I'm coining a word right here, on this site, at this moment. I Don't think I can copyright a single word, but why not? In case I can, I just did. But permission is hereby granted to use freely.
I wrote this a few weeks ago, and was considering leaving in perpetual draft form, never to be posted, but then, having kicked around the concept over coffee one morning with some friends, something happened. There was a segment on television that demonstrated the serious danger of the use of "factoidwords."
Does this diary belong here, rather than a lexicography blog? Beyond the formal goal of electing Democrats to office, Dailykos has a different, higher order goal; returning rationality to American political life. If we do this effectively, the current Republican cabal will dissolve like the Wicked Witch of the West when doused with a bucket of water. Our tool to achieve this is language. Our messages depend on words; clear, precise units of discourse, that, at the minimum, must have an accepted meaning.
Read on for the definition of "factiodword" (and the TV segment that clinches the case for its importance)
Factoidword: noun- a word with two current meanings that are contradictory and not readily discernible by context.
English dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive, they show how we actually talk and write, rather than how were supposed to. And since college instructors now serve at the pleasure of their students whose high ratings are essential, they are loath to be so rude as to correct misuse of words. So, words tend to shift meaning as the public changes its use of them. A new usage, previously erroneous, if used enough, becomes an alternate meaning.
Usually, we can decipher which definition is meant based on context or source. Slang is a good example. If we hear something described as "bad" in hip hop circles, we know it means "good." So bad is excluded from the category of "factoidword"
If a word's meaning is not clear among readers of this website, all of us well versed in standard English, it is a candidate for inclusion. I was confused recently by a comment where someone said they had perused a diary. I have my Miriam-Webster dictionary right on the tool bar of my browser, so I checked it out. Normally that clarifies the issue but this time it didn't,
Now take a second and think of your definition of the word "Peruse"
Pause
Pause
Pause
The definitionis:
1 a : to examine or consider with attention and in detail : STUDY b : to look over or through in a casual or cursory manner
2 : READ; especially : to read over in an attentive or leisurely manner
I didn't know whether this comment meant (1a)he had examined it in detail or (1b) casually looked it over. And the difference is meaningful. I have written diaries and gotten comments, sometimes irate ones, that seemed based on reading the title and the first few words of a paragraph or two. They perused it. But did they peruse it?
Now let's go to another, the root word of the new category, "factoid." Now what do you think it means, fact or not a fact?
Pause
Pause
Pause
Whatever you said, you're right. Once again from Mirriam-Webster:
1 : an invented fact believed to be true because of its appearance in print
2 : a briefly stated and usually trivial fact
Both definitions imply information that is not monumental in importance. But in one case it is something that is true and in the other it is something that is false. Truth, even small truths, are sometimes the stuff of larger truths. And every statement provides evidence, for someone who happens to be knowledgeable on the subject, whether the source is careful, reliable and trustworthy. Not to know whether this word means that the fact is true or false makes this a very special word. It deserves to be flagged, to warn users of standard English that such words are out there, and they should avoid them or clarify their meaning if they want to use them.
I would restrict "factoidword" to only those words were the definitions are contradictory, not simply differences of degree. So, "unique" would not be included even though it has two meanings "sole, or the only one" or "rare, or unusual." In fact, I'm not sure the two meanings are contradictory at all, since the second one means that subjectively the speaker knows of nothing like the unique subject.
Now for the TV segment that made me realize this is such a serious problem that I felt obligated to share it with those on this site:
A raging fire all because there was no category of factoidword to warn Dr. Nick of this danger. And the scanning the dictionary wouldn't have shown the contradiction, since it only gives the single definition that "Inflammable" means "Flamable" as Dr. Nick and Homer found out the hard way.
I know the writing skills of the readers on this site, so I welcome nominations of any other words, (penultimate, perhaps?) with discussion of whether they fit my definition.
---------------------
As they say, "nothing is new under the sun" and so it is with my "factoidword" category. It has been discussed under these two terms, antagonyms,or autoantonyms. But the concept should be more salient, especially when they are the real cause of miscommunication.
Stamp out Factoidwords--and also antagonyms and autoantonymsan