A Mr. John Shakespeare [I know! Isn't that perfect?] had a question for me, and kindly gave his permission for me to share my answer with all of you.

I just read your interesting and amusing piece, Neologizing 101, in the NY Times. [I did not ask him to say this. —Ed.] Neologizing is the invention of a word; invention seems (to me, at least) to imply copyright. So my questions are: How does one prove invention of a new word? And, how does one copyright that invention, and make royalties (ie; /moolah/) from it?
I realize I'm not the first person to ask you such questions. I've been having a lot of trouble finding the answers on the net, though. So, I would be very grateful of any hints you could throw my way.
Respectfully,
John Shakespeare

First off: IANAL (I am not a lawyer), trademark or otherwise. Real lawyers should feel free to weigh in, that's what blog comments are for.
The short answer, though, is that a word is not copyrightable; you can register a
word as a trademark, connected to a product or service, but you can't copyright it.
This is, I think, because a copyright is a very limited right, and not an absolute property right. Copyrights came about to encourage authors to write by allowing them a limited monopoly over their work; as you can well imagine, that doesn't quite work for words. A word, once created, belongs to the language, not to you. You must share it for it to be effective as a word. (And most neologizers need no encouragement to share, whether monetary or any other sort!)
And even though a word is invented, you can't patent it — again, because the point of a new word is to get it into use, not to restrict its use. Patents are less about granting a right for YOU to use something and more about keeping OTHER people from using it — which doesn't make sense for words: "Here's my new word, sorry, you can't speak, read, or write it." Words have no value when kept apart from the language as a whole. More practically, there is no mechanism for charging a fee for the use of any particular word. (How on earth could you? Even if you could do it for print & broadcast media, you couldn't do it for casual speech … )
Trademarks are the association of a word with a particular product, so as to protect the consumer (who wants to know that their Bon Ami powder is, in fact, Bon Ami, and not some other thing). They are not a license to control the use of a word in all situations. The fact that we have Apple Computers and Apple Records and Apple Tours doesn't mean we are suddenly barred from calling the fruit an apple, too. And you can Google things and get spam in your inbox and Roomba your living room … trademark owners don't like the use of their trademarks as verbs but they cannot FORBID it.
It's better to look at your new word creation as a gift you give back to the language as a whole, rather than as a land-grab you can monetize. The English language has (ostensibly) been good to you; why not give something back?
[Have a question for the Dictionary Evangelist? There's an email link up there on the right …]

Labels: copyright, legalities, neologism, patents, trademarks

Many thanks to Jen who sent me the link to this:


(The stockist is sold out of it (sadly) but they'll let you know when it's back if you ask them nicely.)
Enjoy your virtual alphabet-themed chocolate. More new lexicographical content shortly.

Labels: candy, scrabble

Yes, yes, you heard me. But it's for a good cause. (And anyway, I've posted this too late for you to actually sign up to cheat at Scrabble; now you can just go watch other miscreants cheat at Scrabble. I meant to post this Monday … but I suppose you can just consider this as me being over-protective.)
826NYC.org, a non-profit that encourages young writers, is having a fundraiser Scrabble tournament TOMORROW, January 19, at their offices at 372 Fifth Avenue in Brooklyn.
The tournament is a benefit for their writing programs, and it has a twist: teams sign up and raise sponsorship money. Each team is allowed a certain number of "cheats" that they buy with the money they raised. So the more money a team raises for 826NYC, the more likely they are to win. Genius!
Here's the price list:
1. Trade out a letter—$25
2. Wheel of Fortune: buy a vowel—$50
3. Flip a letter over and make it blank—$100
4. Add 10 to any letter’s value—$150
5. Add Q, Z, or X to any word, anywhere—$200
6. Passport: play a word in any language—$250
7. Consult the dictionary for one turn—$300
8. Consult the Scrabble word list for one turn—$400
9. Reject another team’s word—$450
10. Invent a word (must have a definition)—$500
Obviously, I'm most interested in #s 7 and 10. For #7, which dictionary are they going to use? A big dictionary is going to be much more valuable than a little one, and a dictionary of abbreviations would be excellent for humorous effect … And for #10 — I hope they record the new words and definitions!
I'm also very pleased that inventing a word is the priciest cheat. Just as it should be …
If any of you gentle readers attend, would you leave a report in the comments? I'd go myself, save for the trifling inconvenience of living in Chicago …

