@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 2 months agoLinguisticsmander.xyzimagemessage-square241fedilinkarrow-up11.33Karrow-down160
arrow-up11.27Karrow-down1imageLinguisticsmander.xyz@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 2 months agomessage-square241fedilink
minus-square@solrizelinkEnglish6•2 months ago“Cromulent” was a perfectly cromulent word as soon as someone thought of it.
minus-square@vonxylofonlinkEnglish2•2 months agoActually, by its original definition, the word “cromulent” is not cromulent.
minus-squareTlaloc_TemporallinkfedilinkEnglish2•2 months agoOnly when it was coined. It’s very cromulent now, and could be argued to have become cromulent as soon as the meta argument was understood: that good words are those that successfully convey meaning.
“Cromulent” was a perfectly cromulent word as soon as someone thought of it.
Actually, by its original definition, the word “cromulent” is not cromulent.
Only when it was coined. It’s very cromulent now, and could be argued to have become cromulent as soon as the meta argument was understood: that good words are those that successfully convey meaning.