This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
- I'm afraid I'm not all that familiar with the rfv procedures, but it doesn't seem like this word really belongs here: its history and meaning are well known. The question is more whether neologisms from tv shows can be valid Wiktionary entries. It seems to me they should be as 1. the fanbase will inevitably end up using the word, and 2. people will inevitably end up looking up the word. Theshibboleth 10:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I think this word is perfectly cromulent. BD2412 T 23:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems to have entered general usage. Rfv passed. 06:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Restore RFV that apparently was removed incorrectly. Perusing b.g.c., I see three secondary sources that all pertain to the same source. --Connel MacKenzie 18:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Being a Simpson's television series neologism, a nonce word, it isn't really an "English word" since the Simpson's universe isn't real. This should be clearly noted somehow. (Of course, unless the word becomes absorbed into standard English.) __meco 18:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Is this perhaps a hapax legomenon? (Albeit one which is more likely to see further future use.) Some others are aequeosalinocalcalinoceraceoaluminosocupreovitriolic, honorificabilitudinitatibus, and pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. I consider WT:CFI as more or less Wiktionary’s equivalent of Wikipedia’s notability criteria (though more objectively defined). CFI is, of course, imperfect, and the way it omits hapax legomena — the most famous of which really ought to be included — is a failing thereof. Embiggen (and cromulent) ought to be retained, despite probably not satisfying the inclusion criteria. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 12:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, a hapax legomenon occurs only once in a corpus; embiggen is used repeatedly in the Simpsons, including several inflections ("embiggens", "enbiggened"). And look at this formal paper on superstring theory (see bottom of page 27), would be fairly simple to cite independent use. (WP has another reference to the use in D-brane theory. Robert Ullmann 12:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- I stand corrected. My criticism of CFI in re its omission of hapax legomena still applies however (nota bene that we don’t have aequeosalino…cupreovitriolic) — though not urgent, CFI should be tweaked to make these notable uniquities qualify for inclusion. As Robert as shown, this does not apply to embiggen; however, it looks like it may satisfy CFI… I’ll go add the superstring theory paper citation now. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I’ve just added a third citation, so this term is no verified. However, nota bene that the third citation is from 1884 — which means that the etymology may require a rewrite… (Actually, on second thoughts, the etymological reference to the Simpsons is gone, and this word was intended as a nonce in the 1884 use as well… never mind after all.) † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 21:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
RFV passed DAVilla 22:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Both words were formed by the same process of circumfixation; that’s the only link I’m aware of. † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Connection to Dr Suess' 'biggered'
I seem to recall that Dr Suess used 'biggered' in The Lorax. For example: "I biggered my factory". Aren't these different tenses of the same word? —This unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) at 07:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC).
- Biggered and embiggened would be synonyms and in the same tense, whereas (deprecated template usage) biggeredand biggering* would be different tenses (simple past / past participle, and present participle, respectively) of the same word. † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Search for citation:Notes and Queries: A Medium of Intercommunication for Literary Men
Okay, this is not a question of legitimacy, but rather citation. I searched the referenced 1884 text (gutenberg) for the word, and did not find it. So, my question is, is the citation of it's presence in the text "Notes and Queries: A Medium of Intercommunication for Literary Men" valid? Can someone reprove this, or should that cite be stricken, letting the validity of the word rely on it's use in 'The Simpsons's,' (which might in and of itself be valid.) —This unsigned comment was added by Whozatmac (talk • contribs) at 07:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC).
- See the fourth hit yielded by Google Book Search; the citation is legitimate. BTW, please sign your posts on talk pages and in other discussion fora with four tildes (4 × ‘~’). † ﴾(u):Raifʻhār (t):Doremítzwr﴿ 12:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- The Google Books search no longer turns up the text in question, but here is a link to page 135 of the scanned original 1884 text at the Internet Archive. Note that a search for "embiggen" in the plaintext version will report no matches, due to an understandable failure in optical character recognition, but the word clearly appears near the end of C.A. Ward's letter, a little over halfway down in the second column: "... but the people magnified them, to make great or embiggen, if we may invent an English parallel as ugly." --Shad0 04:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
'prebilabial intensifying verbal circumfix'
Has shown up for comedic effect in at least one webcomic, but is still obnoxious. It's needless to mention circumfixation, as the possession of pre- & suffixes already covers that; all (normal) circumfixes are verbal; and prebilabial is a reference to pronunciation, not etymology. It suits the tone of the word, but is still meaningless, inappropriate jargon. -LlywelynII 08:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
are we seriously making pages for fictional words from the simpsons now? or was it a real and obscure thing
- It doesn't matter where a word comes from, as long as it's in use outside the source. Many "real" words were "fictional" when Shakespeare used them for the first time. LtPowers (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)