/lang/ - Who here likes to create neologism? I'm very fascinated by the idea of lingual evolution and new words entering common usage, and thus I really enjoy learning and attempting to create new words. How about you guys?noisivelt (noun)

Email
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks) Hide country (this board displays your country when you post if this is unchecked)
Password	(For file and post deletion.)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf, pdf Max filesize is 8 MB. Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000. You may upload 5 per post.

File: 1424233869369.jpg (216.7 KB, 796x928, 199:232, 1396208648614.jpg)

Anonymous 02/18/15 (Wed) 04:31:09 No.511

Who here likes to create neologism? I'm very fascinated by the idea of lingual evolution and new words entering common usage, and thus I really enjoy learning and attempting to create new words. How about you guys?

noisivelt (noun) - any unpleasant noise, often used to refer to music

latigid - highly devoted to a cause

Anonymous 02/18/15 (Wed) 05:55:56 No.512

>>511
I created one in middle school:

lozzo - dirty bastard

Generally I'm not a fan of neologisms or the idea of lingual evolution, it seems to me that my language has been getting poorer with time, devolving rather than evolving, at least that's the impression I get from reading old books.

Anonymous 02/21/15 (Sat) 21:43:57 No.567

>>512
>devolving rather than evolving
How one would determine if a language is evolving or devolving?

Anonymous 02/21/15 (Sat) 22:41:22 No.570

>>567

Evolving would help you express more with less, devolving is the opposite.

Anonymous 02/22/15 (Sun) 03:22:09 No.572

>>567
Isn't that a tad simplicistic?

Anonymous 02/22/15 (Sun) 03:23:29 No.573

Meant to quote
>>570

Anonymous 02/22/15 (Sun) 09:16:06 No.574

>>570
Neologisms would then make it evolve.

>>572
Personally I don't think that there is a devolving (nor evolving). A language is what it is in a certain period of time, it changes accompanied by multiple factors and that's unavoidable.

Anonymous 02/22/15 (Sun) 11:46:09 No.578

>>574

Not necessarily, if you use more words to try and explain something it could become confusing and counterproductive.

It doesn't mean languages should be simplistic, they should be efficient.

Anonymous 02/22/15 (Sun) 12:10:41 No.579

>>578
>if you use more words to try and explain something it could become confusing and counterproductive
On the contrary, more words mean less ambiguity, therefore less confusion.

>they should be efficient
I don't really think efficiency is all in a language, aesthetic value should be taken into consideration as well.

Anonymous 02/22/15 (Sun) 14:27:05 No.581

>>579

What do you like more?:

"Ice" or "Water below its freezing temperature at which point it becomes solid"

Less is more, the less words are in the way between whatyou want to express and you express the better, and as i said before it's not abour it being simplistic it's about being efficient.

If those new words are necessary then they are welcome otherwise it's counterproductive.

Aesthetics are too ambiguous and subjective.