- See also: Wiktionary:Beer parlour/Protologisms for related discussion.
Let's make a distinction which separates "sniglets" as a special category of protologisms or, better still, a separate category altogether. "Sniglets" are jokes, puns, silly neologisms. They hardly ever merit the term "should-be words." Granted, a lot of invented words are sniglet-type words, but i'd like to see them catalogued differently. They are a step below my concept of neologisms or protologisms. So, i think sniglet-type words should have to prove themselves worthy of the next step, protologisms, just as protologisms must prove worthy to be considered neologisms. Mixing them in, before they show any real merit beyond a momentary laugh, cheapens the list. When i look at new-word lists and find mostly sniglety items, i just go, "ho boy..." 188.8.131.52 23:48, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Real words on the list
A fine line
Is there a difference between the ostensible meaning of the term "protologism" and the already extant term "idiolect"? True, the latter refers to usage and not only to the deployment of individual words; but, it seems nonetheless to cover the intended meaning with sufficient precision. So, in my view, the term "protologism" is an unnecessary addition. I tend also to prefer less, and not more, jargon than is already in circulation... Anyway, based upon the current proposed definition, then, a phrasing such as "idiologism" seems more fitting - but, as per my argument above, this is best avoided! No substantial or even visible gap in lexis is filled by the adoption of either term.
Removing entries from the protologism list
Skipping around various protologism-related pages, I didn't see any policy or statement about removing entries from this do-not-add list of protologisms. WT:CFI states that a term that can be found in "permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year" is not a protologism by Wiktionary standards. But many of the entries on this list will meet these guidelines eventually, and some already have.
For example, I intend to create an entry for Google-fu because I've found seven independent published authors using this term, four of whom mention it as an aside to other, mostly non-computer topics. They include two books and five articles ranging over the period 2006–2008, and the term shows no sign of disappearing. So I think this term should be removed from WT:LOP, but I'm concerned that there's no obvious place to discuss this beforehand, and I'm a little uncomfortable being bold on an issue that has obviously generated a lot of energetic discussion.
(BTW, I know there's already an entry for -fu, but I personally have seen no published use of this generic term. Given that I travel in technical circles, I've certainly heard it, but I suspect that by far the greatest use of this neologistic form in the general public (and perhaps the only one in common use) is Google-fu, so I believe it should have a distinct entry.)
- Create it. Be bold - one reason this page exists is (I assume) so that we cna track usage of new words. --Jackofclubs 01:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)