In difesa dei neologismi

Nel Boston Globe, un articolo di Erin McKean, dal titolo Chillax. Inizia così:

Funner. Impactful. Blowiest. Territorialism. Multifunctionality. Dialoguey. Dancey. Thrifting. Chillaxing. Anonymized. Interestinger. Wackaloon. Updatelette. Noirish. Huger. Domainless. Delegator. Photocentric. Relationshippy. Bestest. Zoomable.

What do all these words have in common? Someone, somewhere, is using them with a disclaimer like “I know it’s not a real word {hellip}”

There’s no good reason for the “not a real word” stigma. They all look like English words: they’re written in the roman alphabet, without numbers or funny symbols. They’re all easily pronounced — not a qwrtlg or a gxrch in the group. From a purely functional point of view, they act like words: relationshippy in the sentence “Just come to the conclusion that boys don’t like talking about relationshippy things” behaves in exactly the same way that an adjective like girly would. And funner in the sentence “I don’t know a better person or a funner person to be around — I love you, Mom,” hinders the understanding of the reader not a jot. We all get that the writer really, really loves her mom, and changing funner to “more fun” wouldn’t improve their relationship — or that heartfelt tribute — one bit.

Postato da: IM

0 Responses to “In difesa dei neologismi”



  1. Lascia un commento

Lascia un commento

Effettua il login con uno di questi metodi per inviare il tuo commento:

Logo WordPress.com

Stai commentando usando il tuo account WordPress.com. Chiudi sessione / Modifica )

Foto Twitter

Stai commentando usando il tuo account Twitter. Chiudi sessione / Modifica )

Foto di Facebook

Stai commentando usando il tuo account Facebook. Chiudi sessione / Modifica )

Google+ photo

Stai commentando usando il tuo account Google+. Chiudi sessione / Modifica )

Connessione a %s...




Visitatori

  • 155,893 visitatori

a


%d blogger cliccano Mi Piace per questo: