# Is "winningest" a real word?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-winningest-a-real-word/610662
**Category:** In My Humble Opinion
**Created:** [January 26, 2012, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-winningest-a-real-word/610662 "2012-01-26T01:05:35Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2012, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-winningest-a-real-word/610662/1 "2012-01-26T01:05:35Z")
The other day, on the front page of the LA Times, an article about the death of american college football coach Joe Paterno used the word “winingest”. That word has always grated on me. Hence the poll. Needless to say, I voted No.
P.S. I checked in Merriam-Webster, and they have “winningest” as a valid word, dating from 1972.
---
### Author:  [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2012, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-winningest-a-real-word/610662/2 "2012-01-26T01:10:23Z")
The OED gives it as 1974.
But certainly it’s a real word. You understand its meaning, don’t you? People use it in speech, don’t they?
---
### Author:  [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2012, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-winningest-a-real-word/610662/3 "2012-01-26T01:16:35Z")
It’s a verb which has been adjectified (which can weird language a bit, but is technically legal).
---
### Author:  [@Ximenean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ximenean)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2012, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-winningest-a-real-word/610662/4 "2012-01-26T01:21:56Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#):
>
> The OED gives it as 1974.
>
> But certainly it’s a real word. You understand its meaning, don’t you? People use it in speech, don’t they?
It has to be the case that enough people use it, though, and that is not the case here, in the UK. I mean, obviously we can work out from context that it means “winning the most” or something, but it still sounds like a non-word to us. I guess the OED includes a large chunk of North American English.
---
### Author:  [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2012, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-winningest-a-real-word/610662/5 "2012-01-26T01:36:59Z")
It’s a perfectly cromulent word.
---
### Author:  [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2012, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-winningest-a-real-word/610662/6 "2012-01-26T01:40:16Z")
My nuns would object ("‘Most winning,’ Mr **zone**."), but **RC** is right.
Word.
---
### Author:  [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2012, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-winningest-a-real-word/610662/7 "2012-01-26T01:45:53Z")
> [@Ximenean](#):
>
> I guess the OED includes a large chunk of North American English.
And why on earth would they do that?
_Winning_ of course is a perfectly accepted adjective: _She has a winning smile_. Probably the issue is that here it takes a semantic twist, in order to refer to a competitive context. Still, it’s not unusual for this connotation: _They’re a winning team_.
It also might seem awkward because typically (with notable exceptions) superlatives formed from stems with more than one syllable take a construction with _the most_ (_the most winning_, _the most cunning_, _the most stunning_ etc.).
---
### Author:  [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2012, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-winningest-a-real-word/610662/8 "2012-01-26T01:50:57Z")
Weird, though, that no one ever says “Winninger.”
“Okay, they aren’t champs, but they made it to the play-offs, so their a winninger team than most of the others…”
Are there other words where we have a superlative but no comparative?
Anyway, I voted “not a real word” in the hyperformal sense of “not recognized by the grammar wonks at Harvard,” but **Thudlow Boink** wins the thread.
---
### Author:  [@MeanOldLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeanOldLady)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2012, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-winningest-a-real-word/610662/9 "2012-01-26T01:54:48Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#):
>
> It’s a perfectly cromulent word.
_giggle_
This bit will never grow old. Never.
---
### Author:  [@Rachellelogram](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rachellelogram)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2012, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-winningest-a-real-word/610662/10 "2012-01-26T01:57:41Z")
> [@Ximenean](#):
>
> It has to be the case that enough people use it, though
Why? Not even Merriam-Webster lists “common usage” among its [definition](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/word) for “word.” But if we run with your interpretation, at what point do words that have fallen out of common use (like, say, [wont](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wont) or [betwixt](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/betwixt)) suddenly become non-words? Curious minds would like to know! :eek:
In fact, any Doper could make up a word that nobody has ever said or heard before, and type it on this page, and it would still be a word as long as it’s logical and has a divinable meaning. Like, I dunno… Marveltastic? Fabulicious? Kittyriffic?
