Archive for February, 2010

chillax(ious)

February 3, 2010

On-line discussion in my Choosing a Variant course turned recently to the verb chillax and an adjective chillaxious derived from it (the latter a find by one of the students). Some of the discussion turned on the status of either or both of these items as words.

When they consider the wordhood question, many people’s first impulse is to ask whether an item is “in the dictionary” — a move that drives professional lexicographers nutso. The pros point out, first, that there are lots of dictionaries, intended for different audiences and purposes; then, that including an item in any particular dictionary is not to confer some special status on the item, but only to record that it is used and how; next, that, for a variety of reasons, every dictionary omits a great many items that are actually in use; and, finally, that the larger the dictionary, the more likely it is to list items that are obsolete, dialectal, technical, or otherwise specialized.

Here’s lexicographer Erin McKean in a Boston Globe column entitled “Chillax”, recommending that “If it works like a word, just use it” and listing some items that fall under the rule:

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

Chillax is not (yet) in the OED, nor is it in NOAD2 (which Erin edited), but it is listed in Wordnik (which Erin oversees), and it’s in the Merriam-Webster Online dictionary (labeled as slang) and of course in Grant Barrett’s Double-Tongued Dictionary (which describes itself as “a growing lexicon of fringe English, focusing on slang, jargon, and new words”). The DTD entry labels it as U.S. slang (though it’s now found on U.K. and Irish sites) and gives citations (all from the web) from 1994, 1998, and 2004.

Chillax is not only a fairly recent innovation, it’s also a portmanteau (of chill and relax), and it’s primarily used by young people — three considerations that set many people dead against it.  One peever dismisses it as “a made-up word used by annoying Gen-Yers”.

There are plenty of web hits for chillax, but very few for chillaxious; mostly I get the same two over and over: an account of going for a run on “a chillaxious Friday” and an extension of “chillaxious greetings to all you good people”.

Chillaxious appears to be chillax plus the adjective-forming suffix –ious (which combines with the final [s] of chillax to yield [ʃƏs]. But this looks like playful word formation, rather than ordinary word formation, since -ious mostly combines with nominal stems (as in ambitious, with the ambit- of ambition) rather than verbal stems. Perhaps it’s related to playful word formation with –licious (links to postings on the topic here).

Child meets idiom

February 2, 2010

Elizabeth Daingerfield Zwicky reports on her blog:

Opal: “I’m really tired.” Me: “Good, then get ready for bed spit-spot.” Opal, winsomely: “Sometimes when I’m really tired I don’t have to brush my teeth.” Me: “Those are times when you didn’t just eat a dried apricot.” Opal: “What difference does a dried apricot make?” Me: “They’re yummy, but they stick to your teeth something terrible.” Opal: “What?” Me: “The dried apricots.” Opal: “No, what thing terrible?” Me: “Umm, it’s difficult to explain.” Opal, astounded: “You don’t KNOW?” Me: “Ask your grandfather.” Opal: “You think he can explain it?” Me: “I’d certainly like to see him try.” Pause. Opal: “When I said ‘What thing terrible?’ I really meant ‘What terrible thing?'” Me: “Yes, I get that.” Opal: “Oh, good, you understood me.”

Well, the grandfather in question (me) doesn’t have a lot to say about the idiomatic adverbial something terrible ‘terribly, to a great degree’. It’s often hard to explain why idioms mean what they do, and it’s especially hard to give an explanation that will satisfy a child.

It’s not a lot of help to point out that something terrible is in a something Adj idiom family that also includes something fierce, something horrible, and something awful, as in these examples:

Try foliar feeding (I use fish/seaweed extract/kelp emulsion, sprayed on the leaves- it stinks something fierce but the plants love it!). (link)

But a serious part of the problem is how horrible most discount scents actually are. In particular, the new ‘body spray’ stuff for men stinks something horrible. (link)

If you’re willing to compound a developer from bulk chemicals, why not use good ones? This coffee stuff stinks something awful! (link)

I have no idea what the history of the idiom family is. But it’s clearly distinct from the NP construction with indefinite pronoun head and adjective postmodifier (“Something terrible happened to me yesterday”, “I met someone fascinating yesterday”, etc.) — the way Opal understood something terrible.

Talkin’ the talk

February 2, 2010

Today’s Zits: