posted
Apparently, now it is exceptable to just throw -tastic to the end of any word. A national circulation I read today published the word wenchtastic. As in that outfit is Soo wench-tastic.
SoOo now, let's all be trendy and cool and throw tastic at the end of all our sentences. I think that would be postastic.
But seriously, in about five minutes aren't people going to figure out how dumb that is? I'm all for changing words and grammar to add to the voice, but I think there should be a line.
I think wenchtastic crossed that line. I think that cirulation is so recycletastic, and garbolitious. For shizzle.
quote:But seriously, in about five minutes aren't people going to figure out how dumb that is?
I think that's the definition of 'trendy.'
Also, I think the five-minute timer on a cooltastic word has beeped the moment a national circulation publishes it. You can use it as a regular word now, but if you use it for coolness effect, you'll look like a poser (spelling courtesy of Urban Dictionary, which is very cooltastic, of course).
posted
What peeves me is when perfectly good words shift meaning and no one informs me... my daughter finally instructed me a couple of years ago to quit using the word "thongs" in reference to footwear. "They're FLIP-FLOPS, Mom!"
I remember walking in a department store a while ago, following behind a couple of middle-school aged kids. I was fascinated by the fact that 1) I could hear what they were saying clearly, 2) they were American, and 3) I could not understand a WORD they were saying, as it was all slang. Amazing.
posted
heh heh, funner that's a bit like 'happify'
where I come from thongs are footwear and the other is a g-string. I don't know what the 'g' stands for, however I did note that Bach wrote a piece called 'Air on a G String' which is puzzling.
bach: putting the 'rock' back into baroque
[This message has been edited by Andrew_McGown (edited September 13, 2009).]
posted
About a hundred years ago they stuck -ola on the end of everything. Victorola. Motorola. One of those is still around.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess my real question is; when can we start using these words in stories? Do you think this works?
Swords crashed against dragon flesh, and the great beast opened her massive jaw and unleashed a craptacular burst of fire. Bodies burned and fell to the ground, one wenchtastic arm perturding through blood coated teeth.
quote:Swords crashed against dragon flesh, and the great beast opened her massive jaw and unleashed a craptacular burst of fire. Bodies burned and fell to the ground, one wenchtastic arm perturding through blood coated teeth.
Ew. No, that's like five kinds of wrong. I've found that part of the answer to a lot of when and how-many-questions is: balance. Use trendy words too close and too many times and three years down the road you sound outdated and a bit 'funny', like a grandma might sound to a tween.
I think you can use them, but your character should fit the word. I don't see James Bond-ish spies saying "Craptacular work, Q. Just splendorrific."
[This message has been edited by Nicole (edited September 14, 2009).]
posted
Ya’ know, I was boondoggling on the computer here and I peeped your radical post dude. Now, I’m a hep cat, man and I’m down with the current vernacular. Fashizzle, do you dig me? But I was bamboozled by your confabulating about a sick li’l bit of craptacular lingo. A little slang is a fundiferous thang. And that’s all I gots t’say. Chill. Peace out.
[This message has been edited by genevive42 (edited September 14, 2009).]
posted
"Freakin'" is just a substitute for another word that we can't use here by mutual agreement when we signed on.
I'm inclined to the theory-and-practice that, if you need a word or phrase for a particular use in your story, go ahead and invent one. It's worked in the past.
(I tend to be distracted by hunts for the origin of words. Take "genevive42"'s phrases. Some I can trace here and there---"boondoggling" from Tagalog, presumably dating from the American experience in the Phillipines (I think); and "fashizzle" from Double Dutch (also I think); "confabulating" and "fundiferous" in the style of Lewis Carroll's made-up words (but not, I think (also again) from Carroll's work itself); "craptacular," maybe, from "The Simpsons.") Other origins elude me altogether.)
posted
Actually, confabulate/confabulating, is a real word. It's in the dictionary and everything. (It means to chat.)
Fundiferous I made up.
Fashizzle was from whatever rapper was adding 'izzle' on to everything a few years back. Was that Snoop Dog? You knew the trend was dead when he was on tv teaching it to Barbara Walters.
Boondoggle is also in the dictionary. If you're right about the Tagalog origins robert, then I am impressed. (I certainly didn't have a clue when I used it.) I wanted to use horwswoggle too but couldn't figure out how to work it in.
posted
The first few pages of Google search of "fundiferous" turns up a bunch of sites associated with Dr. Seuss's "The Cat in the Hat" merchandise---I'm thinking it came from that book, though the text is not before me.
A similar search of "craptacular" does turn up some sites that attribute it to "The Simpsons." (Remember "kwijibo?")
"Fashizzle" pops up with a couple that attribute it to Snoop Dog---but with many more references.
"Boondoggle" is attributed to "U. S. slang"---I think it might come from Tagalog, but am less certain with more research. I might be thinking of the somewhat-similar-shaped word "boondocks," which does derive from Tagalog.
posted
I've never been a 'Cat in the Hat' fan so I'm surprised that fundiferous might have come from there. However, my shop is selling Dr.Seuss art and so maybe I picked it up by osmosis. I don't think it appears in any of the titles.
Darn, I thought I had come up with a cool new word.
posted
When some people use freakin' they may mean some other f-word, but for me I mean freaking. Freak meaning out of the ordinary, used as a verb freak could mean moving out of the ordinary. (Frick on the other hand is probably just another f-word.)
Making up words can get pretty demmuggledited, especially when you come up with a definition for a word that already has an old one. Perhaps you came up with the word all by yourself and someone else got it too. (Which happens pretty frequently with logical extensions of words like fantackular, which I made up but then years later found it said in a movie made before I was born.)
I also made up the word inflammable and made it mean non-flammable, but it turned out that it really means flammable (false story.)
posted
Actually, I was kinda amused by the use of "muggles" in the Harry Potter series...I gather it referred to those without magical powers...but it didn't always...my poking around in early 20th century slang here and there told me it was a term for a certain illicit (and illegal) substance popular among musicians (and others).
Then again, any word you think you made up, probably someone already has, and probably with a different meaning.
(I wonder if Rowling knew? Probably she knows now...)
posted
As a mother of 4, I feel well qualified to tell you that fundiferous is NOT from Cat In The Hat. Not the book anyway. My youngest son, especially, is obsessed with all things Dr. Seuss, so I can tell you without looking that:
quote:The sun did not shine. It was too wet to play. So we sat in the house All that cold, cold wet day.
I could go on, but I'm sure you're all quite impressed enough. Melanie
[This message has been edited by Unwritten (edited September 17, 2009).]
posted
A little more searching doesn't turn up a point of origin, but clarifies matters somewhat in that The Cat in the Hat is referred to as a "fundiferous feline." Could it be from some long-ago ad copy for the book? Or maybe some not-so-long-ago ad copy for the awful movie they made of it? Or somewhere in between, say at the Chuck Jones animated special?
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually made up Demmuggledited in the Pre-Harry Potter days, now every time I use it people go there. (Not that that is a bad place to be per se.) Perhaps I'll have to add another definition so I can say, "no, I mean the first meaning."
I think Rowling knows more and less than she says.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