Labels: competitions, scrabble

Many thanks to Judah, who just sent me this link to the webcomic Bathos, which includes the new words "Oxfording" and "resoneged". Go. Click.
I suppose it's worth mentioning that for YEARS I had and wore a t-shirt that said "I never should have used the word bathos", huh? It's a long story, but no, I don't have any connection with the folks behind this comic (other than having thoroughly enjoyed it).

Labels: comics, neologism, OED

I had a piece in the Boston Globe's Ideas section yesterday about Christmas Superstitions.
If you love reading about old superstitions (and I really do), hie yourself to Google Book Search and look for British Popular Customs, Present and Past. Be warned, though, that reading aloud from this to others is something that can be done only in very small doses. There's a limit to how many "Did you know"s? most people want to hear ….

Labels: unrelated

[picture from Flickr — thanks, bradlauster!]
David Smay sent me a link to a lovely long article in the Guardian about using unusual words: From albedo to zugunruhe, in which the author, James Meek, talks about words he hasn't known and his own uneasiness about using rarer (but more exact) words.
It also has this great quote in it:

The point at which a man starts finding discrepancies in dictionaries is probably the point at which he should go for a long holiday to a place that is sleazy and restoring.

My take (and yes, I know it's self-serving, in that I make dictionaries) is that, in belletristic writing, when presented with an otherwise-equal choice between a fun, unusual word, and a boring, commonplace word, you should always choose the unusual one. Why deny your readers the "aha!" moment of finding a perfectly apt, elegantly descriptive word?
(Of course, I also think "when in doubt, wear orange," so you perhaps should take this with a grain of salt.)
Literary writing is a way to introduce readers not just to facts and ideas and emotions but to beautiful words: imagine writing a guidebook to a place that left out the best restaurants because they weren't on the subway line … if something is worthwhile, people will find a way to get there. If a word is perfect, people will figure it out.
I am NOT suggesting that technical or workaday writing should be full of fifty-cent words; "This way to the egress" is a scam, not an invitation to learning. (Or, at least, not an invitation to learning that is received gratefully!) But literature, long-form journalism, and essay writing allow for more lexical scope, and you should take advantage of it, to the best of your ability. Why not?

Labels: sesquipedality

I keep meaning to post versions of the various talks I've given (the ones that are not videos) but I haven't yet, for myriad reasons … including trying to get actual work done. But the Ignite talk I gave was pretty short (five minutes!), so I thought I'd try to put it up here.

Slide 1: I always include a definition of 'lexicographer' when I talk; keeps people from elbowing their neighbor and asking 'what did she say she did again'?

Slide 2: Because this was a tech talk, I also pointed out that I was a geek. (I wore this skirt, by the way, for visual reinforcement of the concept.)

Slide 3: We all think of dictionaries as very concrete, solid objects. (You wouldn't want to drop one on your foot, would you?) But actually …

Slide 4: Dictionaries might be solid, but their innards are really collections of ABSTRACTIONS. Definitions are made by taking a lot of specific datapoints (uses of a word in context) …

Slide 5: … and averaging them out to a more general meaning.

Slide 6: This may seem really obvious to YOU … [note: this is my favorite Flickr image EVER]

Slide 7: But many people think that lexicographers just "decide" what a word means. Nope! That would be really hard work … it's easier (and more accurate) to look at examples of use.

Slide 8: What can you tell about this word [pirgate] from these examples? Well, I bet you know it's a verb, that you can do it TO something, and that it's something you might not want to do. This is all information you know implicitly because you know how English works.

Slide 9: How about now? Now you know this use is a noun, and it's a kind of person — the kind of person you don't want to be, probably.

