When Sharon suggested that I might be referring to a non-existent word — in this case “apological” — I rushed to defend my word suggestion, going so far as to find a reference to it in a dictionary.

But perhaps I am wrong to have been so defensive. After all, Shakespeare himself coined literally thousands of new words, including (it is generally believed): abstemious, accommodation, addiction, aerial, arch-villian, auspicious, bedazzled, belongings, birthplace, bloodstained, bottled, coldhearted, countless, dauntless, dishearten, distasteful, droplet, employer, enrapt, enthroned, eventful, eyeball, fashionable, fitful, flowery, freezing, impartial, inauspicious, lackluster, laughable, lustrous, mimic, moonbeam, motionless, noiseless, perplex, quarrelsome, satisfying, scrubbed, silliness, time-honored, unchanging, uncomfortable, unearthly, unmitigated and well-read.

So perhaps I should be sad that “apological” already exists. After all, no language was ever harmed by a little neologism.

2 thoughts on “Neologism”

  1. I didn’t mean to put you on the defensive! I just let my curiosity get the better of me. I will never doubt you again…but you have been known to make up words 😉

    While you may not be the inventor of “apological”, just think how you have introduced it to a whole new audience, including Google. 🙂

  2. On the other hand, ShakeoSpearkio coining a word does NOT necessarily mean the word is “acceptable”! All word-additions in the “Englio-Dictio” collections are riddled by a single source- but which?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *