A Type-3 word for which the Type-2 might be "downy," or the Type-1, "fuzzy"

fuzzy wuzzy was a bear.
fuzzy wuzzy had no hair.
fuzzy wuzzy wasn't very fuzzy was he?

i dunno, hursute is a type 1 word for me, and for many of my friends and family.

and while i don't think i have ever used the word hursutulous, or even ever hear it spoken, i wouldn't find it an ususualy word.

I have on occasion used Hirsute in conversation but never hirsutulous. Hirsute is possibly a type 2 for me. What would the type 1 be for my situation? Or am I still missing the point of what type a word is classified as?

This is a Type-4 word , A Type-4 four syllable word.

re: Or am I still missing the point of what type a word is classified as?

there is supposed to be a point to DH 'class system' that extends beyond his incomplete and not fully developed idea (of type 1 or type2, or type 3 words)?

Oh. i just saw it as a very personal, idiosyncratic, and not fully developed idea of classification that he obsessed about.

i have my obsessions, occationally i talk about them here. then i remember, they are my obsessions, and while they let others learn about me, (sometimes to my detriment!) they are generally only of interest (well, obsessive interest!) to me.

dale seems to think we should all share his obsessive interest. and make them our own.

he thinks because a word has no interest, or little use to HIM, it should have no interest and little use to any one else.
(that says something about how he thinks, doesn't it?)

I have as many categories for words as there are words. So, hirsute is a category(hirsute) word, and hirsutulous is a category(hirsutulous) word. This way even neologisms have their own category. Great system and unambiguous. My questions are usually about category(category) words and category(catgeory(word)) categories.

Yes

> he thinks because a word has no interest, or little use to HIM, it should have no interest and little use to any one else.
(that says something about how he thinks, doesn't it?)

how do you get that?

If this question is for me. (you never know) I would say:
hirsutulous is a word my Online battery of dictionaries would not answer to. That's the 4 for. Just playing Dale's game. Hirsute, I could find.

I can never know how someone else thinks. Not really.

To me all words and contexts have the same difficulty . The simple and the difficult ones. (and I can always be wrong)

On onelook, this word only appears in one general dictionary and one botanical dictionary.

The general dictionary (InfoPlease) says it means hirtellous and that hirtellous means "minutely hirsute. Also,hirsutulous." I find "minutely" somewhat vague. Is that small hairs, a small patch of hairs, sparse hairs, ...

I liked the botanical dictionary's "slightly hirsute" better - until I found that they define hirsute as "Pubescent with rather coarse or stiff hairs." (^_^)

What are the types that you speak of with no pretense of archaisms?

I gather that type 1 words are used in everyday verbal communications, and type 2 words are somewhat more difficult. Are the distinctions purely subjective, or is there some rubric? How many types are there?

As I understand it, Type 1 words, as you say, are used in everyday verbal communications, Type 2 are words you recognize but wouldn't normally use, Type 3 are words that you have to look up in a dictionary. This categorization is purely subjective; one person's type 3 word might be another's Type 1.

> This categorization is purely subjective

it is indeed. however, I think it works on a basic level. think three overlapping bell curves.

Fal, Cur: Yes, good. Eta has also defined the categories pretty well in

http://wordsmith.org/board/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/165723/page/1/fpart/5

Join me in my quest to proliferate the Type-2 which however wouldn't generally be considered "difficult". Of course the distinctions are somewhat subjective but it's fun to speculate on the divarications

The last is of Type-3; bestowed herewith only for its heuristic value but in a spirit of persiflage

that link goes all wonky for me, try this:

language taxonomies

that's a link to the whole thread; I think it's worth reading. there are others who think it's not.

Especially not for Helen, bless her soul; but thank you for the link

> Especially not for Helen

yeah, she doesn't like you.

dale, you got off on the wrong foot with me with your original def'n of type-3 words: Snooty words not used much in everyday conversation, eg, cachinnation

for me, this is remindful of those who railed against the earliest English lexicographers (16th C) who included "inkhorn terms" in their dictionaries; that is, "dark words" or Latinate neologisms (such as employed by a variety of writers since the 14th C).

later (17th C), many inkhorn terms having been accepted (and others perforce rejected), dictionaries became the repository for "hard words." this term was far less pejorative, as it was accepted that many of our best writers used language "not used much in everyday conversation" and needing explication.

surely there is no need at this late date to revert to such a negative classification of words. I for one take umbrage at the notion that my vocabulary may somehow be thought of as "Snooty."

---

I'll be back later (hi Milo) to provide examples from this earlier age, if that would be helpful.

- joe (Chasing the Sun) friday

> Snooty

and I say that nearly anyone else on this forum could have used the word snooty in the same way and everyone would have known what was meant, and the connotation thereof.

this def'n?

snooty
1 : looking down the nose : showing disdain <snooty people who won't speak to their neighbors>
2 : characterized by snobbery <a snooty store>

(C) 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

c'mon. I know you can look up a definition and make it be what you want, but how many times have you used a word, with a twinkle in your eye, etc. throw a little fake Brit accent in there, and all's well with the world...

uh huh. here's some Snooty for ya.

With such extremes I deal not; I take humanity ex medio acervo, and believe it will be found that the mass is of a temperament like my own.

edit: did you catch the twinkle there?

maybe more like bovis acervo...

What does cat-5 mean?

What does cat-5 mean?

Not that you can trust it, but Wikipedia has a nice [sic] article on cat 5.

well, definitely a twisted pair...

Oh. Silly [sic] zmjezhd.

eta: As an electronics type, I wanted you to know I got the pun and it's appreciated

thanks, dale. but z started it, and I'm still trying to figure out if there's something really clever there....

I'm still trying to figure out if there's something really clever there

No need to split hairs or get sticky about it ...

and speaking of splitting hairs, here's a type-4 nonce-word from Umberto Eco (Foucault's Pendulum): tetrapyloctomy "The art of splitting a hair four ways"

-joe (superpollicating this one) friday

> type-4

that's the spirit!