blood
violence
sex
what's next?
food or video tape?

too right; time for the righteous to absquatulate.

so if Bigfoot runs away, is that Sasquatulate?

Jeez!! Would you guys just eschew the obfuscation already?!

Sure it does, why not

Perhaps a society rather than a coalition?
RSPCW: Radical Society for the Protection and Collection of Words.

It's impossible to definitively typecast (most of them can be typed, obviously - that's how they showed up on the screen) words since frequency, familiarity and spellability are dependany on the user, hearer and speller.
I might say in ward rounds that "knee flexion is a contra-indication" but to my patient I will say "don't bend your knee." Each is a perfectly usable, understandable phrase in it's own environment.

Olly, Dale has his own language, I think it's called Dalespeak. These distinctions are his and his alone. I'm not surprised you don't know them.

>a descriptivist question

perhaps we should refer to Dale's usage as [idio]synchronic.

yeahbut®, with just a bit of thought, we all know what he means.

and that, kids, is how language develops.

obvious to everyone It isn't to me. I never get any of those kinds of posts (about Type 2, etc.). And sorry, but I'm not going to take the time to try and work it out.

>
Type 2: them most folk understand but don't use much, eg, guffaw
Type 3: Snooty words not used much in everyday conversation, eg, cachinnation

ain't too hard.

its as easy as , um, well, its not easy.

it only works if everyone agrees to dale's catagories, and which words belong where.

otherwise it is meaningless. and of course, it is based on US vocabulary. (and one suspects REGIONAL US vocabluary at that.)

and why are unusual words 'snooty' (a word that convays a hint of snobish, or elite use?)

(there is the crab syndome at work here.. you know how crabs, packed in box not only stay in the box, but pull back any crab that tries to climb up the side and escape the box...)
use an unusual word, and it get labeled "snooty" (and no doubt the user of said word is snobby, one of elites that spiro agnew railed against. (no doubt its Un-American too, too, to use a word that isn't understood by the unwashed masses.)

2) most folk understand but don't use much
3) not used much in everyday conversation

why not put an "I'm sure you'll all agree" in there, just to seal the deal?!

contumaciously,
-joe friday

ok, let me:

category 1 words are those that are in common use, and most people would know without discussion.

category 2 words are those that some people will know, especially those with a higher education and/or an interest in language. they are likely more precise terms for relatively common experiences.

category 3 words tend to be what might be called "35-cent words" (used to be a nickel but inflation, you know). they could be interest based; jargon, technical terms, or just much more esoteric than common usage.

some people would consider the use of category three words to be elitist, and sometimes, of course, they are used thusly, but it might just indicate that the user loves language.

i am, um, 47 (same age as when i started posting here at AWAD) and for 47 years, i have never seen the need to catagorize words as 'type 1, type 2, type 3'

i see that it is useful to know if a word is a noun or verb, if it its current or obsolete (not that i haven't found obsolete words in my vocabulary!). its is also useful to know if something is a brand name--and not really a word.

Knowing were the word came from is useful, and helps me understand the word.

but what use is type 1, type 2 and type 3?

are these catagories used to sort out speakers/writers with little education, middleing education, or advanced educations ? the purpose of the "type" seems to be to sort the USERS rather than words.

let's be sure not to get too uppity.. and speak or write with words out of class.. i mean, should i be asking my self, when and where do i have the right to use type 3 words? when i use type 3 words am i flaunting my edjumacations? or speaking out of turn?

are we going to have laws passed about who can (or can't) use certain words? like the sumptuary laws of the past?

and who make up the list? (right now, dale has appointed himself judge, jury and exicutioner. (and we can, if we want, prove him wrong(oh, thank you lord, for this small grace!)but we are expected to just take his notion, (a not too well thought out one, since even he has trouble explaining it so people understand) and live by it?

well i reject his notion of "type" and i reject his being the arbitrator of which word is which type, and will continue to use words, just plain words, as i see fit. He can think i am elitist in my choices, and i can think he is a bulling idiot.

eta: Well put!
Enrolling with the bullying idiots I hope you will join me in my thrust to promulgate Type-2
...employed of course judiciously

and I say you don't like it because it is dale that started it.

do you use the same yarn in every project?

you can think as you will. (just as dale can think as he wants.)

and no, i don't use the same yarn.

sometimes i work in silk, or alpaca, or blends of silk and alpaca.
some times i work with wools, or wool blends
sometimes i use 'red heart' the cheapest acyrilic yarn there is.

i am not an elitist, nor am a snob about yarn. i use all kinds of yarn, and trust others to use what ever yarn they want, when ever they want.
i am not a snob about words, or people, either.

the 'type 1, type 2, type 3' is about snobism. it is about the USER as much about the word.

he "suggests" that types be used "judiciously" (and he is happy to appoint himself the judge!)and he wants type 2 words to be promulgated--which seems to mean, the world should limit itself to generally only using words DALE knows and is comfortable using.

this includes, no doubt, "bill gates" as a word that defines everything DALE doesn't like or understand about computer technology, be it hard ware or software related! (it is such a simple word--it is defined by DALE's knowledge and personal tastes, and EVERYONE should agree!)

(wait, to understand and use it properly, i have to spend the next few years learning Dale's limits and knowledge and personal feelings to know when it is (or isn't) appropriate to describe a problem as a bill gates--there isn't a dictionary big enough to define it in mere words!)

well, if you want to let others make your decisions for you, go right ahead. I decide things for myself, and i reject the notion of "types" when it comes to words. I also reject bill gates as valid, useful word.

(dale can continue to use, and will, but it only has meaning to him. he can create a whole language for that matter if he wants. but i don't have to learn it or use it.

i don't see much use to words or a language that is so idiocentric.

(and i don't see a lot of support for the idea here, or else where) You are free to be boswell to his johnson, but i think that is a real way to blow your life. )

but what use is type 1, type 2 and type 3?

Like many of his re-inventions of the wheel, I think what Dale was trying to capture is what linguists call register. Some dictionaries will tell you what a word's register is, i.e., if it is formal, slang, colloquial, jargon, etc. Speakers use different subsets of language (accent, or pronunciation, vocabulary choice, etc.) depending on the context in which the utterance occurs. Good authors to read on this would be Halliday, Labov, or Trudgill. Historically, one of the big differences between descriptivists and prescriptivists is using less judgmental names for register; cf. the big flap over Webster's Third International in the early '60s.

Kia ora all and thanks for the explanations.
I remember as a youngster, about 6 or 7, listening to adults talking and using words that were foreign to my limited understanding and vocabulary. They used big words that I as a child had no concept of, it was almost another language that I was determined to learn. I wanted to be like them. Now, I liken the language I use to driving a car. I get in, start the engine, chuck it into drive, hang my arm out the window and enjoy the cruise. It is the vehicle we use. Some people take the direct 'A' to 'B' route. Some people take the scenic route, others go around in circles. Occasionally we slow down for a red light and stop, we wait idling, then we're away again. I for one have only learned as much as I have needed to know about the engine and its myriad of components that combine to get me to 'B' but I do find it interesting to know how it works. It allows me to enjoy the ride.

Eloquent and Expressive.
Bravo !!

Ollly: as one of my country's most resoundingly unpublished writers, I concur most wholeheartedly with Park, reflecting of the principal reasons I hang out on WS and WW, hoping some of that kind of writing will rub off onto me

Thank you both for the compliments. As a newbie i find it most encouraging being able to express freely amongst people with far more literary experience than I.

...though you will find it risky to express too freely