Wordsmith.org: the magic of words

Wordsmith Talk

About Us | What's New | Search | Site Map | Contact Us  

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
#43361 09/30/01 12:50 PM
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
W
wwh Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
W
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
You too can be euphasic.


#43362 09/30/01 01:31 PM
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
I
Pooh-Bah
OP Offline
Pooh-Bah
I
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
<<you too can be euphasic.>>

heh?
or
you got me again, doc bill, what's euphasic?


#43363 09/30/01 01:53 PM
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
W
wwh Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
W
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Dear IP: perhaps you missed the URL I gave to the Hellatine Dictionary. It contains amusing coinages.
I used them to tease you mildly, no offense intended. Just type the name into Yahoo! search box, and you will see URL. Hope they amuse you. Bill


#43364 09/30/01 02:11 PM
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
I
Pooh-Bah
OP Offline
Pooh-Bah
I
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
Dear Dr. Bill,

No offense tendered and none returned in change--and that no matter who might ever initiate a transaction between us, I trust.

As to euphasia, I plead ignorance of your meaning. The question gains relevance, then, what coin the state of metaeuphasis might ment. For, I contend, I am anchored in the very bedrock of reality.


#43365 09/30/01 08:44 PM
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891
B
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
B
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891
Superfiscous, n that which is the very surface, the event of appearance, non-being as specific in time space, or in experience.

But why would we not simply use the existing 'superficial'?
How would you pronounce it?


#43366 10/01/01 03:15 AM
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
>But why would we not simply use the existing 'superficial'?

yes, well perhaps it's just supererogatory.


#43367 10/01/01 08:29 AM
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
I
Pooh-Bah
OP Offline
Pooh-Bah
I
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,379
<<But why not use the existing word, "superficial."

The definition offered reflects my understanding of the author's intention. At the risk of being thought Mediaeval, what interested me vis-a-vis "superficious" was the substantiation of a quality. The noun form of the word, giving substance to something which otherwise, as adjective, refers to nothing more than the quality of a substance. By making substantial a thing which, by definition, is without independent existence, the author touches on an abiding obsession of mine. The notion is loosely related to Augustine's paradox of time which tswum raised in an antebabelian thread. On a more playful note, it relates to a word recently tendered by Dr. Bill, "anaphasia."


Page 2 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  Jackie 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Statistics
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,580
Members9,187
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
Newest Members
Karin, JeffMackwood, artguitar, Jim_W, Rdbuffalo
9,187 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 332 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Top Posters(30 Days)
Top Posters
wwh 13,858
Faldage 13,803
Jackie 11,613
wofahulicodoc 10,713
tsuwm 10,542
LukeJavan8 9,931
AnnaStrophic 6,511
Wordwind 6,296
of troy 5,400
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site. Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.

Home | Today's Word | Yesterday's Word | Subscribe | FAQ | Archives | Search | Feedback
Wordsmith Talk | Wordsmith Chat

© 1994-2024 Wordsmith

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5