the pop-culture references. I'd say go ahead and make those edits. - DavidWBrooks 00:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Typo? Surely not...

When I taught myself how to spell this word, back in the late 1970s, it was then most definitely spelt with 44 letters: "pneumonultramicroscopicsilicovolcanaconiosis."

The spelling discussed in this Wikipedia entry, by my reckoning, includes not just one but two typos: the addition of an 'o' after 'pneumon,' and the change of 'volcana' to 'volcano.'

I find it interesting that there's a debate over whether this is a 'real' word: could it be that this argument is grounded in the fact that the 45-letter 'word' "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis" is a typo?

The only web reference I can find in support of my claim that this is a typo is at http://www.neophi.com/home/danielr/fun/text/t/trivia_remarks ; the Innerwebz is swamped by references to the version that, in my reality, is a typo. Perhaps this is an example of language evolution? Pendant (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Theory or fact

My edits that Everett Smith's creation of the word is a theory and not a fact were reverted. I agree that this is very likely what happened, but I know of no documented or published reference to support this claim. The reference cited in this article states "However, it appears that Smith did not cite the word, he coined it" after presenting evidence to support just that. Regardless of the probability involved, I was under the impression that if there are no references stating this, then it is not Wikipedia's job to do so. Macduff (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The more up-to-date reference that removes the provisional language of the earlier article has been added. Canon (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The Word's History

Thanks very much. My other concern is - when did it become general knowledge that the word had this origin? Chris Cole's original article was published in 1989. Is the OED definition that states the word is "facticious" only in post-1989 editions, or is that definition as quoted in the first paragraph of this article also in the 1936 edition? If there is no reference to this that existed pre-1989, I think it worth mentioning that older dictionary entries (and thus the general public) bought into it.Macduff (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The skeptical OED definition predates the 1989 article, but someone will have to do some sleuthing to find out if the wording changed after 1936. Canon (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Eumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosispnay --

Wouldn't the pig latin version of this word, Eumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosispnay be longer? --Luke Farrelly-Spain (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it's Pig Latin, not English, and thus irrelevant. Also, this is only longer because in Pig Latin, you add 2 letters (a, y) to the end of a word after repostioning the first consonant sound. I also believe that since the n is silet, it should remain at the front of the word. 24.10.238.176 (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

SAAS

seattle academy of arts and sciences won state in 2005 and in 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.22.212 (talk) 03:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

vandalism

"The 66-letter word was coined to serve as the longest English word and is[1] the longest word ever to appear in an English language dictionary.

tell me this is vandalism, or that this isn't wikipedia. Twipley (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you see vandalism, you can revert it without discussion. Discussion is only needed in extreme cases, when you need an admin to protect/semi-protect the article. There was language, a change in the numerical facts, and general vandalism, which is why the article has now been converted to semi-protected. Please do not repost the vandalism. 24.10.238.176 (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Coniosis?

I move that we zap the ...also spelled Coniosis.. bit. Coniosis is a generalized term meaning the disease from inhaling of dust. Pneumo.....iosis refers specifically to inhalation of silica dust.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

wow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.93.22.67 (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Two words?

Isn't pneumonoultramicroscopic silicovolcanoconiosis two words? I don't see how the claim that it's a single word fits with English morphology. If it's a single word, then so are surrealisticpillow, hollowtree, and longestword. As far as I can see. 81.204.244.56 (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm new, sorry if I don't comment correctly. Silicosis is not the term for black lung disease, Anthracosis is the term for black lung disease, silicosis is also known as Grinder's disease, and is caused by silica dust or glass in lungs and is different than the coal-dust-caused Black lung disease. BlazeWitch (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)BlazeWitch

Long Word!

The name of this specific disease was solely created to be the longest word in the English dictionary. I think that this is just a bad idea. New desease = New longest word in the English dictionary.

