If a dictionary entry makes it valid, then cromulent is a perfectly cromulent word as well. From Dictionary.com
Well, I also hate the word signage, but it has a use, as you pointed out, for graphic design shops. Signs are counted. Signage is measured in square feet. If you have 100 square feet of signage, you might have one 10x10 sign, or 100 one by one signs. You will be charged based on the number of signs and the amount of signage.
Your own link takes me to a page where the word symptom is linked, and in fact, “the symptom complex of a disease” means “the symptoms of a disease”, “complex” being a long winded and snarky way of not using the letter “s” to indicate that you are talking about something in plural.
He could have said “symptoms”.
She could have said “signs”.
Og forbid anyone talk about have 100 square feet of signs, or a 100 square foot sign. That would be so obtuse. How would anyone ever understand my meaningissity? :rolleyes:
Signage is a bullshit word. Get over it.
Why force the word “signs” in there when there is a perfectly good word–signage–that fits more precisely the intent of the sentence? It’s the dumbing down of language that really chaps my ass.
small nitpick…aren’t all words made up at some point? Does the OP feel that a certain date is the cut off for new words, or that some great “word council” has to approve words before they are spoken?
OR
Adding -age to the end of a word doesn’t make you (or the language) smarter.
No, the OP is just tired of jackasses trying to make themselves sound smarter by adding extra syllables onto words that already mean what they are trying to say.
It’s already been explained that “signage” and “signs” are not the same word. A person correctly using “signage” is not simply trying to say “signs” while being fancy about it.
Rail against people who use “signage” when they MEAN signs, and that’s fine. But deriding the word signage itself, or similar words, when it has a perfectly valid and separate meaning is just silly and prescriptivistiastical.
Of course, intentage and assage are not actual words with actual meanings. Wordage is, but you used it incorrectly. Whatever point you were trying to make has fallen at the first hurdle.
Well, again, it could be one sign, or a hundred, but it’s still 100 square feet of signage. So whichever way you’re going to cut it up, you need 100 square feet of material. It’s not the same as saying 100 signs, because that could mean 100 signs each 10x10. That would be more signage, but the same number of signs. It is a vey narrow use, but I heard guys who were middle-aged in the early 90s use it without hesitation.
My advice to a writer would be to actually lay out what he or she means to say. In this case, if the problem is in fact the overall design and implementation of highway and road signs, I would recommend saying THAT instead of “signage”.
Saying “an example of the consistently poor design of the highway signs throughout the Seattle metropolitan area” makes it clear where the blame lies.
Often, although not always, words like signage are used with the intent of obfuscating exactly what the problem is or where the responsibility lies. Be clear.
Sailboat
“Signage, Signage, everywhere a signage Blocking out the scenery breaking my mind Do this, don’t do that, can’t you read the signage.”
Yeah, I see what you mean.
Be clear.
Exactly.
The Sailboat gets it, fercrissakes. Thanks.
Making up words to sound smarter is illogical. Your assertion of the intent of these individuals is unlikely.
Exactliosity.
Hehehe…you said “Og.”
I know the derivation of all these words. I’m an expert in nameology.
I’m almost too scared to ask about the OPs opinion on “appraise” vs. “apprise” and “compose” vs. “comprise”.
I’d be delighted to oblige your high-, and amend my verbi- with extreme alacr-, but I don’t know how to shove anything up my “up my” ass.