Although I originally thought that this was a made up word, I was told many decades ago that it appears in “the dictionary.” I don’t know what dictionaries it appears in, but I now know that it does appear in several, complete with an etymology.
For example, it appears in “The Word Lovers Dictionary” (better known to many by its former name of Mrs Byrne’s Dictionary of…) and, since all entries in that dictionary must appear in at least one major dictionary, it appears elsewhere too.
At this point, it’s merely a matter of looking for supercalifragilisticexpialidocious in the dictionary and contacting their board for more answers.
Welcome to the SDMB. A link to the report is appreciated. Providing one can be as simple as pasting the URL into your post, making sure to leave a blank space before and after it. Like so: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/msupercali.html
Just because a word is in the dictionary doesn’t mean it wasn’t originally a made-up word. The words in the dictionary have to come from somewhere, after all. The word does appear in the Oxford English Dictionary
Of course. All words are originally made-up words. Most are derived from others, as is the case with the aforementioned. Others that appear in dictionaries, such as “googol” are clearly made-up in the sense that you implied, yet widely accepted.
The occurrences in Mary Poppins – with no definition and no consistent usage – gave the impression that it was “made-up” in a different sense of the word. Perhaps I should have stated myself better. It is not a nonsense word, as was portrayed in the movie.
Thank you for calling me on that one.
My point was that it does have an established etymology, and presumably has been researched by a dictionary editor.
As author of the report in question, I would have to say … if you can find the etymology, post it.
However, you should understand that editors and writers of dictionaries are under no onus to provide complete etymologies. The O.E.D. which bibliophage quoted above does the best job in the world of it, but in the case of a “nonsense” word, there is no way that they might be able to come up with a complete history of it. I believe my report covered as completely as possible the history of the word, but it’s entirely possible that the word actually has, as every source I’ve read seems to say, no meaning in relation to any other words, either modern or archaic, English or any other language, at all.
I’ve tracked the word back as far as 1918, according to the Sherman Brothers source and have written them directly. I would assume that since they were so sure about the 1918 date that they would have some more specific idea of the source. If I do ever hear back from them, I’ll post a follow-up report. But at present I’m not really expecting any great revelation which would show any deeper meanings to the word than we’re already aware of.
The definition I have is, “atoning for extreme and delicate beauty while highly educable.” (super=over + cali = beauty + fragilistic = delicate + expiali = to atone for + docious = educable)
While I strongly doubt that a dictionary editor would come up with both that definition and the corresponding origin without a specific historic usage that demonstrtates this, I don’t have any further details. Aside from the OED, dictionaries I own do not go into that level of detail.
The particular citation is from Mrs. Byrnes’ Dictionary of Unusual, Obscure and Preposterous Words (Now published as the Word Lovers Dictionary.) While criteria for entry in that dictionary are almost entrirely subjective, the one steadfast criterion is that the word appear in at least one major dictionary. Calling that an objective criterion may be circular reasoning in itself since the word “major” is subjective, and unfortunately I don’t know what other sources list this definition. But it does seem to exist.
I would submit then that all of this is pretty much moot. Unless you can show some historical use of the word in that context, it appears that the source you mention attached a fairly subjective definition to it, probably a great deal after the fact, especially considering some of the alternate spellings of the word which are closer to the source, as I demonstrated in my article.
I would agree that it this point it seems moot. It was the inclusion, rather than the definition, that was the subjective decision for the dictionary entry though.
While the possiblity exists that the earliest uses you cited may have been corruptions of the current form, that leaves no explanation of how they got corrected. When you consider that the Shermans were the ones who gave the reference for the earlier form, the unanswered question that remains is whether they came up with the current form through artistic license or by performing a search for the correct form. Unless the Sherman brothers had more to say about it, we are left with nothing definitive, nor is there another definition for the word that seems to relate to the word itself. So short of asking the Sherman brothers, or Mrs Byrne, I have no answer.
Um … okay, I think. I’m not exactly sure how you believe a word could start out “corrupted” and then correct itself through use over time. It seems to me that you’re stretching here a bit, looking for a more complicated answer when a simple one works much better.
I’m not saying that. I’m saying that the Sherman brothers did one of two things. Either they “corrupted” it more through artistic license, or they took the word that they remembered and found the original version so they could make it into a song and do it right. In the latter case, it would have “corrected” the word since the song boosted people’s familiarity with the word, thus rendering other forms too scarce to be noticed.
I agree it would not and could not have corrected itself through use. I also have no concrete reason to believe the former theory over the latter or vice versa. The artistic license theory would suggest that the etymology was a total fabrication, yet it made it into a major dictionary. I’m not saying that it can’t happen. Indeed many dictionary editors do not rely on first hand sources when the work of their peers supports their belief. On the other hand, the alternate explanations are far from clear. If I were a dictionary editor I wouldn’t rely on any of this to be definitive, which is why I agree it’s moot.
Perhaps by today’s standards it’s hard to imagine songwriters looking things up to make sure that they had them correct. I don’t find it such a stretch for 35 years ago, especially for people who might have know where to look. But I agree it’s far from concrete. From the beginning all I said was this is a place to look for answers, and not an answer itself. Chances are that some dictionary company has a little white card noting the source of that etymology, and that would be what I’d like to see.
Oh dear. Mrs. Byrne’s. Oh my. James Java (not an authority by any stretch) tears Josefa Heifetz a new one in this review, but does not mention the entry for “supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.” It is certainly true that Mrs. Byrne’s is in no way “a major dictionary,” and Ms. Heifetz is in no respect a lexicographer. Lifting her entries from other dictionaries, including those entirely fictional, without proper attribution, I find it no stretch at all to dismiss her work entirely. It’s fit for amusement and nothing more.
Arrgh. That wasn’t really a dangling participle, it’s a missing phrase. That should read “Lifting her entries from other dictionaries, including those entirely fictional, without proper attribution, she has made no effort toward scholarship, and I find it no stretch at all to dismiss her work entirely.”
You’re postulating, based on no evidence at all except one quote from a source of demonstratably questionable veracity that there was a word that got corrupted over time and that the Sherman brothers went back and researched it in order to get the correct spelling for what is at best a nonsense song.
I haven’t seen UFO researchers that went that far out on a limb.
Considering that the Sherman brothers were songwriters and not scholars, I’m guessing that proper etymology was not their chief concern.
Incidentally, you might be interested in my next mailbag report, "Babylonian Creation Mythos as Seen in the Derivation and Etymology of 'Ooo Eee Ooo Ahh Ahh Ting Tang Walla Walla Bing Bang. ’ "
Did you know that supercalifragalisticexpialidocious is rhyming slang for Ghandi?
No?
See here:
Gandhi walked barefoot everywhere to the point that his feet became quite thick and hard.
Even when he wasn’t on a hunger strike he did not eat much and became quite thin and frail.
He also was quite a spiritual person. Furthermore due to his diet he ended up with very bad breath.
He became known as a super-calloused fragile mystic plagued with halitosis.
