Very many of us have particular annoyance-generating hot buttons, concerning things related to use of the English language. For most folk, objectively this stuff is pretty harmless in the general scheme of things; but people tend at times to be irrational, and “with their gut”, react negatively and with great irritation, to stuff which “with their head”, they see is trivial and harms nobody.
I am that way, about the made-up adjective “cromulent” – generally signifying “good, valid, to be approved of” – which has achieved widespread currency in recent years; especially, to my perception, in Internet discourse. I’ve had explained to me, its origin from “The Simpsons” (a cartoon series which, I’ll admit, does not greatly delight me) – the “embiggen / cromulent” business. Nonetheless – the word and its use are still, to me, like the proverbial fingernails on a chalkboard. To me, it carries a general aura and odour of twee, goofy, “I’m in with the in-crowd” facetiousness – a scene which many people enjoy, and enthusiastically participate in, but which I find repellent.
I admit that this reaction of mine does not make sense; and I do my best to repress the impulse which I get, to commit acts of violence on those who use “cromulent” – people are entitled to express themselves in whatever ways please them. I just wonder whether I’m unique in finding the word off-pissing; or whether anybody else feels the same way.
Eh, I get the OP. The word wasn’t something that developed organically, it was made up for a joke and then latched on to by people who wanted to say the joke. It’s not as though it has roots in some other part of the language.
Not that I care much about the word. When I hear someone use it, I just sort of wonder why they’re trying to be clever by reciting a 20 year old Simpsons episode.
I applaud your words in a well presented case. I agree with your annoyance with that particular word.
There are so many additional words, phrases and other affectations that go beyond displeasing me to the point of annoyance. Maybe some will be mentioned in response to this particular one.
What I think I’m beginning to dislike to the point of real annoyance is the Recreational Outrage that the Internet engenders.
Just because one has a keyboard doesn’t force one to express every thought and reaction. Blogs are glorified graffiti for the most part. Comment sections to vapid “news” reports only point up our education system’s shortcomings.
It’s a “Wolf, Wolf!” environmant that is losing its power to persuade.
Used properly, it’s fine. It’s a made up word that sounds like what it means, and that meaning is that a made up word sounds like what it means. Used simply as a synonym for good or acceptable, it’s silly and annoying.
The frequency of its usage and the context thereof, even on this forum leads me to believe that for some part of the english speaking world, cromulent has lost its simpsons-specific connotation.
Yeah! "Creating a word like that, with an “in” crowd exploiting a popular joke, long after its time should have gone. How could you expect a word to be created and catch on that way? It’s not the way a word comes into use!
Cromulent is perfectly acceptable when used in the context of the quote. As in, when someone questions a word you just used, you can say, “What? It’s a perfectly cromulent word.”
I’ve never heard anyone use it outside of that context, to be honest. Are people describing things as cromulent in general? Like, “That was a perfectly cromulent movie.” Because that would just annoy me.
And why does Chrome keep putting a red squiggly under the word cromulent?
I’ve only heard people to use the word cromulent in the way you describe, steronz. It’s a synonym for acceptable, ok, useful, or something like that, but ONLY in the context that a word or a thing is perfectly cromulent. Even though I could say that the movie I had seen was acceptable, or ok, I wouldn’t ever describe it as cromulent. An idea might be cromulent. A word can definitely be cromulent. And btw, chrome does not put a red squiggly under cromulent for me.
I mean, people using cromulent in discussions completely unrelated to the Simpsons and without noting its simpsonness. You could call that a reference, I guess, but I wouldn’t.
Well, yeah. Someone saying “Can’t he be both like the late Earle Warren?” in a non-Simpsons thread is a Simpsons reference even if they don’t say “I’m currently quoting the Simpsons now!”
