I presumed that the discussion had migrated from the nonexistent condition to the similar existent one. So
Actually, this is a good example of what I was talking about. If someone were to ask a thousand randomly selected people what ‘ripe’ meant in relation to goldfish, I doubt more than two of them would know. (Um, mature enough to be eaten?) That doesn’t change the fact that the word ‘ripe’ correctly has the meaning ‘laden with eggs’ in that context. Two in a thousand people isn’t generally enough to establish a meaning, but since the word is quite widely used that way amongst the relevant expert population, eg. icthyologists, then it certainly has that meaning.
And of course, one could go on to argue that sufficient usage could extend the meaning of ‘pregnant’ with respect to egg-laying creatures …
I thought the word for an eggful mommy goldfish was gravid!? (Ironically, it comes from the Latin gravidus which is also used to mean ‘pregnant’.) Or does “gravid” only apply to livebearers? Is there an ichthyologist in the house?
BTW, “eggful” may not be a word according to the more stringent definitions here (I just made it up). But you all can tell what I mean by it, so the heck with it. In English philology, -ful is a “productive” suffix, meaning that you can use it in new combinations ad libitum.
boudicca13, the term for “sounds” used by professional linguists is: “sounds.” You had it right. A synonym in phonetics is “phones” but “sounds” will do just fine.
Arnold Winkelried, the condensed printing of the complete OED in 2 volumes with magnifying glass is the First Edition. It is no longer supplemented. When the Second Edition was published in 1989, it was simultaneously issued on CD-ROM. Any new word would have to be sought in updates to the Second Edition.
Good point. I will revise: a word is a word to the people who use it if it conveys meaning to those same people. It is not a word to those whom derive no meaning from it. Then, however, you get into the idea of language and dialect. The word “bagus” doesn’t really mean anything to most of us as English speakers; however, if you are a speaker of Bahasa Indonesia, “bagus” is most definitely a word because it conveys meaning to other speakers of the same language. (For those of you who are curious, “bagus” means “good”).
Actually, this can also be seen both ways. Since “bagus” doesn’t mean anything to an English speaker (prior to my definition above), can an English speaker legitimately claim that “bagus” is not a word at all? Or is it simply not an English word? One certainly will not find it in Webster’s or the O.E.D. Similarly: although twit does not mean “a pregnant (sorry Jill) goldfish” to most people, can these people truly say it is not a word, or should they be more specific and say it is not an official word (which, yes, I understand that is what Cecil meant by “word” in his column). There may still be one or two people out there, unenlightened by Cecil’s recent column, that received the misinformed email and believe that twit means “a pregnant goldfish.” It’s possible that a husband and wife both read this email and have used it in conversation with one another (for some odd reason). To them, it is a word, even though it is not in any dictionary. So, is it still not a word at all? Or just not an official word.
It’s dificult to say - I guess it still depends on how you look at it.
Was the “strangers at the door” one the one which sounds something like “RrowrrowrrowrrowRUFF! RUFF!”? I think that that’s pretty universal dogspeak for “someone’s here”, and a great many dog owners would understand the intended meaning. In fact, it’s probably understood by more folks than the hypothetical icthyological sense of “twit” or “twat”. Would that make it a word?
I suppose, that, yes - it is a dog word, not a human word. Just like bonjour is a French word, not an English word. However, I thought it would be pretty well understood that we are referring to people-talk, not animal sounds. Some people really do like to nitpick, don’t they?
Buddy, after four years in a graduate philosophy program, I can assure you that there are an appalling number of people who spend their entire lives nitpicking over the particulars of what counts as a ‘word’ or a ‘language’. And if you talk with them long enough, the stuff they’re talking about starts to make sense. Especially after a few beers …
I know very well how much people nitpick over philosophical matters, Buddy. I happen to be taking a philosophy class this very quarter, my father majored in philosophy, and he and I have had many a philosphical discussion. I’ve always been very interested in philosophical matters - so though I may not have had as much experience as you, I am not a complete moron when it comes to the workings of philosophy. My beef with the nitpicker above was this: even though it may be necessary to nitpick once in a while, that doesn’t mean that sarcastic nitpicking is necessary. Let’s all be adults here.
Since you (Simmons) have spent four years in a philosophy graduate program, it surprises me that you don’t seem to understand what I am talking about here. Everyone outside of this message board that I’ve talked to about this matter (to see if I’m just logically deficient or something, since no one hear seems to understand what I’m saying) understands me perfectly. I’ve even brought the matter up in my philosophy class to illustrate a point, and everyone seemed to see what I was saying. So, apparently, it’s not just me. I’m not saying you have to agree with me - I’m simply surprised that no one seems to understand my views on the issue, and that no one is willing to take a moment and truly think about the opposing view point. I expected at least one person might see what I’m talking about. But it appears that either no one at this message board thinks the same way that I do, or those who do prefer to remain silent.
I suppose I am used to "arguing’ with people who can actually see and acknowledge opposing viewpoints for what they are and realize that there are more ways of looking at a matter than one may think. I can see your side, and I completely understand where you’re coming from. I have acknowledged when people have made good points, and I am not rude and sarcastic when I disagree. If we are going to continue this discussion, could we all please continue like adults? Humor is fine, but sarcasm is quite unnecessary.
That’s funny. I just penned a little column about the “twit” legend a couple weeks ago to a small British magazine. 'Course it wasn’t quite as thorough as Cecil’s, but I dug up the twit-twat-twirp connection.
The Goldfish Society of America told me, also vaguely, that the word appeared in some European dictionary of English, but I have yet to find such an entry. Interestingly enough, Who Wants To Be A Millionaire in the US wanted to use this question on their show, but rejected it when they couldn’t verify it.
I personally think its origins may be just some silly children’s justification for using the word “twat.” Like, what’s wrong with “bitch” mom, it’s a female dog? No mom, “twat’s” a pregnant goldfish!
Another theory I have is that it’s one of those “impossible facts.” For example, “if you pick up a guinea pig by its tail, its eyes pop out.” (Guinea pigs have no tails.)
And my third theory is just blatant misinformation. Somebody thought that since “geek,” “dork,” and “moron” have more precise definitions than their common ones, “twit” should have one, too. And “twit” = “pregnant goldfish” is just as convincing as “geek” =
“circus act who eats chicken heads.”