---
### Author:  [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2012, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-winningest-a-real-word/610662/11 "2012-01-26T02:00:27Z")
> [@guizot](#):
>
> It also might seem awkward because typically (with notable exceptions) superlatives formed from stems with more than one syllable take a construction with _the most_ (_the most winning_, _the most cunning_, _the most stunning_ etc.).
ETA: I say “typically” because, you’ll find it going both ways. This is from an obituary in Time magazine (Jan. 16, 2006):
[QUOTE=Time Magazine]
DIED. SHEIK MAKTOUM BIN RASHID AL-MAKTOUM, 62, pragmatic, business-minded Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates and emir of Dubai who oversaw his city-state’s transformation from a minor trading post to a modern metropolis; of a suspected heart attack; in Australia. With brothers Mohammedwho succeeds him as emirand Hamdan, the avid thoroughbred fan founded Godolphin, one of horse racing’s **most winning** stables.
[/quote]
---
### Author:  [@Ximenean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ximenean)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2012, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-winningest-a-real-word/610662/12 "2012-01-26T02:12:35Z")
> [@rachelellogram](#):
>
> Why? Not even Merriam-Webster lists “common usage” among its [definition](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/word) for “word.” But if we run with your interpretation, at what point do words that have fallen out of common use (like, say, [wont](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wont) or [betwixt](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/betwixt)) suddenly become non-words? Curious minds would like to know! :eek:
>
> In fact, any Doper could make up a word that nobody has ever said or heard before, and type it on this page, and it would still be a word as long as it’s logical and has a divinable meaning. Like, I dunno… Marveltastic? Fabulicious? Kittyriffic?
I’m not sure what your examples, such as “kittyrific”, would mean. That’s the point - words become words when enough people agree that they mean something. “Enough” is a grey area, but I hope we can agree that “kittyriffic” does not qualify.
Likewise, in British English, “winningest” does not qualify, because nobody ever says it.
---
### Author:  [@Ximenean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ximenean)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2012, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-winningest-a-real-word/610662/13 "2012-01-26T02:18:07Z")
> [@guizot](#):
>
> It also might seem awkward because typically (with notable exceptions) superlatives formed from stems with more than one syllable take a construction with _the most_ (_the most winning_, _the most cunning_, _the most stunning_ etc.).
It seems awkward because there are no other simlar constructions in common English speech.
cite: [http://www.onelook.com/?w=\*ingest&ls=a](http://www.onelook.com/?w=*ingest&ls=a)
---
### Author:  [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2012, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-winningest-a-real-word/610662/14 "2012-01-26T02:20:08Z")
> [@Trinopus](#):
>
> Are there other words where we have a superlative but no comparative?
I don’t think that’s the question; the question is, “What words have become productive with _ **-est** _ through popular use, but not with _ **-er** _?” (Because for the comparative people just say, “the _ **more winning** _ team.”) This happens a lot more than one might suspect, but it happens for superlative only. That doesn’t mean there never was a comparative–it just means that for the comparative, people follow the rule.
[QUOTE=Washington Post (May 6, 2007)]
Throughout _Fellow Travelers_, he displays an expert’s knowledge of how to wield the novelist’s most effective tools, suspense and elision. His characters engage in swift, bantering repartee that is all the _ **more winning** _ for its artificiality.
[/quote]
[QUOTE=Chicago Sun Times (April 12, 1992)]
At lunch one day, two _ **more winning dishes** _ crossed our table. Charcoal broiled catfish (two quite large fillets) with strips of pickled red onions tossed freely across the top doesn’t sound very exciting, but in its simplicity lay its goodness.
[/quote]
---
### Author:  [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2012, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-winningest-a-real-word/610662/15 "2012-01-26T02:30:57Z")
> [@guizot](#):
>
> It also might seem awkward because typically (with notable exceptions) superlatives formed from stems with more than one syllable take a construction with _the most_ (_the most winning_, _the most cunning_, _the most stunning_ etc.).
The biggest exception is that two syllable words ending with an “ee” sound (funny, happy, lonely, etc.) generally take the “-er” and “-est” comparative and superlative endings. Not that that applies here.
