Is this word itself a protologism?
protologism
A *what*? Okay, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Protologism says that "protologism" is Wiktionary jargon, meaning "a newly coined word or phrase defined in the hope that it will become accepted into the language; a recently created term possibly in narrow use but not yet in general use." By that standard, I suppose "protologism" is itself a protologism; but I really don't see the difference between "protologism" and "neologism" in the first place. It just seems as if they needlessly created a synonym of "neologism"; I don't get the point.
Yeah, I too wonder why they even created the word in the first place. It seems unnecessary as we already have the word "neologism", so why not just use it?
On that page they actually give a citation of someone calling something "a neologistic protologism." ;-)
I believe the distinction between proto~ & neologism is not insignificant. Anything can be a protologism:they're just made-up words. However, as I understand it, to be a neologism a word must have some degree of currency.
Wiktionary defines "neologism" as "a word or phrase which has recently been coined; a new word or phrase"; most other dictionaries seem to give similar definitions.
So I suppose that by these definitions, a neologism may or may not have currency, whereas a protologism definitely doesn't have currency yet. Protologisms, then, would be a subset of neologisms. (This leads me to think that "protologistic neologism" would actually be more accurate than "neologistic protologism", regarding the citation that I mentioned above.) But I'm still not sure if this distinction is really necessary.
So I suppose that by these definitions, a neologism may or may not have currency, whereas a protologism definitely doesn't have currency yet. Protologisms, then, would be a subset of neologisms. (This leads me to think that "protologistic neologism" would actually be more accurate than "neologistic protologism", regarding the citation that I mentioned above.) But I'm still not sure if this distinction is really necessary.
... unless you were to argue that a thing without any currency is not really a word.
<<peut-être que le protologisme est un pseudonéologisme ?>>
Je crois que oui.
"Neologistic protologisms" and "protologistic neologisms" should be listed on another thread:
http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t6811.htm
It's amazing how people who make their lives more complicated.
Sorry, but I'm not a neologist by nature. To be more precise, I have nothing against coining new words as long as there is any sense in doing so, which is obviously not this case.
Je crois que oui.
"Neologistic protologisms" and "protologistic neologisms" should be listed on another thread:
http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t6811.htm
It's amazing how people who make their lives more complicated.
Sorry, but I'm not a neologist by nature. To be more precise, I have nothing against coining new words as long as there is any sense in doing so, which is obviously not this case.