This isn't how I've always pronounced it. The way I learned is /flQkInQkInIhIlIpIlIfIkeIS@n/ - most of those /I/ can probably be /@/ though.
Also we shouldn't really be forcing fonts on people. I myself have a different font set which is capable of displaying IPA but now this article overrides that.
Maybe we should set some fonts in the default stylesheet somewhere though - I don't know enough about that. — Hippietrail 14:03, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I agree (mutatis mutandis) on the vowels (part of the appeal of the word is the "rhyme" of flocci-nauci- and nihili-pilifi-) but I think the c's would be pronounced like in an ordinary Latin loanword (/ks/ and /s/). But then, my dictionaries don't deign to list the word, so I can't check.
- I agree on the fonts too. My default is Gentium, which is fine, and I think the whole point of the wiki format is not having to worry about setting things like fonts. (Besides, that's what we use (X-)SAMPA for, too.) —Muke Tever 15:52, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps a clearer sounding UK pronunciation is to be found here http://howjsay.com/pronunciation-of-floccinaucinihilipilification --188.8.131.52 17:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I first encountered this word as flocci-PAUCI-nihilipilification when I was eleven and later discovered the alternate spelling floccinaucinihili-PIPI-fication. The former seems plausible: paucity = fewness or lacking, which would seem to fit, but I cannot verify the latter. I love the word for its inherent irony. In forty years of professional writing I have only managed to use the word once, even then it was tongue in cheek. A nearly unusable, sesquipedalian word with three possible spellings and it means, "to assess something as being worthless". Wonderful word!
SShackelSshackel 10:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, that is how I first learned it - in a Guiness Book of World Records, early 1970s edition. In fact, this is the first time I have come across the official spelling abover. As you say, pauci fits the suggest meaning better! Ptilinopus 05:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
This word was used to describe 19th C. explicators of the Old Testament, who found reference to "Christ behind every bush." Hence, floccinaucinihilipilificationist.JamesSutton 20:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- I first saw the word 'floccinaucinihilipilification' while leafing through the old Oxford dictionary, full 17 volume edition. It appears as a header word, leading one to speculate it was coined for this purpose only, as a humorous blip in a ponderous volume. Oxford defines it as "estimated as being of no value." the word immediately applies to itself as the definition contains fewer characters. Floccinaucinihilipilification is a manifestation of itself. It only barely escapes it's own meaning as an absurd description of an extreme. Zakalwe(Zakalwe (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC))
My non-IPA pronounciation of floccinaucinihilipification
Here it is: flocks-ih-naw-sih-nih-lih-pill-if-ih-kay-shin
Is it accurate? ~ThePCKid 00:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, I think it's 'flock-see-naw-see-ni-hi-li-pi-li-fi-kay-shun'. Dented42 07:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
floccinaucinihilipification is used in Timescape by Gregory Benford (1980)
This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.
I would like to see this attested in use (WT:CFI#Attestation, item 3; WT:CFI#Conveying meaning). Furthermore, I do no see occurrences of "flocci-nauci-nihili-pili-fication" as attesting "floccinaucinihilipilification". Searches: , , floccinaucinihilipilification at OneLook Dictionary Search --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've added four quotations of this spelling used to convey meaning, and there appear to be more on Google Books and Usenet. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 21:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Passed. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Longest in Hansard
According to this BBC article, quoting a source from Hansard, they are not going to include Michael Bryan, because it was in a select committee meeting, not considered part of parliamentary proceedings.
184.108.40.206 14:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)