I got the schwooptiest new slow-cooker as a gift. It’s a ginormous oval one, red with a snazzy silver stripe and even came with a huge thermal carrying bag thingy.
Perfect for taking a whole muckle of chili or baked beans for a potluck.
I also feel engrizzled for being this excited about a crockpot, sigh.
Just don’t phoinge your paterravitz, it may shrinkle!
This thread makes me flollop and vollue in a globbery kind of way.
I am filled with flippitude over this thread. It almost makes me forget my recurring ganglaphores.
I like embiggen. And vomitrocious. And cromulent.
But I have no creativity to share today.
I have frequently used ‘sucktacular’ to describe several of my days…
Isn’t the source of “embiggen” the Simpsons? And vomitrocious was already sourced, above. “Cromulent” was first used in Just Shoot Me?
I don’t know. I have never watched The Simpson’s. Didn’t see Just Shoot Me, either.
I just like the words. I like vermicious as well.
I’m so experjoyed that this thread exists! It enthusiasticates me.
This isn’t cromulent but remember a couple of years ago when I asked if anybody had heard of the word “paideic”? I had googled, couldn’t find it, although I found “paidaea” and other variants.
I just now googled it again, and now there are 866 hits for “paideic” so it’s become a word.
FWIW, I decided to leave it in the manuscript I was editing, because who am I to stifle the evolution of the English language?
and this way I can say I saw it first.
Urban Dictionary (IMHO the best online slang site) cites the Simpsons.
I have frequently used ‘sucktacular’ to describe several of my dates…
Now, is that a good or bad thing?
Anyone here seen verbotomy.com? It meshes perfectly with this thread.
I don’t know if Just Shoot Me used it, but “embiggen” and “cromulent” are from the same Simpsons episode.
From the Blackadder episode with that splendid brain box, Dr. Samuel Johnson:
You just haven’t dated me yet.
(What’s the source of the word ‘squee’? It’s being used as a verb all over the place now…)
Has anyone read the short story by Robert Sheckley, Can we have a little talk? I found it in a Sheckley anthology. Basically, a fellow named Jackson lands on a planet that hasn’t been mapped, explored or contacted yet, but since he is an expert inter-galactic linguist, sets upon trying to learn the language. Each time he runs into some new word or syntax, he investigates until he is sure how the construction and syntax works. But no matter how well prepared he is, his next foray into the population produces strange new situations, words and grammar. It becomes evident towards the end of the story that the language is evolving faster than he can catch up.
Example:
Erum handed Jackson the form. The first question read, “Have you, now or at any past time, elikated mushkies forsically? State date of all occurances. If no occurances, state the reason for transgrishal reduct as found.”
Jackson read no further. “What does it mean,” he asked Erum, "to elikate mushkies forsically?"
“Mean?” Erum smiled uncertainly. “Why, it means exactly what it says. Or so I would imagine.”
“I meant,” Jackson said, “That I do not understand the words. Could you explain them to me?”
“Nothing simpler,” Erum replied. "To elikate mushkies is almost the same as a bifar pobishkai."
“I beg your pardon”? Jackson said.
“It means–well, to elikate is really rather simple, though perhaps not in the eyes of the law. Scorbadising is a form of *elikation, *and so is *manruv garing. * Some say that when we breathe drorsically in the evening subsis, we are actually *elikating. * Personally, I consider that a bit fanciful.”
"Let’s try mishkies," Jackson suggested.
“By all means, let’s!” Erum replied, with a coarse boom of laughter. “If only one could–eh!” He dug Jackson in the ribs with a sly elbow.
“Hm, yes,” Jackson replied coldly. “Perhaps you could tell me what, exactly a mushkie is?”
“Of course. As it happens, there is no such thing,” Erum replied. “Not in the singular, at any rate. One mushkie would be a logical fallacy, don’t you see?”
"I’ll take your word for it. What are mushkies?"
“Well, primarily, they’re the object of elikation. Secondarily, they are half-sized wooden sandals which are used to stimulate erotic fantasies among the Jutor religionists.”
"Now we’re getting someplace!"Jackson cried.
“Only if your tastes happen to run that way,” Erum answered with discernible coldness.
“I meant in terms of understanding the question on the form–”
“Of course, excuse me,” Erum said. “But you see; the question asks if you have ever elikated mushkies forsically, and that makes all the difference.”
“Does it really?”
“Of course! The modification changes the entire meaning.”
“I was afraid that it would,” Jackson said. “I don’t suppose you could explain what forsically is?”
" I certainly can!" Erum said. Our conversation now could–with a slight assist from the deme imagination–be termed a forsically designed talk."
“Ah,” said Jackson.
“Quite so,” said Erum…
{ 
I love Robert Sheckley!}
Clearly you folks are misunderestimating the valuity of vocabularian normalcy.
Just now, as I returned to this thread, I became destinesiacal (couldn’t remember why I came here.)
When you quaff a carbonated drink, and it seems like a religious experience, you’ve had a metafizzy moment.
Dogs, other than pugs, that are unnecessarily growfy are simply dognacious.
Why DID I come in here, anyway?
I think that’s rather smideous.
This kind of logic is a very slipperly slope for defining language, and I wanna ride, baby!