Thank you for reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veto Lad (talk • contribs) 17:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge

Am planning on merging and redirecting this term into silicosis as that is the more common term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no. (in short: no.) That's not something to do on a whim; Put a merge tag on the story and wait for discussion. Many people, including me, will disagree, since "pneumon ... osis" is much better known and has a quirky history. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Few people come to this article looking for the medical condition. It is disputed whether this is a name used by the medical profession for any medical condition, and even if it is, it is not the same as silicosis since by coinage it involves only silica from volcanoes. One could argue that this is too specialized to be useful to the medical profession, but that just argues that the word is not used by the medical profession. By far the most common use of this word is as the longest word in English. That it does not refer to any actual medical condition, or that it refers to a medical condition that is too specialized to be recognized as a separate condition by the medical profession, is irrelevent. Unicorns do not exist either. A merger is with a non-synonymous entry is contrary to WP policy. Canon (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You should repeat this at Talk:Silicosis, where the merge discussion is supposed to be happening. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That confuses me. Shouldn't the argument be on the talk page of the entry that is in danger of going away? Canon (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I guess one issue is that it is tagged with WP:MED and only WP:MED which of course is how i came upon it. If it is a subtype of silicosis if should be discussed on that page. If it is notable only for being the longest word in the English language maybe it should be moved to that page. I agree that it has little medical notability. Maybe we should just removed the WP:MED tag. Retag it with a WP:ENGLISH tag and all will be happy. The Wiki Med editors will wonder off :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The logic of the situation is a bit subtle. Some medical professionals do not want this word listed as a medical condition because it is too long and too specialized and its origins were not within the medical profession. Some recreational linguists do want this word listed as a medical condition because they have some evidence that it has been used as such and they fear if it is not so listed it will be removed from dictionaries. Removing the WP:MED tag will please the first group and annoy the second group. Listing the word as a species or synonym of silicosis will not make anyone happy. Canon (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked through the page and do not see any medical references only linguistic ones. If this is to stay part of WP:MED we need medical references that verify it inclusion in medicine IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

According to the second reference it is listed in the Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary. Canon (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This is unnotable for the medicine project but notable for linguistics. I would simply eliminate most medical content, and eliminate the tag from the project, leaving most linguistic info. --Garrondo (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. If people want to learn about the disease, silicosis is linked. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Canon (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(Undent) Sounds reasonable. Have removed the WP:MED tag. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I had added the disease section to keep the article from being labeled a stub. If you're going to remove that much information on a whim, you should do your part and replace it with something you feel is more proper. Perhaps the best action would have been to merely remove the WP:MED tag... --TheBigGnome —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebiggnome (talk • contribs) 19:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The medical project objected that the medical information was inaccurate, in the sense that the word is not used and the information given was appropriate to the silicosis article only and hence this article was best merged into that one. So the linguists agreed to remove it. Others might like this article merged into the longest word in English article, but the major contributors to that article have felt that the specific origin of this word is better split off into this separate article. Canon (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like this is sort of a subpage of the longest word. A number of us at WT:MED though it would be best to merge with that page for what it is worth.[1] If you can find medical references to support that this is used by the medical community would be happy to relook at things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's one recent usage: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/volcanic-ash-can-severely-damage-your-lungs/article1542467/ Thebiggnome (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

and another in the field of medical transcription: http://accurapid.com/journal/52abbreviations.htm Thebiggnome (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I should clarify as in a journal article from pubmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

British Medical Journal, April 2010, http://www.ep.bmj.com/content/95/2/34.abstract Thebiggnome (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Where is the word in this reference? A subscription is required to read the entire article. If it is in the British Medical Journal it is in current professional medical usage. Speaking now as a linguist as opposed to a medical professional, the two previous references show that it is in current usage in a non-professional medical context, which is probably why it is listed in the Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary. Canon (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 208.83.123.136, 10 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Thw word is spelled wrong.IT is actually spelled Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanokoniosis.

208.83.123.136 (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 96.225.150.231, 18 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

word alleged to mean 'a lung disease caused--- there is a extra apostpohy it need to be remover from this sentence 96.225.150.231 (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: that's not an apostrophe, it's an opening single quotation mark. Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It has 45 letters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennykhanhle (talk • contribs) 00:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC) I know how to spell it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 45 letters, the longest word in the english language! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.165.73.246 (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Deltachief666, 26 September 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} There is another, unmentioned, Cultural Reference that I thought should be added to the page. In The Daily Show with Jon Stewart's first book, America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction, they make reference to pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. In chapter 6, page 129 of the book, they joke about words to include in a campaign speech and under the 'Extra Credit' section they have humorous words, among which is pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. Deltachief666 (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

In my humble opinon, a single mention in a printed book isn't worth them - however, some of the other cultural referenes are pretty weak, too. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Per the above; can't see it helps understand this article, so - not done; discuss further here if you wish  Chzz  ►  04:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Professor Green - D.P.M.O

This word also features as the first lyric of the song D.P.M.O by Professor Green; which is featured on his brand new album - At Your Inconvience