Never be too quick to imagine a word is a neologism.
From OED:
That doesn’t seem to have gone anywhere. Probably not enough time for them to get the word out between harrumphs and sips of milky tea.
Not a lost positive. The “dis-” is an intensifier in this case, meaning ‘extremely gruntled.’
Maybe someone should pm him. He hasn’t checked in in nine years.
I trepidly clicked on this ten-year-old link, but alas, it no longer worked.
I am gruntled…
I found myself wanting to use trepidacious in an email and this led to googling if it was actually a word and hence how I landed on this page.
It is many years after these posts were made but I found great irony in the use of the word ‘transpondian’ in a post supporting why trepidacious is a worthless word…hahaha
Among literate English-speaking people, it is generally recognized that inclusion in a published dictionary constitutes a word being a “real word”. When "trepidacious’ gets into dictionaries, it technically crosses the line from not being a real work, to being one.
English is not subject to any “law” of usage, so by default, dictionary publishers have been assigned this task.
However, English is also recognized as a rather flexible language, and according to context and intended audience, it is quite acceptable for an ad-hoc crossing of the line by a speaker who feels that a non-real word best elucidates his intent.
It has now passed the cromulency test.
I assume all word-oriented Dopers have etymonline.com bookmarked.
After a century, it’s a bit too gray-haired to still be a neologism.
And this is another reminder to everyone: Never cite what a schoolteacher told you about the English language. Their record here is a big fat zero.
[quote=“jtur88, post:27, topic:207000”]
Among literate English-speaking people, it is generally recognized that inclusion in a published dictionary constitutes a word being a “real word”. When "trepidacious’ gets into dictionaries, it technically crosses the line from not being a real work, to being one.]/QUOTE]
“Literate English-speaking people” might think that, but nit-picking dopers would disagree. A word isn’t a real word because it’s in a dictionary. Rather, it’s in a dictionary because it’s a real world - i.e. a word that English speakers use with sufficient frequency that it requires a definition, and with sufficient consistency that it can be defined.
Putting a word in a dictionary doesn’t make it a real word. Rather, it shows that it has become a real word at some point, or over some period, before the dictionary was compiled.
What about Leo Bloom’s inadvertent neologism of three years ago – vinicated? I propose we define it as “(self-)medicated by imbibing wine.”
As in, “I was feeling pretty crappy until I vinicated with half a bottle of cheap merlot.”