Another thread on this board is discussing which language has the most words. I have often wondered how “word” is defined in this context. For example, in English many, maybe most, verbs can have the prefix “re” added to them. Are all these “re’s” considered separate words? Is “re-congratulate” considered by word mavens a separate word? How about “re-re-congratuate”? Are these words added to the list of total words in the English language?
I’m not sure that “most” verbs can have the prefix “re” - although I’m sure “re-congratulate” isn’t a word. I suspect the term would be “congratulated again.”
As to your question, bona fide words with the aforementioned prefix would be added to the list as separate words.
Yes. “What” *is *a word.
If adding a “re” to an existing word in Scrabble gets me all the points of the existing word, then it is a legitimate word.
I base many life decisions by referring to the rules of a board game.
Linguistically speaking, “a word is the smallest free form that may be uttered in isolation with semantic or pragmatic content (with literal or practical meaning).” Now, that definition is from Wikipedia, but it jibes with what I was told in my linguistics class in undergrad. In short, if I say red to you, even with no context whatsoever, you get some meaning from that, if nothing beyond a sense of a color.
If you change the word in such a way as to change its meaning, then you have a new word, rules of Scrabble notwithstanding.
Was trying to edit:
If you change the word in such a way as to change its meaning, then you have a new word, rules of Scrabble (which I’m unfamiliar with) notwithstanding. Most dictionaries will not bother to print separate definitions for all the various words which differ from their base meanings only because of suffixes which create easily predictable alternate meanings, so you can’t really go by the elementary school “if it’s not in the dictionary, it’s not a word” rule.
So walk and walking are two different words. As would be invited, uninvited, and reinvited. But if a language is agglutinative (allows the creation of words by joining words together) like German, do we really get to use combinatorics to calculate all possible joined words?
I’d say “recongratulate” is a perfectly valid construction.
I think it depends. It’s been a long time since I studied linguistics.
If you’re comparing them in the constructions I walk v. I am walking, I don’t think you would count them as two different words, because those are just aspects of the same verb.
If you are comparing the word walk as a noun (I went for a walk) v. a verb (She saw him walking down the street), then obviously they are.
And just as obviously, it’s very complex when you’re comparing words that are so closely related as to be spelled and pronounced the same way. 
I don’t know. I never heard that word before I moved to Springfield.
The word “word” is vague. We linguists often use more specific terminology to make it clear whether we want to include or exclude inflected forms, compounds, and so on. In my work we use the terms “lexeme”, “lemma”, “lexical unit”, and “multiword expression” a lot. Wikipedia or any introductory text on linguistics can probably define them to your satisfaction.
If you can write it (or say it) and have its intended meaning understood by your reader (or audience), then why shouldn’t it be considered a word? What else would it be?
There is printed precedent for it being used as a word. I really don’t see a problem with it, and it fits all the definitions of a word I have.
Words which are non-commonly used but can be easily understood, may be misunderestimated as non-words, when actually they are entirely cromulent neologisms. If people pick them up and use them, they can permanently enter the lexicon, irregardless of the wishes of purists.
Anything that embiggens a person’s vocabulary is all right.