[lit-ideas] Why Refudiate Is A Clever Neologism
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 12:14:37 EDT
Geary refudiates Palin's neologisms.
As she notes, 'repudiate' does not "quite capture what I meant to say",
when she said that 'peaceful Moslims' should refudiate the plan of building a
mosque cum gym near Ground Zero. "It should stab your hearts, as it stabs
ours in the heartland". She added.
"Refudiate" is worse than 'repudiate'.
By the same token, 'misunderestimate' is worse than 'underestimate' or
'misestimate'. To "underestimate" indicates a failure to estimate correctly by
IMPLICATURE only.
"She underestimated the size of it". Means that she estimated it wrong. By
adding 'mis-', what comes out as 'implicated' by conversational maxims
becomes 'wedded' to the 'semantics' of the lexeme via conventional
implicature,
rather, and thus associated with the Fregean sense of the lexeme
'underestimate' -- now made a complex clever portmanteau, 'misunderestimate'.
Obama said 'we-wee'd up' meant 'urinated'. He had "Washington we-wee'd up".
Since Washington is a collective noun, that should be quite a mess.
Speranza
Bordighera
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Why Refudiate Is A Clever Neologism - Jlsperanza
