Onomatopoeic enthusiasms

I’ve been steering clear of the “On Language” column of late, because, really, who could replace William Safire in his persnickety-ness? But I’m kind of loving today’s column, by Bryan A. Garner, on “portmanteau” words, or neologisms, words that blend two common terms. Think webinar and brunch, blog (which, interestingly, my e-mail spellcheck persists in not recognising), palimony.

Garner takes on the task of trying to figure out why some mash-ups take — smog — and some don’t — galumph. It’s some sort of intersection between utility and slang, he seems to suggest, with the latter less fixed. So, a decade or two in the future, will we be tweeting or punctuating our messages with emoticons?

Really, though, who could not love a writer who employs the phrase “onomatopoeically evocative” to explain why chortle (invented by Lewis Carroll in Jabberwocky, who knew?) has endured? “Think of a portly chum,” he urges.  I can’t but.

5 Responses to “Onomatopoeic enthusiasms”

  1. [...] the risk of becoming the William Safire of profanity, I’m going to take one lastmore shot at articulating a kind of philosophy of [...]

  2. [...] — but I’m taken aback by some of the words that made the list. Hubris. Desultory. And holy William Safire, Kristallnacht?! Plus, I’m a bit bummed that some of my all-time favourites make the list, [...]

  3. [...] standardising, and organising profanity. I mean, I’m like Hugo Black when it comes to blue words; I support them unequivocally. (Unless they [...]

  4. [...] but rather when you know what you want to say and the words at your disposal just aren’t evocative enough. That’s the problem with [...]

Leave a Reply