Slide 10: The truth is that "meaning" is created by lots of little points of data, in the same way that persistence-of-vision effects are created by lots of little points of light. A diffuse set of data can look pretty solid if it moves fast enough …

Slide 11: But you really do have to have ENOUGH data for this persistence-of-vision effect to work. If I say a guy is wearing a tux and holding a martini, is he a waiter, or is he James Bond? You don't have enough data to tell.

Slide 12: So lexicographers in their labs try to distill all those usage data points into high-octane liquid definitions.

Slide 13: Now, if you want to brew your own, and want a lot of examples of use, there are more places than ever to try to find them …

Slide 14: Although it doesn't work for every word … (especially not 'pirgate', since I made it up).

Slide 16: And, of course, the examples you DO find might not be helpful.

Slide 16: The big question, though, isn't really WHERE to find enough examples — that's pretty straightforward. The big question is: if we agree that dictionary definitions are abstractions of meaning, is there a better way to represent those abstractions than this:

Slide 17: … the boring old print dictionary?

Slide 18: Could we show relationships between examples in a less-linear way?

Slide 19: Could we convey those abstractions in a more powerful way?

Slide 20: That's the problem I'm working on every day … [go visit my blog, yadda yadda, big plug for Creative Commons and the awesome nice sharing people on Flickr.]
(All my presentations are Creative Commons-sharealike, by the way, so if you ever want to remix me into a rap song or create a dictionary-talk novel or whatever, go right on ahead. If you see me speak somewhere and want a copy of my slide deck, just email and ask.]
And that's what I talked about at Ignite last Thursday. More or less. I didn't make any notes, so this is from what I remember of what I said off the top of my head!

Labels: speaking, talks

I completely forgot to post that I'm talking tonight at the Chicago Ignite!
I'll be talking about dictionaries. (Whoa! Surprised you there, did I?) I'll also be bringing the estrogen to the geek potluck (in other words, I'm the only woman speaking).
It's at the Debonair Social Club, 1575 N. Milwaukee Ave. Event starts at 6 p.m., I'm talking at the end of the first block (so close to 9 p.m.)
If you're Chicago-local, hope to see you there! (If you're not Chicago-local, it's not too late to move here, y'know. I mean, it is for TONIGHT, but not in the larger context of your life plan. I'm just sayin'.) Don't let the four inches snowfall predicted for this evening put you off, or anything.

Labels: Chicago, events, speaking

Don't get me wrong — I loved the *idea* of Twitter, I just didn't think a constant stream of messages such as
12:02 "Reading New Scientist"
12:11 "Still reading New Scientist"
12:45 "In front of computer, reading the Internet"
would be interesting. To me, or to anyone else.
But (and there's always a 'but'), Twitter is perfect for a task that I've been having trouble managing: immediate new-word filing. If I'm at my desk, sure, I can append any new-to-me words I find in my reading to a file. And if I'm out and about, I can make a note on my Treo, or in my Moleskine. But they aren't all in the Same Place, and so consolidation has to happen. (Note: I am not so good — actually, frakkin' terrible — at consolidation, of any sort.)
Twitter lets me post a WOTD (word-of-the-day) from anywhere, and then it is nicely stored ALL IN ONE PLACE. The limit of 140 characters per 'tweet' keeps me from rambling on and on. And it's semi-public (you can follow my messages if you like, I'm emckean on Twitter) which allows for the possibility of feedback.

If you really want a reliable, highly structured WOTD — my Twitter feed is not for you. (What you want is Double-Tongued Dictionary.) But if you just want to ride shotgun while I read, go ahead and add me to your "follow" list.
If *you* want to do the same thing with the words you notice, go ahead and use the tag "wotd:" — Twitter has a 'track' function, so if you prefix your messages with this tag, I'll be able to follow your new words easily. Fun, no? (BTW, Twitter is free.)
I'll try to keep my Twitter feed just for the WOTDs — although a few rollerskating or "seeing-cool-music" tweets might make it through. Just a warning.

Labels: neologism, twitter, wotd