---
### Author:  [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2012, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-winningest-a-real-word/610662/16 "2012-01-26T02:34:36Z")
> [@guizot](#):
>
> I don’t think that’s the question; the question is, “What words have become productive with _ **-est** _ through popular use, but not with _ **-er** _?” (Because for the comparative people just say, “the _ **more winning** _ team.”) This happens a lot more than one might suspect, but it happens for superlative only. That doesn’t mean there never was a comparative–it just means that for the comparative, people follow the rule.
In that second example, the “more” doesn’t strike me as a comparative modifying “winning.” In my parse, it functions in the sense of “additional” not as a comparative.
---
### Author:  [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2012, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-winningest-a-real-word/610662/17 "2012-01-26T02:42:31Z")
> [@pulykamell](#):
>
> In that second example, the “more” doesn’t strike me as a comparative modifying “winning.” In my parse, it functions in the sense of “additional” not as a comparative.
I looked back at the review, and you’re right–I thought that he was comparing it with less favorable dishes. You still hear it, though, such as on the PBS News Hour:
[QUOTE=PBS News Hour]
Indeed, somewhat ironically, the United States today and for the foreseeable future under the new guidance projects a much more potent, even more fighting, _ **more winning threat** _ at Russian strategic forces than we did during the 1980’s under the old war fighting doctrine.
[/quote]
---
### Author:  [@Rachellelogram](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rachellelogram)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2012, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-winningest-a-real-word/610662/18 "2012-01-26T03:37:10Z")
> [@Ximenean](#):
>
> I’m not sure what your examples, such as “kittyrific”, would mean. That’s the point - words become words when enough people agree that they mean something. “Enough” is a grey area, but I hope we can agree that “kittyriffic” does not qualify.
>
> Likewise, in British English, “winningest” does not qualify, because nobody ever says it.
They’re portmanteaux. You also failed to address my second point: when do words that fall out of common use become non-words? Common use is not necessary for a word to be a word. Just mutual understanding.
---
### Author:  [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2012, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-winningest-a-real-word/610662/19 "2012-01-26T05:33:12Z")
> [@rachelellogram](#):
>
> . . . You also failed to address my second point: when do words that fall out of common use become non-words? Common use is not necessary for a word to be a word. Just mutual understanding.
Extremely good question. There are lots of wonderful Elizabethan words – “paten” comes to mind – which appear in Shakespeare, but which people have to pause and look up, if they’re reading, or make a mental note of to look up later, if they’re watching a performance. They’re still words, even if 99 out of a hundred people don’t know them.
As for making up new words according to obvious rules, I think that understanding is all but guaranteed. Can there be anyone who, upon hearing “winningest,” can’t figure out what it means? (I mean among English speakers, of course; someone who only knows Malay might not work it out…)
This is why “kittyrific” works; it’s extremely obvious what it is intended to mean. (Another fun example is “finestkind” from Fusion, an old comic book.)
A faddish kind of popularity also works. Cromulent is a lovely example, and so are “Grok” and “Tanj” and “Pon Farr” and the like. Enough people know them, and know what they’re from, that they can be used with a decent expectation of understanding.
One has to be careful! Three different people wrote “Klingon Dictionaries” before one of them caught on and is now the de facto “official” Klingon language. I could quote from the other two, and not have any hope at all of understanding. Even the official one is pretty doggone obscure, the Klingon Language Institute notwithstanding.
“The Simpsons,” in contrast, has sufficient penetration into the popular psyche (“Nelson Muntz Laugh”) that its neologisms have a darn good chance of becoming known even at second and third hand. How many people citing “cromulent” have actually seen that episode? (I haven’t!)
P.S. I’m so out of touch, I was confused between Nelson and Milhouse! But I knew the laugh!
---
### Author:  [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)
#### Post date: [January 26, 2012, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-winningest-a-real-word/610662/20 "2012-01-26T06:02:08Z")
Yes it’s a real word. I recently saw it in a thread title.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-winningest-a-real-word/610662.md?page=2)